Difference between revisions of "Talk:Main Page"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(No one believes in global warming)
(No one believes in global warming)
Line 1,015: Line 1,015:
Do you think AOC is trying to save the world from climate change? Think again! "The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is that it wasn't originally a climate thing at all," according to Saikat Chakrabarti, the brains and money behind the AOC phenomenon. "We really think of it as more of a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing." See "[https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/the-green-new-deal-was-never-about-climate-change-its-just-alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-excuse-to-destroy-americas-economy The Green New Deal was never about climate change; it's just AOC's excuse to destroy America's economy]." The quote above comes from a worshipful profile in ''Washington Post Magazine.'' Assuming that AOC's supporters are OK with this revelation, is it not proof positive that climate alarmism was a fraud all along? [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 00:42, 14 July 2019 (EDT)
Do you think AOC is trying to save the world from climate change? Think again! "The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is that it wasn't originally a climate thing at all," according to Saikat Chakrabarti, the brains and money behind the AOC phenomenon. "We really think of it as more of a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing." See "[https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/the-green-new-deal-was-never-about-climate-change-its-just-alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-excuse-to-destroy-americas-economy The Green New Deal was never about climate change; it's just AOC's excuse to destroy America's economy]." The quote above comes from a worshipful profile in ''Washington Post Magazine.'' Assuming that AOC's supporters are OK with this revelation, is it not proof positive that climate alarmism was a fraud all along? [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 00:42, 14 July 2019 (EDT)
:It's been a fraud from day one, concocted by people who couldn't predict the weather to accuse people of changing the weather so they could get their hands on taxpayer money.  Remember, when it comes to us wanting to keep what we earn, it's the libs who accuse us of being greedy. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 00:53, 14 July 2019 (EDT)
:It's been a fraud from day one, concocted by people who couldn't predict the weather to accuse people of changing the weather so they could get their hands on taxpayer money.  Remember, when it comes to us wanting to keep what we earn, it's the libs who accuse us of being greedy. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 00:53, 14 July 2019 (EDT)
::Green New Deal is based om [[pseudoscience]]. Slave reparations, Medicare for All, and a guaranteed income will not stop carbon  emissions. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 01:00, 14 July 2019 (EDT)

Revision as of 23:00, 13 July 2019

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

Archive Index

5G and China

China has warned U.S. companies not to comply with the new U.S rules sanctioning Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei. If there is anyone who hasn't heard of 5G yet, it's a cell phone communication standard that is twenty times faster than the current 4G standard. There are three companies that provide the equipment necessary to set up this type of network: China's Huawei, Finland's Nokia, and Sweden's Ericsson. The sanctions against Huawei are justified by the claim that Huawei-supplied 5G networks are a security concern. IMO, this is like worrying that a foreign car manufacturer will install listening devices. If the sanctions are meant as a protectionist measure, what U.S. company is supposed to benefit? Perhaps they are being used as a bargaining chip in the larger trade war.
There is a long list of American companies that have been driven out of China over the years, so it's hard to feel much sympathy for Huawei. Other than some Apple iPhone shops, no major foreign technology or pharmaceutical company has a retail presence in China. The government has censored Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. off the Chinese Web. As far as operating from inside China goes, the corporate offices of Microsoft, Uber, and other U.S. companies were closed after repeated police raids. China agreed to free trade when it joined the World Trade Organization in 2001. But Beijing's word doesn't seem to be worth much. PeterKa (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2019 (EDT)

The CCP economic planners have commanded their far left Silicon Valley colluders not to abide by U.S. law. They need their Democrat party allies and fellow human rights abusers to overturn Trump's trade sanctions. RobSDeep Six the Deep State!
Despite the "China threat" coverage that has dominated the U.S. press for many years, China was laid back about it until the Huawei sanctions. Now they are trashing around. Last week, the buzz was about sanctioning rare earth exports. That would be like Trump refusing to sell China soybeans. In the trade negotiations, the "Made in China 2025" program to shut American companies out of the Chinese technology market is apparently the sticking point. If China seriously wants to play U.S. politics, they can place a bet on Biden and create a news network equivalent to Russia's RT or Iran's The Young Turks/Al Jazeera. PeterKa (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2019 (EDT)
Regardless of the politics, Huawei was in a little hot water a few months back about their routers, which were found to be very insecure, (allegedly) at least partially by design. I can't speak for their 5G access points, but I wouldn't trust them. --DavidB4 (TALK) 23:44, 9 June 2019 (EDT)
It sounds like Trump has found a vulnerability: "The trade war could leave Huawei smartphones frozen in time without core technology from the US." This is from South China Morning Post, Hong Kong's English-language daily. Huawei is clearly a company near and dear to the Chinese leadership. PeterKa (talk) 10:51, 12 June 2019 (EDT)
Don't forget the Huwai-Iran connection.
As I've said numerous times, whoever the DNC nominates, they will be onboard with Trump's China policy. There is no going back. China's free ride is over. Trump's tearing up trade agreements with China is permanent, even if he were to be a one-term president. The big losers in America are Family Dollar, Dollar General and Dollar Tree store clerks. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:00, 12 June 2019 (EDT)

China scores in trade war

That trade war thing? Never mind: "Trump Bows to Xi Jinping's Huawei Demands at G20." If Trump is doing this for the soybean farmers, that would seem to be misguided. China stopped purchasing U.S. soybeans last year before the sanctions went into effect. There was a small uptick in purchases from Brazil. There is a world market for soybeans, so which country China buys them from doesn't matter all that much. The larger problem is that China already has more soybeans than it knows what to do with. See this Forbes story: "For American Farmers, China's Soy Tariffs Are Least Of Their Worries." Trump is also talking about more visas for China: "‘We want more Chinese students’: Donald Trump says US looking for new ways to keep scholars in the country." PeterKa (talk) 09:31, 30 June 2019 (EDT)

Duh, Trump's doing it cause Xi bowed to Trump's demands - taking control of Kim Jong-Un's nuclear weapons. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:54, 30 June 2019 (EDT)
It seems that these concessions were made in order to get a surprise summit with Kim in Panmunjom. Trump was in Osaka, so why not pop over to North Korea? It's the Trumpian style. The previous summits had mixed results, but the possibility of a breakthrough with North Korea makes it worth the risk. My sense is that the North Koreans were not happy with the Hanoi summit and did not intend to hold more. This summit represents China leaning hard on North Korea. If nothing else, it shows the Iranians what they can do. If China and North Korea make trouble again, the concessions can be walked back and Trump can take a trip to Taiwan. We now know that Huawei is China's Achilles' heel. PeterKa (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2019 (EDT)
North Korea only has nukes cause Xi allows them to have nukes. Trump demanded Xi take full control of North Korean nukes, in exchange Trump will grant trade concessions to both China and North Korea.
Don't you follow the news? or are you still relying on fake news sources? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:40, 30 June 2019 (EDT)
  • Are you going to post a link? Drudge's headline is, "Kim has conceded nothing on nukes.... " Here is Yonhap: "In DMZ, Trump, Kim agree to resume nuclear talks." Yonhap is the South Korean news agency. It is the underlying source for a large percentage of the news about Korea.
    Judging from this story, it seems that the concessions Trump made for the summit weren't nearly as big a deal as Gordan Chang makes them out to be in the story I linked to at the top of this thread. PeterKa (talk) 00:04, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
This is how diplomacy works. ROK President Moon will get all the credit and possibly a Nobel Prize, so that President Xi can save face in bowing to Trump demands. The background reading on this is quite extensive, and you won't find it news articles or press releases. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:50, 1 July 2019 (EDT)

Some background

I will attempt to explain.

First, toss put everything you thought you knew or understood about the North Korean regime.

The Kim family are essentially feudal landlords. The North Korean military is only nominally under control of the Kim family. The CCP has extensive connections and control within the DPKR (Democratic Socialist Republic of Korea) military. While Kim has extensive control over DPKR politics and society, his influence in the military is limited. His control over society comes at the expense of being a Chinese toady. This has been the situation since 1949 and before (before the founding of either the PRC or DPKR). This misreading of Far Eastern geopolitics by U.S. and Western intelligence has dominated U.S. understanding since 1949-50.

I don't want to get sidetracked into historical analysis, but that's basically the situation today. If you have any questions, feel free to interject.

In one discussion thread I follow, Kim is referred to as a "hostage", Xi as the "hostage taker", and Trump as the "hostage rescuer", which is a gross over simplification, but for background and discussion purposes, it serves just fine.

How this situation came about requires different historical background analysis than is commonly understood. But it's not that difficult. Here again, it's easy to get sidetracked in understanding more recent events, say since 2002 when China was granted MFF (most favored nation) status. But in focusing on events since 2002, my initial premise - forget everything you've been told, Kim is not an unrestrained dictator - makes sense and comes into focus.

I yield the floor. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:38, 1 July 2019 (EDT)

China was desperately poor in the 1940s. The 1950 Chinese invasion of Korea was possible only because of Soviet financing. During the Cold War, North Korea was a dependent state of the Soviet Union, not China. After Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, China established diplomatic relations with South Korea, and North Korea was on its own. This was the time of the "Arduous March" and mass starvation. China started paying North Korea's tab around 1998. PeterKa (talk) 11:24, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
In the pre-MFF period, the dividing line is the Sino-Soviet split of 1962 when the Chinese communist party went its own separate foreign policy way. Beginning in 1979, the CCP under Deng adopted capitalism. By 1992 and the collapse of the USSR, China was a decade ahead of Russia in reforming its economy (a contributing factor to the fall of the USSR).
North Korea has never "been on its own," this is the flaw in Western understanding of Far Eastern geopolitics. It comes from a misunderstanding of the global communist movement in the 2oth century. The CCP was founded in 1923 as arm of the Soviet Communist party. Mao was a Lenin and Stalin lieutenant. In the 1930s Ho Chi Minh was a Mao lieutenant. By 1950, Kim Il-sung was a Mao lieutenant who still was a Stalin flunky. The organization, material, and training of the DPKR military all came from the Soviet and Chinese communist bloc. Between 1962 and 1989, while the USSR funded the global communist movement (national liberation struggles), many groups such as Fidel Castro accepted Soviet material support while adopting Maoist deviationist ideology (ignoring the Sino-Soviet split). This was one colossal failure in CIA and Western intelligence thinking.
I don't want to get too sidetracked in historical analysis. Throughout the 1990s, China prospered, while the USSR faltered. Because of its location, China-DPKR trade ties strengthened, while the USSR cut off all military aid. But Communist party control of the DPKR military, that is, Chinese communist party control took over completely. It was at this point the DPKR got nuclear weapons.
DPKR has never been sovereign and independent, anymore than the West German or Japanese military are free to adopt their own foreign policy and go their own separate way apart from Western and NATO foreign policy, military, and intelligence aims.
So, what you posted is the junior high school version of Far Eastern history from 1949 to 1998. Forget it. And focus on the period 2002 to the present. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:58, 1 July 2019 (EDT)

Democrat primary

1st Democratic Debate: Sen. Elizabeth Warren placed at kids’ table despite rise in her campaign’s popularity due to dip in close competitors

1st and 2nd Democratic Debate to be held on Wednesday, June 26, 2019 and Thursday, June 27, 2019
Candidate Home
of becom-
June 17,
pm EDT
July 1,
# of
Candidate Home
of becom-
June 19,
pm EDT
July 1,
# of
Sen. Cory Booker NJ 1.3% 1.6% 1.5% 2:4.4M +20,000 Sen. Michael Bennet CO 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 2:0.3M +2,000
Sec'y Julián Castro TX 0.4% 0.3% 1.2% 0.2M +88,000 V. Pres Joe Biden DE 29.6% 28.5% 14.9% 3.6M +8,000
Mayor Bill de Blasio NY 0.1% 0.1% 0.5% 2:1.5M +5,000 May. Pete Buttigieg IN 13.4% 11.1% 10.4% 1.2M +61,000
Rep. John Delaney MD 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.02M +3,000 Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand NY 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 2:1.4M +7,000
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard HI 2.6% 2.5% 3.5% 2:0.5M +42,000 Sen. Kamala Harris CA 11.5% 12.5% 24.9% 2:3.5M +105,000
Gov. Jay Inslee WA 0.3% 0.5% 0.1% 2:0.2M +8,000 Gov. John Hickenlooper CO 0.5% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1M +2,000
Sen. Amy Klobuchar MN 1.4% 1.6% 0.5% 2:0.7M +11,000 Sen. Bernie Sanders VT 11.4% 11.2% 9.5% 2:17.7M +31,000
Rep. Beto O'Rourke TX 3.8% 4.0% 1.7% 1.4M +5,000 Rep. Eric Swalwell CA 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 2:0.6M +4,000
Rep. Tim Ryan OH 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 2:0.1M +3,000 Marianne Williamson CA 0.1% 0.1% 0.5% 2.6M +55,000
Sen. Elizabeth Warren MA 15.4% 15.9% 17.0% 2:7.8M +86,000 Andrew Yang NY 4.8% 5.5% 3.8% 0.4M +99,000

VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 04:50, 16 June 2019 (EDT), Tuesday, 00:28, 18 June 2019 (EDT), Wednesday, 09:32, 19 June 2019 (EDT), 17:58, 26 June 2019 (EDT) 19:39, 29 June 2019 (EDT)

She's being spotlighted without having to debate comrade Sanders. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:26, 16 June 2019 (EDT)
RobS was right: Cory Booker doubled his popularity, and the bump remains three weeks after his "Spartacus stance". VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 00:50, 18 June 2019 (EDT)
Kamala beats Bernie by a whisker. Looks like she's earning her way onto the ticket. Democrats don't have a prayer without her, either top or bottom. Without Harris on the ticket, a significant amount of Blacks will defect to Trump or remain apathetic as they did with Hillary, RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:44, 19 June 2019 (EDT)
Once Bernie is out, Bernie's donors and organization will redound to Harris, doubling her numbers, dwarfing the two jokers Warren and Buttigieg, and approximately equalizing Biden's imploding numbers. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:49, 19 June 2019 (EDT)
Those numbers reflect the fact that Harris has united the Black base behind her, with the exception of Booker whose numbers are largely local East Coast. Castro numbers are largely Hispanic, which is hurting Beto's numbers which are largely homegrown Texan. Harris wins Booker and Castro's share as well. Yang supporters most likely will sign up with Warren (cause its foremost an economic giveaway program, rather than an SJW program). Warren and Beto largely represent the Democrat racist vote that Hillary held in 2008, holding out against the brown onslaught. Buttigieg (and Hickenlooper)'s people will go with whoever looks like a winner. Biden might not make it past the debates without a respirator or wheelchair. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:02, 19 June 2019 (EDT)
Bernie and Warren's numbers combined beat Biden. Once one or the other drops out (likely Sanders) after the September debates limited to 8 contestants, Biden is running for VP again, which he can't. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:57, 25 June 2019 (EDT)
Today, (Bernie [11.5%] + Warren [15%]) is less than Biden (29%). But either Bernie or Warren alone have more Twitter followers, as shown above. But Biden entered the race relatively late, while Warren and Sanders probably have won almost as many Twitter followers as they can get without someone dropping out. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 18:18, 26 June 2019 (EDT)
This interactive chart shows who is stealing from who. You can see Warren eating into both Biden and Sanders; you can see Buttigieg eating into Beto. It'll be interesting to see who gains from Buttigieg losses this week when the charts updated in the next eek or two. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:39, 26 June 2019 (EDT)
Yeah, but with a minimal application of the reader's liberal arts training, my chart does the same thing, and is, not to mention its intra-Conservapedia convenience, much better. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 22:04, 26 June 2019 (EDT)
Looks like Gabbard's gain will be Booty-judge's loss. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:01, 27 June 2019 (EDT)
You misspelled "Biden". Buttigieg lost voters after his video-recorded encounter with those black protesters that we discussed here, and during and after the debate he didn't get them all back. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 17:14, 27 June 2019 (EDT)
Gabbard looks like a winner, if she can get over her homophobia, antisemitsm, and support from white supremacists. She's the best hope Democrats got at the moment. Maybe she's just paying lip service to the gay agenda, but has a secret plan to undo gay marriage. and remember, she's a Hindu, not Christian. That's a plus among Democrats. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:22, 27 June 2019 (EDT)
In case you missed it: Harris had a verbal sparring with Biden during the second debate, and in a shocking reversal of support levels, Harris is the "new Biden" and Biden merely the largest of the "four dwarves". VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 09:26, 29 June 2019 (EDT)
The public just isn't buying some of the candidates, if you can think you can rely, whether or not the figures are being padded, on their increase in Twitter followers after the debate, which I just reported.
If you think I'm being too preoccupied with these figures, I'm actually saving time in the long run if I can eliminate reporting on certain candidates that show they're not going to win. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 19:39, 29 June 2019 (EDT)
So Harris, Yang, Castro, and Warren, in that order. On the bottom you have Hickenlooper, Bennet, Delany, Ryan and Swalwell, who are out. Moving up the ladder, Beto ties with De Blasio (5,000), Gillbrand (7,000), and Biden (8,000). Smell that? Smell's like someone died. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 20:48, 29 June 2019 (EDT)
Wait wait! The numbers for Biden can't be correct; +8,000 is not 28.5% of 3.6M. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:11, 29 June 2019 (EDT) My error.
Continuing top down: Buttigieg beats Williamson narrowly; followed by a group with only fractions of all the top six: Gabbard, Sanders, and Booker. This is a dividing line; from Sanders on down, none really generated new interest among people who didn't know them. From Gabbard up, Williamson, Castro, and Yang are all big winners.
I've considered Biden and Sanders out for a few weeks, and this confirms some of my suspicions about Booker. But money and organization still play a big role. Buttigieg I view as a liability to the party, largely due to racial issues. The longer he lingers, the more damage done (we're talking about VP choices now). It's hard to see how Williamson and Yang can hang on with no money. Castro is being promoted behind the scenes. Gabbard represents a real threat, almost of Trumpian proportions between the party establishment and a populist base. They are actively trying to snuff her out (moreso than Yang, who would be next). But I imagine people now are thinking of a Harris/Buttigieg, Harris/Castro, or possibly a Harris/Yang ticket.RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:32, 29 June 2019 (EDT)

Harris/Castro seems the logical choice, a coalition of blacks and Hispanics with a smattering of white liberal atheists, gays. and abortion fanatics, cementing (theoretically) the Hispanic vote as voting bloc, like blacks.

So, get ready for the politics of racial division. Democrats seem to want to go there. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 02:30, 1 July 2019 (EDT)

Kamala and Elias

Huffington Post: South Bend Officer Who Fatally Shot Black Man Had History Of Racist Comments.[1] If this is true, Boot-edge-edge's candidacy will go down in flames even faster.

This is good news. This means Pocahantas will soak up Boot-edge-edge votes even quicker and be more competitive against Sleepy Joe Biden.Conservative (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2019 (EDT)

Kamala Harris has Marc Elias on the payroll. The fix is in. Buttigieg just rousted himself as a contender for the No. 2 spot. Sleepy Joe's on meds. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 20:51, 23 June 2019 (EDT)
My guess is that a police union may have protected South Bend police officers who engaged in racist comments and they may have been relatively unfireable. I know it is almost impossible to get bad teachers fired in NYC thanks to the teacher's union there. Democrats love unions. Conservative (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2019 (EDT)
None of it's a national issue, other than that his own black residents of the fourth largest city in Indiana hate him and don't trust him. And that he simply is not prepared. Watch his poll numbers after the debate. Biden, Beto, and Sanders are all sliding. All Kamala has to do is maintain the pace. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:25, 23 June 2019 (EDT)
Kamala Harris is not going to win the Democratic nomination. Kamala Harris is not as charming/likeable as much of her competition. In a television age, likeability/charm was important. On the internet, video content's popularity is growing and growing so likeability/charm is even more important in a hybrid TV and internet video age. In addition, she is a former DA and attorney general and the Democratic party is not a law and order party.Conservative (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2019 (EDT)
That's what they said about Obama in June 2007 when Hillary was inevitable. Harris has the Hillary, Obama, and (beleive it not) Sanders machine - staff and donors - behind her already, The nomination is hers to lose. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:04, 23 June 2019 (EDT)
Hillary Clinton was never charming/likeable. Barack Obama, like the devil, a false angel of light and a person's rationalizations for their bad behavior, could be charming. "I mean, you got the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man." - Joe Biden on Barack Obama in 2007.Conservative (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2019 (EDT)
Kamamla Harris is a very good looking woman for: her age. She has all the Obama machine and media behind her. Blacks are not riding the back of the Democrat bus anymore. When they don't support a candidate, like Hillary in 2016, they loose. When Black women come out to vote, as in 2018, they flip Congress. They got a taste for power and leadership, and won't take a backseat to bigots like Biden, Buttigieg, Warren or half of the rest of the field. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:21, 23 June 2019 (EDT)

New California Poll Bursts Kamala Harris’ 2020 Bubble — Doesn’t Even Crack Top 3 Candidates in Home State.[2] Kamala Harris is not charming/likeable enough to win the Democratic nomination.Conservative (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2019 (EDT)

The only way the very important likeability/charm factor could be overcome is if the Democrats want a hardcore brawler and attack dog to go after Trump. I have my doubts that this will happen.
Trump is fairly versatile. He can be charming, yet he can be an attack dog too.Conservative (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2019 (EDT)
If you believe polls. Polls mean nothing in themselves; who commissioned it and for what purpose has to be considered. Polls get fed into an echo chamber, much like the Russia collusion stories of 2016. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:36, 24 June 2019 (EDT)
I know charming/likeability when I see it. And Kamala Harris doesn't have it. She doesn't smile enough. She is not expressive, but comes across as controlled. She doesn't exude energy (Robert F. Kennedy was not as eloquent as his brother JFK, but he did exude energy). Trump knows it can be very effective to brand rival candidates as low energy (Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton and Sleepy Joe Biden). People like leaders who are people of action and exude energy.Conservative (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2019 (EDT)
It's hard to be likeable when you focus on grievance politics like Kamala Harris. You come across as a whiner. While Trump did air some legitimate grievances like bringing back jobs to America when it is very achievable to do so and having a secure border, his main focus was on "making America great again". It's also harder to push grievance politics when minorities have higher employment and less poverty than under Obama.Conservative (talk) 01:14, 24 June 2019 (EDT)
I think my first real awareness that Kamala Harris existed was the Kavanaugh hearings. And she came across as a sour/nasty woman. I just saw some videos of Kamala Harris and she is more personable than I initially thought. But she is whiner in many cases.Conservative (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2019 (EDT)
Have you seen any of her campaign materials? How would you respond to this? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:44, 24 June 2019 (EDT)
Laura Ingraham tries to refute Kamala's above campaign material, but it likely will not work; like Obama, this cannot be countered with facts. You are confronted with an angry, motivated mob. You cannot persuade any of them. You can only offset their numbers by appealling to undecided moderates who fear being labeled racist. The Democrats and fake news media have done the groundwork, much more than they did with McCain and Romney, painting Trump and Republicans as racist. So that's the problem.
How do you appeal to undecided moderates? If they shared your views, they would not be undecided moderates. How do you appeal to them to counter the campaign, evidenced by the link above, already underway. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:08, 1 July 2019 (EDT)

I don't respond well to her. I think she is an evil and shallow woman.Conservative (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2019 (EDT)

The View - "America's most watched political show" and was all gaga over Buttigieg two months ago, this morning echoed what I said. Buttigieg is not prepared to be president. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:29, 24 June 2019 (EDT)
The safest generalization about the Democratic fold over the past week is that Buttigieg lost 2% of all available Democratic votes and passed them on to Harris. There's been rumors that Harris has a large gay following, and if she's wise, she'll notify the Secret Service and have them tell him to go home. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 03:52, 26 June 2019 (EDT)
Harris herself is a lesbo, or at least her door swings both ways. The good news is, at the age of 50 she decided to settle down, get married, and run for president. I'm looking forward to all the "our children" speeches, when she decided a long time ago to put herself and her career over having children. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 04:50, 26 June 2019 (EDT)

Busing, Harris, and Biden

Harris has been deemed the winner of the first round of Democratic presidential debates and Biden the loser, mostly because of an exchange about busing. Harris told a story about being bused as child. WTF? Every kid hates being bused. At graduation, no student has ever said, "You know what I'll miss most about this school? My time on the bus. It made feel like I was doing my part for racial justice." With this ripe target before him, what was Biden's response? "I did not oppose busing in America; I opposed busing ordered by the Department of Education." If only he had said something more like: "I opposed busing because parents and students in my state hated it. Those were the people I represented in the U.S. Senate." PeterKa (talk) 04:12, 28 June 2019 (EDT)

Another debate takeaway: The candidates all want free healthcare for everyone in America, including illegal aliens. Plus, they want to make it legal for anyone from any country to cross the border. Are these people familiar with the concept of money?[3] PeterKa (talk) 05:49, 28 June 2019 (EDT)
Among all the research available on the subject (what Biden and Harris debated last night, and Biden's defense) is this must read article. Students (like Kamala) who sere bussed and attended desegregated schools now, it has been scientifically proven, earn 25% more than black student who remained in segregated schools. Biden misrepresented facts: he blamed the Oakland school district for not integrating. Facts are he (1) repealed a section of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that required HEW (now HHS) to withhold funds for schools that didn't abide by Brown v. Board, and (2) threatened a Constitutional Amendment if his legislation failed.
There is a lengthy 1975 NYT article online as well that goes into more detail on busing in the 1970s.
Sen. Edward Brooke was Biden's main opponent. Brooke is largely forgotten today because he was a black Republican who supported abortion. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:06, 28 June 2019 (EDT)
IOW, Biden led a drive to outlaw portions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by Constitutional Amendment. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:18, 28 June 2019 (EDT)
See, Here is an instance where The Gateway Pundit goes off the rails out of sheer ignorance, stupidity, and blind partisanship which works to undermine the whole attack on Biden and Democrat party racism.
The issue is busing to achieve integration, not integration itself. The plain fact and historical truth is Biden along with Democrat segrationists repealed sections of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
This is part of Black History, celebrated every Black History Month. Every student of Black history now will know these facts: Obama's VP repealed portions of the Civil Rights Act.
While I like, appreciate, and use Gatewaypundit very much, still, CP editors need to be aware of some of its vulnerabilities and flaws, and be cautious when using it as a sole citiation. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:06, 28 June 2019 (EDT)
  • Harris went to a high school near Montreal in Canada. So she is apparently talking about the two-year period when she went to elementary school in Oakland. It hadn't occurred to me that anyone would want to bus elementary school students. That she did it for only a short time suggests that her family thought of it as a bad situation and got her out of it as soon as they could. PeterKa (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2019 (EDT)
No no no. You are entirely missing the point. Scientific studies now have determined students who spent five years in a desegregated school have earned 25% more than black students who remained in segregated schools. Biden scuttled sections of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that required HEW (now HHS and Dept. of Educ.) to withhold funds from schools that refused to comply with court ordered de-segregation.
Biden took the Eastland Amendment, slapped his name on it, and won liberal Senators for passage.
Do not personalize this issue as something related to Harris. It is a prime of example of liberal Democrat racism from the 1970s. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:06, 28 June 2019 (EDT)
Democrats fought school desgregation with the Southern Manifesto; they fought it with the Little Rock Crisis of 1957; they filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act; and they fought black integration with the Biden Amendment of 1975. This is Black history. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:19, 28 June 2019 (EDT)

Biden down 10, Harris up 9. I'd expect Biden to crumple and fold at any time. Harris is younger and more of a fighter. But there are, what, 7 debates between now and December? I don't think Biden or Bernie will make it to February when balloting begins. The torch is being passed to Millenials right now in the Democrat party. If you're looking for the final 8, final 5, final 3, and final 2, you can eliminate Biden and Sanders right now. Warren might make it to the final two, which would somewhat resemble the 2008 Obama/Hillary matchup or the 2016 Hillary/ Sanders matchup, with Harris playing the role of Hillary, albeit in Obama's skin. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:53, 29 June 2019 (EDT)

It wasn't just at the Democrat debates...

Manure explodes in Spain. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:12, 29 June 2019 (EDT)

This is exactly what happened to the Democrat party. "Firefighters are battling a major wildfire that probably started after a heap of manure self-ignited." RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:18, 29 June 2019 (EDT)

Dems' promise on healthcare for illegal aliens will haunt them

When asked if they thought illegal aliens should get health care at the taxpayer's expense, every Democratic candidate for president raised their hand at the last debate. Pollsters have tried to gauge the effect of various issues on the presidential race. It turns out that no issue changes minds faster than this one. Newsbusters calls the pledge "Christmas in June." If the Trump campaign reminds everyone of this promise in an ad campaign just before the next election, we could have a red tsunami. PeterKa (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2019 (EDT)

They can try to change their positions later, but it's too late. They are on record. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:05, 1 July 2019 (EDT)

Who will win the Democrat presidential primary?

Candidates for Democratic Presidential Nominee Who will win?
Chance of becoming
Democratic nominee
Twitter followers
Candidate CA
# of
as of
V. Pres Joe Biden Bid DE 29.6% 28.5% 14.9% 13.2%   03.6M:1 +8,000 +7,000
Sen. Cory Booker Boo NJ 1.3% 1.6% 1.5% 2.1% 02.4M:2 +20,000 +18,000
Mayor Pete Buttigieg But IN 13.4% 11.1% 10.4% 7.8% 01.2M:1 +61,000 +40,000
Sec'y Julián Castro Cas TX 0.4% 0.3% 1.2% 1.1% 00.2M:1 +88,000 +15,000
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Gab HI 2.6% 2.5% 3.5% 2.2% 00.5M:2 +42,000 +14,000
Sen. Kamala Harris Har CA 11.5% 12.5% 24.9% 32.5% 02.6M:2 +105,000 +107,000
Rep. Beto O'Rourke O'R TX 3.8% 4.0% 1.7% 1.3% 01.4M:1 +5,000 0
Sen. Bernie Sanders San VT 11.4% 11.2% 9.5% 7.4% 17.7M:2 +31,000 +41,000
Sen. Elizabeth Warren War MA 15.4% 15.9% 17.0% 19.0% 07.8M:2 +86,000 +84,000
Marianne Williamson Wil CA 0.1% 0.1% 0.5% 0.2% 02.6M:1 +55,000 +26,000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The format of the latest update is rigged; Harris and Biden have traded places. Harris has jumped from No. 4 to No. 1. The % column is outdated and misleading. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:47, 8 July 2019 (EDT)
Lol, that's a funny accusation, but no. The candidates are in alphabetical order; you're supposed to click on the column description at the top and the whole table will sort itself according to that column. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 15:02, 8 July 2019 (EDT)
Just a suggestion: have the most recent data first, left to right (and re-label the June 17 entry. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:08, 8 July 2019 (EDT)
July 8, 2017 Polling data: Shows a steady erosion of Biden support. He only remains in cause of his lead in General Election polling date. But this shows his support is tepid among Democrats. When the general election data begins eroding from 10+ he's out. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:57, 8 July 2019 (EDT)
[Pitches idea, holds up hands flat along the same plane and looks upward as if stepping back from a large display] "Kamala Harris and the Four White Dwarfs!" VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 21:37, 9 July 2019 (EDT)
I think we can all agree Kamala Harris is the prettiest presidential candidate in the history of the Republic, even prettier than prettyboy Pete Buttigieg. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:42, 9 July 2019 (EDT)

Twitter data

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

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

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

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

We don't know

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

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


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

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

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

Please see the video Dog Attack Styles. Companies/military don't employ poodles as guard/attack dogs.Conservative (talk) 11:55, 3 July 2019 (EDT)
Trump's more like a crow pecking out the eyes and tongue of an enfeebled GOP. JohnZ (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2019 (EDT)
Crows are scavengers. Trump is producer minded. Look at the GNP growth. Look at historic employment levels. The USA also was rated the most competitive economy in the world. The Democrats with their tax/spend philosophy are the scavengers/consumers.Conservative (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2019 (EDT)
What we're looking at is the curious prospect of Harris and Warren being the final 2, a female/female head-to-head match up. Somewhat awkward and undesirable. Warren gets to play the radical leftist Bernie Sanders, and Harris plays the moderate centrist Hillary Clinton. Ultimately a Harris/Castro ticket, with an outside chance of Harris/Buttigieg.
An all female final two has its risks; the immediate question is can someone other than Warren, a male, play the role of far leftist in the Democrat party? Casting is open for this role, as it is needed to portray Harris as a level-headed centrist. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:34, 3 July 2019 (EDT)
The boost Harris got from the debates is already fading. Despite the fact that Biden was once again exposed as a doddering fool, his 30 percent of the vote is sticking with him. After all, where else are they going to go? The other candidates are ridiculously woke. (Michael Bennet of Colorado was only one who didn't raise his hand for open borders.) Warren now has the best net favorability. I expect Sanders' support to migrate to Warren leaving Biden and Warren as the final two. FiveThirtyEight has a statistical breakdown. PeterKa (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2019 (EDT)
The 30% are machine Democrats who would back Hitler, Mao, or Stalin if they were running. Donors, organizers, and staff are already defecting. Hickenlooper's manager and staff just quit, and they are not going to Biden.
Harris has Marc Elias, the DNC, Hillary Clinton, and John Podesta general counsel. Elias hired Christopher Steele to write the Steele dossier. Elias is behind the ballot stuffing measures that just won the House in the 2010 midterms. Get real. Read the writing on the wall. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:30, 3 July 2019 (EDT)
At this point, the Democrats have to nominate Harris, cause the black monolith within the Democrat party is about to shatter, RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:34, 7 July 2019 (EDT)
  • The prediction I made above is already vindicated. The two latest polls suggest that the nomination is now a two-way race between Biden and Warren.[4] I say it's time to uncork the fake Indian jokes. All hail Jokeahontas, the chief of the Wannabes! Wow wow wow for Powwow Chow! I hear Warren is on the warpath and she's not burying the hatchet anytime soon! What does warpaint and a bogus DNA test get you? The Democratic nomination! Check out this meme or this one. PeterKa (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2019 (EDT)

We are at a pivotal moment for Black voters

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

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

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

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


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

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

Border crisis recap

@JimJinksCT 4 hours ago Replying to @redsteeze

Assuming you know this but I’ll say it anyway. Trump’s demand for a border wall was about a supposed ‘crisis’ of illegal immigration. But the humanitarian crisis in the border camps is Trump’s making. It’s cruel, intentional & proving to be ineffective (not to mention costly.)

@WAT530 [a brave Anon] 4 hours ago

This is false. The humanitarian crisis in border facilities is a direct result of the illegal immigration crisis that began under Obama. Our CBP stations and infrastructure weren't built to house mass amounts of people, and none to house children. In the past, it was mostly young males, migrant farm workers, etc. Then it was males just coming for any work. Our facilities were meant for short processing times and you moved them out.

When Obama announced DACA, families started flocking to the border. It became a crisis when parents, who were already here illegally, started paying smugglers to bring their children, thus, the unaccompanied minors being dumped at the border. Obama opened the detention centers because there was nowhere to house these children while they were being processed, then turned over to HHS to be transported to shelters or turned over to the parents that smuggled them here. Because of the Flores Agreement, Obama couldn't hold the children with their parents while the parents were being processed, thus you have "catch and release." This prompted parents to start dragging their children with them in droves under Trump.

So you had people renting kids, stealing kids, using other family members children, etc because that was their free pass. You have a kid, you get in. Trump begged Congress to fix this loophole, but to the Dems, no crisis, nothing to see here, move along. Trump then separated the children from their parents while they were being processed, again, because the court told Obama he couldn't hold them together.

Then people started having a fit. Many of these children weren't related to the people who brought them, many were abandoned once they got here. Trump stopped the separations, although I dont think he should have. Because it's been ignored, and anything Trump has tried to do has been shot down, we now have thousands upon thousands of unaccompanied minors at the border, and don't have the infrastructure or funds, thanks to the Dems.

So I'm not sure what exactly you, or anyone else expects Trump or any other president to do in this crisis. We have thousands of children dumped at our border. Where exactly should they go? Should they just be dumped in the street? People in Congress want to scream and holler "I will not give any money," then complain about the conditions there? AOC pumping her fist in solidarity with a strike at the company making beds for those kids, and then bitches about there not being beds. #moron

I live between Houston TX and the border. I don't need someone from DC, NY, Mass, etc to tell me what is and isn't going on down here. We see it with our own eyes. This isn't a crisis because of Trump. This is a crisis because of Congress. Even Democratic mayors are getting sick of it. It's costing the citizens of Texas to do the federal government's job. This is just one example..[1]

  • Every Democrat running for president is for decriminalizing border crossings,[5] as well as for providing free health care to illegal aliens. If DACA was enough to trigger the current border crisis, imagine what these policies would do. There would be hundreds of millions of people from the Third World headed for America. PeterKa (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2019 (EDT)

The Wannabe tribe

Suppose you are not a powerful senator or media darling, but you still want to be recognized as the American Indian that your high check boned pawpaw told you that you were. The Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory, an unrecognized tribe founded in 1978, is here to help. It turns out that faking Cherokee ancestry is big business. This group's members were awarded $300 million in affirmative action contracts, according to a recent exposé by the Los Angeles Times. See "'It’s infuriating': Fake 'Cherokee' busineses land millions of dollars in contracts." PeterKa (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2019 (EDT)

The inner liberal in me says "Hey, if they want to identify as native Americans, we have to respect their personal choice." The inner conservative in me realizes how ridiculous—and now how lucrative to certain financially ambitious interests—that sounds. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 21:55, 26 June 2019 (EDT)
The Northern Cherokee should challenge Warren to a DNA throwdown so we can find out who is whiter. The story above originated in the LAT. So other mainstream media editors have to know about it, but they won't touch it. See "How ‘pretendians’ undermine the rights of Indigenous people." PeterKa (talk) 01:23, 27 June 2019 (EDT)
But she identifies as an Indian. We'll have to wait til a transgender gets arrested in the girls room to get a final ruling from SCOTUS on this one. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 08:55, 27 June 2019 (EDT)
It's two days later, but only one more news story on the Northern Cherokee affair has been published.[6] The media is sure in the tank for Warren on this one. According to the latest story, five contractors lost their affirmative action status as a result of the LAT article. PeterKa (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2019 (EDT)

E. Jean Carroll

We all know by now that the Russia hoax represents Clintonian payback for Uranium One and that the proposed impeachment of Trump is payback for Bill Clinton's impeachment. It follows that the sexual allegations against Trump are payback for Monica Lewinsky. It's hard to explain them any other way. They just keep coming, and fraud involved gets more obvious each time. Trump raped a fifty-year-old in the fitting room of a crowded Bergdorf in the 1990s? At the time, Trump was a celebrity with a name to protect. How did this one pass the laugh test? The accuser in this case has some...very odd views on sex and politics: "BREAKING: E. Jean Carroll Offered People $17,000 To Have Sex With Trump With Their Eyes Closed In 2012." PeterKa (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2019 (EDT)

It's just another scripted mainstream fake news media narrative, not worth mentioning or discussing on this server. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:47, 29 June 2019 (EDT)

Stephanie Grisham

If you Google "Stephanie Grisham" for news items her actions are reported by all news agencies. The mainpage item is incorrect. JohnSelway (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2019 (EDT)

Google? "all news agencies"? What bleep is is wrong with you? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:12, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
Google gets caught debating the manipulation of search results on ideological grounds.[7]
I replaced Google with DuckDuckGo as my default search engine. I don't want to be manipulated by Google or be in a filter bubble. I also use Bing. Sometimes I use Google though, but I am getting away from them when it comes to ideological searches.
I predict as Google becomes more and more infested with SJWs, the quality of their search results will keep on deteriorating and then a more objective search engine or search engines will emerge.Conservative (talk) 01:28, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
Google is already hacking the 2020 election. And some nitwit comes in here and says, "Google says blah blah bla," or "fake news says blah blah blah," and we're suppose to cower to their authority and authenticity. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 02:01, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
I’m a little bit stunned by these replies. It has nothing to do with particular search engines. It doesn’t matter what the search engine is - it was represented by all the news agencies. Why is this even in disputes? Why has it become a discussion? Every news agency has covered it, that’s factual. This main page post is incorrect. Does any one actually care about verifiable information? Conservapedia has 10 simple rules, this post betrays those. Conservatism to me is a higher moral authority. Why don’t we strive to be better? JohnSelway (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
Just take another bong hit. Nobody cares. Nobody's listening. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 03:00, 1 July 2019 (EDT)

JohnSelway, you didn't demonstrate the main page right post was incorrect. I don't see news agencies disputing the issue reported on main page right.

All "your news agencies" were spectacularly wrong when it came to Trump's election, Trump-Russian collusion and have shown themselves to intentionally misreport various items (see: Fake news). And in addition to committing sins of commission, they wildly engage in sins of omission (see: Media bias). If one had relied on your news organization, one would have been totally blindsided when it came to Brexit, Trump's election and the rise of right-wing nationalism in the world.

In short, I suggest you get out of your Google/mainstream news/NZ related filter bubble. For example, NZ is politically out of step with the rest of the free world when it comes to the degree of the rise of right-wing nationalism (NZ still leans left and it leans further left than most of the free world).

In 2019, John Feffer wrote at the left leaning The Nation:

"In the Americas, the Trump tsunami has swept across both continents and the 'pink tide' of progressivism has all but disappeared from the southern half of the hemisphere...
In this planet-wide rising tide of right-wing populism, the liberal left commands only a few disconnected islands — Iceland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Korea, Spain, Uruguay... Worse, crafty operators with even more ambitious agendas stand ready to destroy the liberal status quo once and for all."[8]Conservative (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2019 (EDT)

Question about YEC

Off topic -- slave reparations and carbon emissions

84 House Democrats and 11 Democrat Senators propose slave reparations to reduce carbon emissions.[1]

Back on topic

Hi all. As per my userpage I am not a YECer but I am interested in learning more. I have read some of the articles here but what I would like to know, from as many of you as possible, is what you think the best piece of evidence for a approx 6000 year old universe/planet? I am genuinely interested to hear. Thanks! JohnSelway (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2019 (EDT)

Me personally, I identify with God, so that makes it true. Just as Rachel Dolezal identifies with blacks, Elizabeth Warren identifies with the Cherokee nation, or a transgender male identifies as a woman. Science has nothing to do with it. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:41, 2 July 2019 (EDT)
Perhaps John Selway is looking for more convincing evidence than whom you identify with. Perhaps he's looking for more objectively observable and verifiable evidence; it sure sounds that way. Perhaps he doesn't even know what it means for a person to "identify with" God. And I think he believes that science has everything to do with it, and Elizabeth Warren has nothing to do with it. SamHB (talk) 00:42, 4 July 2019 (EDT)
I think that's just plain crazy. Who makes the charge that YEC is contradicted by science? The same people who argue that slave reparations will reduce carbon emissions and global warming. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:46, 4 July 2019 (EDT)
"Who makes the charge that YEC is contradicted by science?" Just about every scientifically literate person. Millions of them. "... who argue that slave reparations will reduce carbon emissions and global warming" Either zero people, or one (RobSmith himself), I dare say. The sets have very different cardinality, so they can't be "the same people". SamHB (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2019 (EDT)
I generally dislike questions that ask "what is the single best evidence" when there many pieces of evidence (I think you can ignore Rob). For example, the young earth position is the most natural reading of Genesis (and the other portions of the Bible that reference the early earth), including when taking the original Hebrew into account. The dances necessary to reconcile evolution/billions of years into the Bible -- which states the creation was created in six morning-evening days, not in the same order as evolution, and which shows only a handful of generations between the creation and the worldwide flood -- are too great to reconcile.
Regarding specific secular evidences, one of my favorites is that ancient man is now known to have been much more sophisticated/innovative/intelligent than previously thought, and, with technological differences taken into account, likely more intelligent (they were able to do more with less, and technology only represents accumulation of knowledge.
Also, many cultures around the world have creation and flood legends that closely mirror the creation and global flood accounts of the Bible, strongly indicating that the biblical account is true and was remembered, to an extent, by the peoples dispersed at Babel. Also, even for secular people, the earlier a civilization was established, the closer it is to Mesopotamia.
There are many other examples. I strongly encourage you to read Answers in Genesis's website if you want to learn more about the YEC perspective. I have three articles here discussing what they believe are the strongest scientific evidences for a young earth: 1,2,3
And, you can read the Counterexamples to an Old Earth article -- it also has a "resources" section at the bottom. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:41, 3 July 2019 (EDT)
JohnSelway, I think you should decide for yourself which piece of evidence is the strongest using this article as your initial foray into his matter: Age of the earth: 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe.
Second, I don't think you should be over reliant on what experts say about any particular measure of the earth's age and see the section below as for the reason why.Conservative (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2019 (EDT)
I thought my logic provided solid, rational, scientific evidence. Just as scientific as addressing solutions to the climate crisis with Medicare for All, slave reparations, and a guaranteed income. Opposition to these solutions would be anti-science. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:45, 3 July 2019 (EDT)
You're making absolutely no sense. SamHB (talk) 00:42, 4 July 2019 (EDT)

OK, here goes. I apologize for being long-winded, but this is a complex subject.

First, let's restrict our attention to the age of the Earth (4.5 billion years) rather than the age of the Universe (13+ billion years), because we have a much better scientific handle on things on Earth, without having to deal with the big bang, cosmic inflation, dark energy, and such. But the main reason is that the "radioactive decay clock" started with the supernova that created the solar system. That supernova caused the nucleosynthesis that started the radioactive decay that we observe. And we can actually dig up the rocks exhibiting that decay. You can't dig up particles undergoing cosmic inflation.

Next, you need to know that I, for one, do not accept things found in fundamentalist religious websites. If it can't be explained or supported outside of the cocoon of fundamentalist sources, I am loath to accept it. I've had this discussion with the various editors of the User:Conservative account. They don't like it, and they think I am being narrow-minded, but that's the way it is. So I don't accept the various sites being discussed here—Creation.com, Answers in Genesis.org, Institute for Creation Research, and so on. I recommend that you too should be skeptical of fundamentalist web sites that don't want to come out into the light of day.

Now there are two areas that I think are well suited to careful observation and analysis. They are the speed of light and the rates of radioactive decay. Creationists seem to posit some kind of "time dilation field" to reconcile a 6-day age of the universe with a 13 billion year age. They seem to require a speed of light, in the past, thousands of times its current value. And they present a graph showing the speed of light miraculously converging to its present value, while just skirting the improvements in accuracy of measuring it. See the article C decay where I analyze this.

The other area is radioactive decay; creationists require that decay rates be radically different (ratio of thousands) in the past. I actually went through a fundamentalist web site to track this down. The one thing I found that actually relates to observations that one can make is in this page, from creation.com, in the bibliography section of our Radiometric dating page. That page indicates a variation in the decay rate of Beryllium-7. The difference is 1.5%, far less than required to refute an old Earth. So what's going on? Are decay rates constant and uniform, or aren't they? Creationists will latch on to any discrepancy, however small, to try to break down the entire edifice of nuclear physics.

The answer to this conundrum is that, in Beryllium, the 1s electron orbitals are very close to the valence electrons, and the chemical environment can therefore have a measurable effect on the electron field near the 1s orbitals. And, for electron-capture beta decay, the availability of electrons near the nucleus affects the decay rate. (In fact, by completely ionizing the Beryllium, one can shut down the electron capture decay altogether.) Basically, we know a lot more about how radioactivity works than we did in 1896. The principles laid down in the early 1900's were pretty good, but our knowledge is more sophisticated now. Just as Newton's law of gravity is extremely good for most purposes, but our present knowledge is more sophisticated.

So I'd suggest that you look at the various sources of information bearing on the age of the Earth, and scrutinize them carefully.

And I definitely endorse the work of the various editors of the User:Conservative account in compiling the list below of web sites that question the accuracy of so-called experts. Those editors are quite skillful at scouring the internet for articles touching on various topics; much better at it than I am. I find their articles, when they are not about religion (and the articles below are not), to be quite useful and interesting. However, the articles below seem to be about predicting the future, not about analyzing evidence to make deductions about the past.

In conclusion, a question you might ask yourself is "Why would God create a Universe that is radically different from what it appears to be? In most areas of science, the methods of observation and deduction seem to work well. Why is God making that totally wrong for geology, cosmology, and a very few areas of physics?" SamHB (talk) 00:42, 4 July 2019 (EDT)

Off topic -- slave reparations and Medicare for all

Nice pitch. Now explain to me how slave reparations, a guaranteed income, and Medicare for All will solve the conclusive scientific evidence that the planet is undergoing global warming? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:54, 4 July 2019 (EDT)
RobS has, with his usual logical and rhetorical flair, made his case that reparations for American slavery are relevant to the age of the Earth. Whether John Selway finds that useful is not for me to say. SamHB (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2019 (EDT)
Sam, tell me something. Why do you refuse to show deference to RobS, but insist on it in your own case?
I really can't show deference to someone who brings slave reparations, Elizabeth Warren, and transgender people into a discussion of the age of the Earth. And I'm not insisting on deference. A little looking around will show that I rarely receive deference from anyone here at CP. I don't expect it. SamHB (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2019 (EDT)
Lol, nobody interrupts your physics tirades but me. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 12:44, 6 July 2019 (EDT)
SamHB: Don't dodge the subject. This is of major importance in the 2020 presidential election. Godless atheist Cultural Marxists are telling God-fearing Christian African Americans that, scientifically, slave reparations will solve the problems of global warming, climate change, and carbon emissions. Back up these allegations now with truth and scientific evidence. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:15, 6 July 2019 (EDT)
You told RobS, "You're making absolutely no sense." You buried his political commentary under a histrionic remark, ridicule, and condescension.

Back on topic

Yet, you yourself insist that your audience go to outside knowledge to understand obscure physics terms like "beta decay", "electron capture" and "valence electrons" [to make sense of your arguments] when you describe your thinking regarding physical science. This is shown by you making them integral parts of your descriptions as your readers pass through your ideas, with the implied expectation that they "catch on" at every instance. Your readers must either do that or show you deference.
It was admittedly a little bit jarring to bring valence electrons and beta decay into this discussion. But I wanted to make a very clear case, involving just scientific observation, for an old Earth. This struck me as being very well focused. The issue of variability of decay rates explains very well the weakness of the YEC position, with as little distraction as possible by other issues. While I don't expect the readers (the John Selways of the world) to know this off the top of their heads, it is a topic covered in many college-level physics textbooks. Readers can easily see the absurdity of demanding that decay rates can very by factors of thousands, while being aware that they can vary by 1.5%. Being aware of the wealth of scientific evidence on the subject is much better than showing me deference. SamHB (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2019 (EDT)
But strangely, as I said, despite your verbal encouragement up front, your assistance in actually helping them become aware somehow later narrows and becomes quite limited (like when you make use of those series of three obscure phrases I mentioned) forcing them to show you deference, while instead maybe you could have tried to wikilink them...like to Conservapedia's Beta decay, Electron capture or Valence electron article (it's a start)? The point is, if "being aware" is much better, you don't seem in any big hurry to see that it happens!—the result being, you get the deference, and meanwhile RobS gets dismissed out of hand by you. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 16:28, 7 July 2019 (EDT)
Your point is well taken. It was arrogant of me to just say, in effect, "look it up in a college-level textbook." I should have put the explanation into the appropriate page here at CP. After all, we're supposed to be an encyclopedia, helping people to understand things. The Beryllium example is important, and I should have treated it as such. I will fix that, but it will take time. Please be patient. SamHB (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2019 (EDT)
We have been talking here lately about hypersensitive individuals in our democratic institutions who have dominated too much of today's public discourse, triggered by the slightest bump along the groove they are accustomed to and are then allowed by social convention to bring discussion to a halt. Could it be that you too are engaging in a type of conversation with others that is really a conversational strategy, a strategy even going beyond the subject matter being discussed and thus broadly applicable to any sort of ethical or civic contemplation that doesn't happen to jibe with you—ultimately designed so that you don't have to...show them deference? VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 12:59, 4 July 2019 (EDT)
In response to SamHB's criticism of YEC organizations such as AiG, his criticisms of them that they somehow "don't want to come out into the light of day" are ridiculous. Minority groups, particularly those which are regularly maligned and mocked, tend to have a greater interaction with other people/ideas, mainly because it's impossible avoid/ignore "the other side." This is the case with YEC scientists (many of whom earned their PhDs at secular universities), so they typically have a much better understanding of what evolutionists believe than the evolutionists' understanding of creation science (their understanding of YEC is often still stuck in the 1980s), and thus, their arguments/research tend to be more refined.
Going on a tangent, this is similar to what we see in U.S. politics between Trump and Clinton supporters -- Clinton supporters have the vast majority of the media on their side (for example) and have fewer chances to interact with Trump supporters (thus, they're far less tolerant of Trump supporters when they actually meet them: [9][10]). Trump supporters are often afraid to openly discuss their views and interact with ideological opponents more often. Because of all this, the Trump campaign was better able to connect with Americans and won Wisconsin while HRC slept.
Thus, YECers and Trump supporters tend to be more informed and aware of "the other side" and tend to have more effective and well-thought responses. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:03, 5 July 2019 (EDT)
Continuing on that tangent (Trump, Clinton, Wisconsin, etc.) some people may very well have better communication skills than others, and be better informed, and "have more effective and well-thought responses". They should bring their responses on the YEC question into the light of day. SamHB (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2019 (EDT)
SamHB, you wrote: "In conclusion, a question you might ask yourself is "Why would God create a Universe that is radically different from what it appears to be?". SamHB, appears to be according to what party/parties? Is it people who make incorrect assumptions? Every method that uses extrapolation to determine the age of the earth has assumptions that cannot be tested. And testing is the cornerstone of the scientific method. If you look at the articles below relating to experts and the difficulty of forecasting and extrapolating to the past, you will see that untestable assumptions have tripped up myriads upon myriads of experts.
Right. That's why I narrowed the focus down to the most straightforward case I could find—radioactive decay rates. The assumptions and methods here (Geiger counters, etc.) are things that we can see in the present, with the assumptions in extrapolating to the past as simple, straightforward, and testable as possible. SamHB (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2019 (EDT)
On the other hand, careful Bible exegesis clearly indicates that the earth is young. The ancient Jews and the great majority of the early church fathers believed in a young earth because the biblical text clearly indicates this matter. And multiple lines of evidence point to the veracity of the Bible/Christianity (see: Christian apologetics websites).Conservative (talk) 09:08, 4 July 2019 (EDT)
Well, all I can say is that I've made my case for using science and observation, and the Cons people have made their case for using other things. It's up to John Selway to draw his conclusions. SamHB (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2019 (EDT)
You either believe God or you don't. There is nothing to debate or discuss here. If someone thinks they are smarter than God, or calls God a liar, we know what that is. It is called pride. God instructed us so. God calls prideful non-believers stupid and foolish. God likewise says it is stupid to argue with a fool cause others might see and think you are a stupid fool yourself. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:17, 4 July 2019 (EDT)
I know you were talking more to SamHB than to me, and I definitely agree with your overall point in condemning SamHB and John Selway's naked attempts at pushing leftism (and I certainly agree with you that you either believe or don't, and the fact that I even think God exists at all, not to mention currently exists, means I clearly believe in God).
However, speaking as someone who actually DOES view God as superior to all in everything, even view myself as little more than an expendable tool to God to be disposed of at his whim ultimately, and that I neither can do anything about it nor do I particularly CARE to change that status (thus, I am not prideful, and if anything am closer to self-loathing and a massive fatalist), I can state that God did in fact lie once (and ONLY once, I should add, and just so we're clear, by "lie", I mean "willfully giving information you knew full well to be false beforehand", so yes, it does in fact fit that definition of lying.), and that was during his little barter game with Abraham during the events of Sodom and Gomorrah. God, being all-knowing, most certainly knew since long before even the first day of creation that Sodom and Gomorrah was such a horrid place that it needed to be destroyed, and especially that there weren't ANY innocents barring perhaps Lot and his family. Had he been truly honest with Abraham, he would have done pretty much the same thing Ocelot did with Solidus and Dead Cell when fessing up to the Patriots' role in the S3 Plan, or how the Patriots acted to Raiden when revealing themselves to the latter, or how that Bonethief monk talked to Anthony regarding one of the Ancients, or even how Bahamut acted to Ardyn regarding the latter's choice on his fate, regardless of the choice in other words, pretty much cut off Abraham before he could even ATTEMPT to barter with God, silence him for even daring to question his orders while citing his omniscience as to how he knows they're doomed from the start to be destroyed by him, and even telepathically assault Abraham with a large amount of images of what Sodom and Gomorrah is truly like to such an extent that Abraham is left profoundly broken as a result, with God being overjoyed over the fact that he fully demonstrated his omniscience by utterly breaking the mind of even his closest follower, with the only real respite being that God made sure to teleport Lot and his daughters out and do so right in front of Abraham.
Whenever I think of "omniscience", it's closer to Palpatine's "Everything that has transpired has done so according to my design" or Ocelot's "Your plan was invalidated, even before execution, Solidus." line in reference to Solidus's rebellion against the Patriots and how it failed before he even started the planning process. Does what I view as omniscient come across as dark and creepy? Perhaps, and my view of God being honest I'll admit is extremely disturbing, but then again, truth isn't supposed to be hearts and rainbows, it needs to be painful for it to truly be truth, mostly because that's what I've seen of truth where it always seems to hurt people, if not the victims, then certainly the villains when gloating.
And I don't think I'm smarter than God at all. Quite the opposite, I'm absolutely certain God's far smarter than me or any other human on this planet (can't be omniscient if he is dumber than his own creation after all), and that we must be utter slaves to him, that God alone rules everything, to such an extent that he does not tolerate dissent. If anything, it's that knowledge and full awareness that God's far smarter than any human could ever get that makes me very angry that God lied to Abraham by doing that barter game, especially when I know full well that he knows full well Sodom and Gomorrah didn't have innocents barring Lot and his family. God's supposed to not lie, right? Then considering he knows Sodom and Gomorrah doesn't even have any innocents barring Lot and his wife, letting Abraham think there was even a chance at it being savable means he willfully misled him and thus lied. He may have lied to spare him the grief, but he lied nonetheless. Pokeria1 (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2019 (EDT)
EDIT: per VargasMilan's request, I divided them into more paragraphs. Pokeria1 (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2019 (EDT)
tl;dr Do you dare to break that down into paragraphs? VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 13:28, 4 July 2019 (EDT)
Pokeria, this may not be the main point of your remarks, but what you said early on has me puzzled, and what I ask may help us understand you better.
Where does it say in the Bible that God said there were actually less than ten "just men" in Sodom? And on the other hand, where does God actually say there were more than zero "just men" in Sodom, excluding Lot's clan? Wasn't it rather the case that Abraham was afraid to ask?
Yet God did "lie" to Abraham when He said He needed Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. But maybe God's "lies" are like today's judges "sentences" to convicted criminals, in which they are allowed to show mercy and reduce the "sentence". God "sentenced" Abraham and Isaac, but because of Abraham's faith, God allowed a substitute.
This may be the same case when God "lied" to Adam, when God "sentenced" Adam to die "that very day" if he ate fruit from the Tree of Good and Evil—the "sentence" was reduced by mercy. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 22:37, 5 July 2019 (EDT)
To address your points, 1. It was during the whole reading of Sodom and Gomorrah, how Abraham did a barter game that stopped at 10, with God eventually telling him not to try and continue. God sent the angels, and... well, long and the short is, they failed to even find ten just men. And he said that he'd spare the city if there were, bare minimum, 10 just men. That's more than zero. 2. At least with Isaac, it was made clear he needed to test Abraham's loyalty, which he ultimately did (of course, why God would even NEED to test Abraham's loyalty to him when he's omniscient is it's own issue altogether). This is different considering God let Abraham think there was any chance at Sodom and Gomorrah being saved when in reality, he knew, being omniscient, that Sodom and Gomorrah had no innocents besides Lot and his family. 3. Adam and Eve did die, in a sense. His spirit was effectively killed, separated from God. And if I must explain further, here's some links covering the concept of omniscience and how those who have it or close to it generally act, either directly or attributed by their followers:
And yes, I know that view of omniscience is dark, dank, and unpleasant, but it still matches the definition. Pokeria1 (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2019 (EDT)
Earlier Abram washes his hands of obligation to Sodom (right after paying tithes to a priest and different king, King Melchizedek) saying to Sodom's king that his city didn't benefit him in any way (Gen. 14:21-24). So did Abram barter on behalf of Sodom? Or was it not a case of Abram (later Abraham) really hoping he could barter with Lot to persuade him to leave Sodom by being able to promise Lot that Abraham's God was just?
I was reading a little about omniscience and found this by Calvin: "When Abraham said to his son, God will provide (Gen. 22.8), he meant not merely to assert that the future event was foreknown to God, but to resign the management of an unknown business to the will of Him whose province it is to bring perplexed and dubious matters to a happy result." Is this lighter consideration of omniscience not a possible reading, or don't you think this is a fair generalization of God's law, as known, up to that point in history? VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 08:35, 6 July 2019 (EDT)
You might do a better job of convincing the John Selways of the world that the Earth is young if you didn't go off into things about Sodom, Solidus, Palpatine, etc. SamHB (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2019 (EDT)
I'm learning from Trump not to be negative, so I haven't said anything at all to the effect that I believe John Selway intentionally asked a question that he knew would be disputatious rather than conducive to inquiry or even shared inquiry. And like Trump's comments about forgiveness, I tried to put the issues eventually raised to positive use, even though I didn't believe the discussion was initiated, like I said, in good faith. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 13:34, 6 July 2019 (EDT)
Actually, my comments were addressed to John Selway and User:Conservative. But SamHB and Pokeria raise good points.

Off topic -- sidereal time

Science does not exist in a vacuum. It is limited by human understanding. That's what science is - human perspective. It's like the adage, if a tree fell in the forest... How do we know God was not speaking in some advanced form of Sidereal time, which according to the Wikipedia article, itself is now being disposed of because of advances in human knowledge, learning, understanding, and science?

Sidereal time? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? SamHB (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2019 (EDT)
I know. It's outdated now. It's been overtaken by the latest fad. Science is limited by human understanding. A "day," refers to human's understanding of a solar day. Being that the whole universe doesn't recon time according to when the sun rises and sets on planet earth, the meaning of the term "day" doesn't apply throughout the universe. And God tells us as much (My thoughts are not your thoughts, etc), which scientists conveniently ignore. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:11, 6 July 2019 (EDT)
I'll take that as a "no".
Sidereal time and solar time are not just some "latest fads". Solar time is the thing we all know, with a 24 hour day. Humans have been using it throughout history, be that 6000 years or some longer interval. Sideral time is a much more recent, and extremely specialized, time scale. It is of interest only to people who build and operate astronomical observatories. So it's much more recent than solar time. It's the time scale that's used to run the motors that move the telescope for long photographic exposures, tracking the star being photographed. A sidereal day is 4 minutes shorter than a solar day. SamHB (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2019 (EDT)
Duh, Bingo. Solar time is human perception. 1 day in human perception is reconned in solar time. God is not a human. If God says "6 days," he his not bound by human perception or understanding of what "6 days" means. The people who build telescopes, after 13 billion solar years, figured out that solar years aren't much help in measuring the size, distance, or age of, God's universe. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:15, 8 July 2019 (EDT)

Back on topic

Who am I to question God's reasons? God existed before me. God continues to exist after me. And it is utter insanity for me to spend my limited life in a quest to prove God doesn't exist by science. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:57, 4 July 2019 (EDT)

Let me say this again: The purpose of this whole section was (or should have been) to give some guidance to the John Selways of the world who are looking for evidence concerning the age of the Earth. SamHB (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2019 (EDT)

SamHB, you wrote: "Well, all I can say is that I've made my case for using science and observation, and the Cons people have made their case for using other things."

A few things:

1. You cannot observe the past. Strictly speaking, you have not used science and observation. You have not used operational science (Observational science about the present), you have instead used historical science which is rife with extrapolations and assumptions. The track record of science when it comes to forecasting and knowing the distant past is not nearly as reliable as operational science about the present.

Your point, and the points of the articles cited below, are well-taken. But drawing conclusions about the past, difficult though that may be, is nowhere near as difficult as predicting the future. It's what detectives do when the analyze a crime scene and figure out who the perpetrator was. Imperfect, but our criminal justice system uses this all the time. On the other hand, if predicting the future were anywhere near that straightforward, the police would simply arrest suspects in advance of committing the crime, saving everyone a lot of grief, wouldn't they? SamHB (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2019 (EDT)
SamHB, whether or not you are forecasting the distant future or determining the distant past, the farther you are going from the present, the more unreliable your conclusions are going to be all other things being equal. And evolutionists are positing that their historical science, unaided by the divine, can accurately know what happened before man himself existed.
Secondly, intelligent design, uses the detective principle. In every single case where we see intelligence exhibited (like a code as in the genetic code and DNA) it is the result of intelligence and not the result of blind, unguided forces. And as Conservapedia's intelligent design article indicates: "Design detection is used in a variety of sciences including forensic science that investigates the cause of a death or fire."Conservative (talk) 10:28, 10 July 2019 (EDT)

2. The Atlantic 2019 The Peculiar Blindness of Experts, Smithsonian and other articles I gave below about forecasting the future talk about "hedgehogs" who have a tendency to: myopically focus on one discipline, intransigently double down and be credentialed people who have an overinflated egos. And these hedgehogs are largely rewarded for their behavior because they are rarely held accountable when they are wrong - even when they are spectacularly wrong. On the other hand, people who are intellectually curious, have breadth of knowledge and are team players when it comes to a multidisciplinary approach, perform far better at forecasting the future (which is outside the realm of operational science). So your refusal to look at YEC material is symptomatic of the cognitive inflexibility and hubris that hedgehogs possess (It is also illogical and uses the genetic fallacy).

I'll thank you not to cast aspersions on my cognitive powers or my susceptibility to various classical fallacies. SamHB (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2019 (EDT)
SamHB, your own words/actions tell me you are committing the genetic fallacy. So that you are committing the genetic fallacy and being illogical is undeniable. Deny that you are committing the genetic fallacy and lose all credibility!Conservative (talk) 10:54, 10 July 2019 (EDT)

3. YECs certainly use a multidisciplinary approach when it comes to the physical sciences (hence the article Age of the earth: 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe, but we also look at things which have a better track record and reliability when it comes to the realm of the distant past and knowing the future. And not only do YEC, Bible believers have a better track record about the distant past than irreligious/nonreligious academics/scholars when it comes to biblical history (city of Ninevah existing, writing existing at the time of Moses, etc., etc.), but we also have a better track record when it comes to predicting the future (Israel becoming a nation again, an explosion of knowledge occurring in the world as per Daniel the prophet, etc, etc. See: Bible prophecy articles and websites). In addition, Bible scientific foreknowledge certainly indicates that one can reasonably infer that the Bible is divinely inspired as is more reliable than myopic, egotistical hedgehog experts who have a very poor track record when they are operating outside of the realm of operational science (Again, the physical sciences have limitations when it comes to forecasting and knowing the distant past due to unverifiable assumptions in their extrapolations).

I'll thank you not to invent your version of "operational science" and suggest that people who don't accept the accuracy of the Biblical scientific foreknowledge article are operating outside of this realm and have a very poor track record. SamHB (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2019 (EDT)

4. You have taken exception to my many "Atheism and ...." articles. SamHB, you should be delighted that I take a multidisciplinary approach when it comes to the existence/nonexistence of God issue and look upon the issue from many angles.Conservative (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2019 (EDT)

Yes, Cons. I actually am delighted by the approach you take in your articles. It is multidisciplinary in a way that no one else here can achieve. But you're still wrong about YEC. SamHB (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2019 (EDT)
Cons arguments are very persuasive. "You cannot observe the past....You have not used operational science (Observational science about the present}". Let's extend it farther: the same holds true for predicting the planet will come to an end in 2030 unless the Green New Deal is passed and slave reparations paid. Science is little different than reading the past performance of a horse at the race track. It gives you good clues, but can't forecast if the horse is going to twist an ankle today. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:53, 4 July 2019 (EDT)
RobSmith, as much as I hate to do it, I am going to have to declare victory over the old earther SamHB. :)Conservative (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2019 (EDT)
Whoa! Not so fast! I'm not finished with you people! I just stepped out to enjoy the fireworks. Then my real life got in the way—it always does. Cons, my friends, we go back a long way. This is all in good fun, complete with smiley faces. (Well, the underlying topic is serious, but the way we discuss it is in good fun.) I'll be back. Ready to clean some clocks and mop some floors.  :):) SamHB (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2019 (EDT)

Off topic -- radical leftists, fireworks displays, and "unfree states"

Well, I 'sppose it might be possible for some radical leftists to enjoy fireworks.... 22:24, 5 July 2019 (EDT)
If I run into any "radical leftists" here in the unfree state of Massachusetts, I'll ask them whether they enjoyed the Fourth of July fireworks, and get back to you. I can't think of any such people now, but it's quite possible that there are some among my acquaintances. SamHB (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2019 (EDT)

The NE part of the USA does have a lot of unfree states with burdensome taxes/regulations that are causing jobs/people to leave those states (MA is the 7th most unfree state in the USA as far as people fleeing the state).[11]Conservative (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2019 (EDT)

Wildly off topic -- Boston subways

Well played, Cons!! Your use of the term "burdensome taxes", in the context of Massachusetts, really rang my bell. There is a song called the "MTA song" that is wildly popular here in Massachusetts even after 60 years. It was recorded by the Kingston Trio. It starts with a gravely intoned spoken prologue, the first line of which was lifted from Thomas Paine:

These are the times that try men's souls.
In the course of our nation's history, the people of Boston have rallied bravely whenever the rights of men have been threatened.
Today, a new crisis has arisen. The Metropolitan Transit Authority, better known as the MTA, is attempting to levy a burdensome tax on the population, in the form of a subway fare increase.
Citizens, hear me out! This could happen to you!

It is still popular in Boston. In fact, the current electronic fare cards are called "Charlie Cards", after the fictional person who was victimized by this burdensome tax. SamHB (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2019 (EDT)

Back on topic

But I question your use of a "National Movers Study," conducted by United Van Lines (a moving company!) as a source of wisdom on whether a state is "free". Particularly since the article clearly states that jobs are the main reason for people moving to or from Massachusetts. And I note that your home state of New York is listed as #4. SamHB (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2019 (EDT)

First, as TAR would say, "People vote with their feet." In terms of the United States and economic/social freedom, one of the great things about the United States is its highway system and mobility. If you don't like a states economic opportunity and/or culture, you can move rather easily. Sometimes, you don't even have to move out of state. You can move from a blue county of a state to a red county in a state. Even in liberal states up north, you could see Trump signs in rural areas during the 2020 election. And although there are libertarians (conservative on economic issues, but liberal on social issues), by in large, there is a large overlap between social/economic conservatism and social/economic liberalism (The exception to this general rule is the state of Washington which has no state income taxes, but is liberal in its social policies).
Next, the User: Conservative account is made up of four individuals who live in 4 states. Conservative (talk) 09:02, 8 July 2019 (EDT)
Right. I knew the number, but didn't know whether you all live near each other. Thanks for clarifying that. SamHB (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2019 (EDT)

Experts and the difficulty of forecasting and extrapolating to the past

In addition, please see: Limitations of scienceConservative (talk) 09:54, 3 July 2019 (EDT)
Extrapolations involving the future or past can have a number of assumptions and it is sometimes difficult to predict matters in a multiple variable situation.Conservative (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2019 (EDT)
If you do reasonable Bible exegesis and when you compare the evidence of the Bible versus the track records of extrapolations of scientists into the future/past, the evidence for the Bible/Christianity come out on top hands down. See: Christian apologetics websites. Conservative (talk) 10:03, 3 July 2019 (EDT)

33 key questions for Robert Mueller

Proving a negative

Robert Mueller, the special prosecutor who conducted an investigation having to do with members of President Trump's 2016 presidential campaign colluding (which is not a crime) with Russian nationals. Meanwhile evidence exists that Hillary Clinton made deals with Russians during her tenure as Secretary of State, notably regarding an enormous supply of Uranium usable in nuclear weapons manufacture, who were not investigated.

Mueller concluded that there was no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, but later made the remark, "If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

You may have heard it said that it is impossible to "prove a negative". It might be unfair of us to ask someone to do so, but strictly speaking, it is possible—one can show that stating the opposite leads to a contradiction.

But in this case showing such a contradiction isn't possible; the President would have had to have been observed every moment of his Presidency.

So this kind of bogus declaration by Mueller leads me to conclude that he is not interested in a fair account of the facts, but instead is too slack-moralled to entertain even the basics of what would constitute a fair presumption of innocence on Trump's part, if Mueller is not actively avoiding them altogether.

This observation didn't escape the notice of Jeff Carlson at The Epoch Times website.[1], who thankfully kept this idea in mind while listening to and reading Mueller's presentation of his investigation.

This same observation sheds light on Mueller's suspicious conduct and unanswered questions, revealing a garish picture of disrespect for the rights of our duly-elected President, even when one sets apart the illegal FISA evidence, the gatherers of which uncharged to this day, that was used to ensnare the members of his incoming 2016 administration; the same evidence of their response to which was the only sign of irregularity that linked to Trump to begin with.

"Robert Mueller, who investigated allegations of Russia collusion and obstruction of justice for nearly two years as special counsel, will be testifying before the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees on July 17.

"Mueller’s investigation, which concluded there was no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia and that there was insufficient evidence to support obstruction charges, has been criticized for attempting to inflict political damage on President Donald Trump.

"Specifically, Volume II of the Mueller report contained sections that were selectively edited, apparently in order to provide damaging portrayals. Examples include the representation of the transcript of a phone call between the president’s attorney, John Dowd, and the attorney for former national security adviser Michael Flynn; a letter from the attorney of an individual referenced in the Mueller report; and a sequence of dates concerning the meeting between Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos and Australian diplomat Alexander Downer. There are also disturbing details surrounding a heavily used witness in the Mueller report, George Nader.

"Ahead of Mueller’s congressional testimony, we are raising 33 crucial questions that the former special counsel should be asked.

  1. Did Attorney General William Barr in any way misrepresent your 448-page report?
  2. Who actually wrote Volume I and Volume II of your report?
  3. Were any of the authors of your report in contact or consulting with representatives of either Brookings Institution or Atlantic Council?
  4. In your report, you reference “efforts to curtail the Special Counsel’s investigation.” Did the president ever actually limit or impede your investigation?
  5. Why did you provide a conclusion on collusion but not on obstruction?
  6. At what point did you and/or the special counsel team determine that there was no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia?
  7. You determined there was no collusion on the part of the Trump campaign, which implies that you also determined the allegations within the Steele dossier to be invalid. Was there an obligation on your part to inform the FISA court of this and did you do so?
  8. Did you examine the effects on the election that may have resulted from a Fusion-led Steele disinformation campaign?
  9. Why did you not examine the Hillary Clinton campaign’s and the DNC’s ties to Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele, and the dossier?
  10. Did you examine Bruce Ohr’s interactions with Steele and the FBI during and after the election?
  11. Why did you not investigate the work of Nellie Ohr on behalf of Fusion GPS, along with her ties to Ukrainian member of Parliament Serhiy Leschenko?
  12. Did you investigate Christopher Steele’s discussions with State Department official Kathleen Kavalec?
  13. Did you investigate election meddling by any countries other than Russia?
  14. Why did your report omit information regarding Fusion’s employment by Russian clients while they were also employed by Perkins Coie on behalf of the DNC?
  15. Why did you report omit Christopher Steele’s direct ties to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska—including the fact that Steele was actually employed by Deripaska?
  16. Why was selective editing used in the representation of the transcript of a phone call between the president’s attorney, John Dowd, and the attorney for former national security adviser Michael Flynn?
  17. Did you fully investigate the origins of the alleged DNC server hack, and what forensic evidence was actually examined?
  18. Did you investigate the FBI’s initiation of its July 31, 2016 counterintelligence investigation and the role John Brennan had in providing the information that helped establish it?
  19. Why was selective editing used in the representation of communications between former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen and Giorgi Rtskhiladze, who was born in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia and has been a U.S. citizen since 2017?
  20. Why did you use May 6, 2016, as the date of a meeting between George Papadopoulos and a representative of a foreign government—and was this in reference to Australian diplomat Alexander Downer?
  21. Why did you fail to note that Rod Rosenstein and then-AG Jeff Sessions had discussed the need to remove James Comey as FBI director prior to Sessions’s confirmation as AG?
  22. Why was George Nader, a witness who is mentioned more than 100 times in your report, allowed to leave the country, and why wasn’t it disclosed that he was charged for possession of child pornography?
  23. Why have you not made publicly available the unredacted versions of the two additional scope memos from Rod Rosenstein? Do any additional memos exist?
  24. Who leaked Gen. Michael Flynn’s phone calls with the Russian ambassador—a felony violation? Was there a FISA or national security letter issued on Flynn?
  25. Is there a 302 FBI document from Jan. 19, 2017, on Gen. Michael Flynn?
  26. Why did the special counsel’s office delete all the data from Peter Strzok’s phone?
  27. Why did you bring Peter Strzok and Lisa Page onto your team after they had been involved in the investigation into the Hillary Clinton email server investigation? Were you aware of their personal relationship?
  28. Why did the special counsel interview Peter Strzok approximately one week before he was removed from the special counsel investigation?
  29. Why did you staff your investigation with people who appeared to have a political bias and had publicly demonstrated support for Clinton and the Obama administration?
  30. Please describe your May 16, 2017, meeting with President Donald Trump and then-DAG Rod Rosenstein. Was the possibility of your becoming the FBI director discussed at the meeting?
  31. When did you learn of the Strzok emails and did you learn of them from IG Michael Horowitz or from acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe? Did McCabe play a role in Peter Strzok’s removal from the special counsel’s investigation?
  32. Why did you choose to step outside a normal prosecutorial role and comment publicly that your investigation did not exonerate President Trump?
  33. Why did you fail to charge Joseph Mifsud, despite your findings that he lied to the special counsel team? Are any of the people listed in your report, such as Mifsud, Konstantin Kilimnik, or Felix Sater, U.S. government informants?"

VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 01:28, 6 July 2019‎ (EDT)

Margot Hemingway of The Federalist writes:[2]

Another area of concern? Mueller’s reliance on “the testimony of George Nader, who is mentioned more than 100 times in the Mueller report.” Carlson explained in The Epoch Times that Nader’s role involved arranging “a meeting between Kirill Dmitriev, a Russian national who heads Russia’s sovereign wealth fund, and Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater, during the transition period following the 2016 presidential election.”
While the FBI succeeded in arresting Nader when he returned to the states, the failure to charge him earlier could have instead allowed a child predator to go free.
Then came Nader’s June 3, 2019 arrest on child pornography charges. As details emerged, it appeared that the FBI knew Nader had child pornography on his cell phones at the time he was cooperating with the special counsel team. Yet he was not indicted until after he had already left the country.
While the FBI succeeded in arresting Nader when he returned to the states, the failure to charge him earlier could have instead allowed a child predator to go free. Mueller should be quizzed on his knowledge of Nader’s offense and efforts agents took to ensure he did not flee the country.
Sounds eerily similar to the Jeffrey Epstein case. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:50, 7 July 2019 (EDT)

Among so many, question #30 is key. The May 16, 2017 Mueller, Rosenstein, and Trump Oval Office meeting. Of course, we know how he's going to answer. In his press conference he said, "the report is my testimony," so he'll say, "that was before I was SC so I can't answer," and Chairman Nadler will back him up. However, Rosenstein informed the Go8 less than 24 hours after the May 16, 2017 meeting that Mueller had been appointed. May 17, 2017 may not necessarily be when he accepted the appointment.
  1. When did Rod Rosenstein first contact you about becoming special counsel?
  2. Were there conversations about a possible ‘special counsel position’ prior to May 16th, 2017?
  3. Were you aware President Trump was under investigation prior to your conversation of May 16th, with President Trump?
  4. Were you aware of the nature of the investigation, prior to May 16, 2017?
  5. Were you aware of the possibility of being appointed ‘special counsel’?
  6. Did you take any recording devices into the Oval Office meeting?
  7. Did you own the cell phone you left in the Oval Office on May 16, 2017?
  8. Between the afternoon Oval Office meeting and the next day announcement to the Gang-of-Eight by Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe, when exactly did you agree to become special counsel?
  9. How did Rod Rosenstein contact you between May 16, 2017 and early morning May 17, 2017, about becoming special counsel?
  10. Did you immediately agree to become special counsel when asked?
  11. How much time transpired between Rosenstein asking you to become special counsel and your acceptance of the position?
Mueller forgot a cell phone in the Oval Office which had to be retrieved later. That was 4 days after Rosenstein and McCabe discussed "wearing a wire" into the Oval Office, and the 25th amendment coup plot. The interview for FBI director was just a ruse (he was ineligible anyway) and Mueller himself is now directly implicated in the coup plot. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 02:52, 6 July 2019 (EDT)
Question #3 also addresses the coup plotters head on: The Lawfare group is part of the Brookings institution. Lawfare group unhatched the "insurance policy" and two its members now serve as counsels to Nadler; Crowdstrike is founded by a board member of the Atlantic Council. Crowdstrike concocted the "Russia hacked the DNC" narrative to discredit the WikiLeaks revelations and refused to allow the FBI to verify. Mueller has no evidence whatsoever that Russia hacked the DNC. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:17, 6 July 2019 (EDT)
Sooooo....it appears Robert Mueller entered the Oval Office on May 16, 2017 with the intent to deceive the President of the United States while investigating "obstruction of justice" in the firing of James Comey, who was investigating Donald Trump for a crime Trump never committed, as cover for Comey to hide crimes he (Comey), his FBI, Brennan, the DOJ-NSD, FusionGPS, and others associated with the Lawfare group, committed. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:46, 6 July 2019 (EDT)

As to Part II of the report, the so-called "obstruction" case, Mueller cannot just sit there and trash talk innocent people who have not been charged with a crime - that's what got Comey fired. If he tries, he should have his law license revoked. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:51, 6 July 2019 (EDT)

Mueller, keeper of secrets

If Robert Mueller is testifying, there is certainly a lot to ask him.
Mueller first came to public attention during the investigation of the crash TWA 800 in 1996. Early on in the investigation, the FBI reported that traces of explosives had been found in the wreckage of the passenger seating section. Why would there be traces of chemicals on pieces of metal that had been underwater for weeks? The NTSB eventually concluded that the cause of the crash was a fuel tank explosion caused by an electrical short. This was a curious explanation in that 747 was a common plane with a long service history, but no problem similar to this has been reported previously. Who knows what really happened. But one thing this episode does not sound like is an example of great FBI sleuthing. Yet Clinton administration was so relieved when Mueller withdrew the suggestion of terrorism that they promoted him to U.S. attorney for Northern California.
As FBI director under Bush, Mueller helped engineer the rise and fall of the WMD rationale for invading Iraq. The actual reason Bush wanted to invade was because he believed that Saddam was behind 9/11. The WMD rationale was created by Mueller, as well as by Tennet at the CIA, both Clinton holdovers. Perhaps the terrorism rationale was considered too partisan.
In the anthrax case, the FBI pursued Steven Hatfill for five years, although Hatfill was an Ebola researcher with no access to anthrax. The case against Hatfill was promoted by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristoff. It is yet another see-no-terrorism episode in Mueller's career.
The part of Mueller's career that I find most amazing is that although he played a major role in the downfall of New York Governor Elliot Spitzer in 2008, no one in the media has ever taken him to task for this. (Okay, I did find one article in the Los Angeles Times) What worse crime can you commit against liberalism than to take out its rising star? Somehow, liberal reporters knew that Mueller was a friend, destined for bigger things. PeterKa (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2019 (EDT)

You should read our TWA 800 article. It gives the most widely held plausible theory around today. Of course, some official secrets in every state, with good reason, will never be known or never meant to be known.
As to WMD (and I get tired of repeating this) the sanctions had to go PERIOD The sanctions were being used as a recruiting tool by al Qaeda for suicide killers PERIOD IF the sanctions had to go, Saddam had to go PERIOD Without sanctions, Saddam was free to pursue WMD LEGALLY, without sanctions PERIOD Saddam could LEGALLY use oil profits to build WMD PERIOD Saddam and his entire regime declared their intentions to do so PERIOD.

Stop making yourself look like an idiot mouthing garbage like you did above.

Mueller has two big skeletons in the closet Whitey Bulger and Joseph Epstein. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 02:03, 7 July 2019 (EDT)
I fixed up the TWA 800 article, which had been quite conspiracy theory oriented. The point I was making above concerns Mueller's career rather than the cause of the crash. Although the FBI's claim that it found the residue of explosives in the wreckage has to be mistaken, neither Mueller nor any other agent involved suffered any adverse consequences. PeterKa (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2019 (EDT)
Sources and methods. TWA 800 was shot down by a U.S. built Stinger missile. Al-Qaeda had cells in the U.S. in the 1990s. How al Qaeda smuggled a Stinger into the United States from Afghanistan in the 1990s (more specifically, How counterintelligence found out, who? where? how many? etc.) is the question that cannot be revealed due to sources and methods. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:34, 7 July 2019 (EDT)
As to Bulger, he was conveniently murdered in prison shortly before the Mueller Report came out. Why someone feels the necessity to murder an 89 year old man in protective confinement in prison is a question we'll never learn the answer to, RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:44, 7 July 2019 (EDT)
Crossfire Hurricane was a rank amateur operation. How they expected to get away with it is anybody's guess. Mueller was called in to try to bury it. Of coarse, many were Mueller's pupils. Mueller's not much of a keeper of secrets when everybody finds out about everything.
Only legislation now can address the problems the Obama conspirators created. FISA was created specifically so that this whole Obamagate conspiracy would not happen again. That will take a bipartisan consensus. Democrats don't seem to want to co-operate in reform. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:52, 7 July 2019 (EDT)

Jeffrey Epstein

I would imagine that a number of people would like to talk to Jeffrey Epstein right now. Numbered among them may be Robert Mueller, who was the Director of the FBI while Epstein received a slap on the wrist after he was charged with [over a dozen] sex offenses. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 11:19, 7 July 2019 (EDT)

Epstein was a Mueller informant. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:57, 7 July 2019 (EDT)
somepeoplesay [garbled] Epstein was part of a Mossad operation that framed and blackmailed people like Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:59, 7 July 2019 (EDT)
I've heard that rumor, but it can't be true.
That would be against the law. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 14:30, 7 July 2019 (EDT)
We'll never know the full Epstein story. I interpret this as Barr cleaning up the DOJ. Manafort will be out before Epstein ever sees the light of day again. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:38, 7 July 2019 (EDT)
In unrelated news, while detained, Jeffrey Epstein has developed a hand disease in both hands and a mouth disease and can neither speak nor write. When asked how he'd be able to communicate with interviewers from the US Attorney's office or his own defense counsel, Epstein responded by shrugging his shoulders. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 14:42, 7 July 2019 (EDT)
Brace yourselves. Pelosi's daughter tweeted, "is quite likely that some of our faves are implicated.”. Imagine that! Democrats have to defend a pack of pedophiles they have worshipped over the past 15 years in a Presidential election year.
Call it the boomerang effect. They tried it against Justice Thomas. They excused Bill Clinton. They tried it against Judge Moore and Justice Kavanaugh.
In the Epstein case, it's a two time convicted pedophile.
GOP needs to open it's arms to the #MeToo movement now.
Antagonist: Bbbbbutt Rob, Trump, Sec'y Acosta, and Dershowitz?
Rob: When they get charged, we'll address it then. Right now we'll stick to facts. Acosta let Epstein off cause of the deal Mueller cut with Epstein. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:02, 7 July 2019 (EDT)
What we have is a pattern of conduct. Mueller allowed a convicted pedophile to run loose, endangering the safety of our children, as long he as he provided the the kind of testimony Mueller wanted, in both the Epstein case and the George Nadar case cited in the Mueller Report. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:05, 7 July 2019 (EDT)
Trump warned about potential legal charges for Epstein at CPAC 2015 when Trump was being interviewed by Sean Hannity. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 18:18, 7 July 2019 (EDT)
The “faves” here include Bill Clinton and a whole bunch of Democratic bigwigs. All hoping to avoid being caught with their pants down!—Dinesh D'Souza. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 18:46, 7 July 2019 (EDT)
NBC censored the video, but this discussion from Morning Joe on May 18, 2016 convinced me Trump has nothing to fear from Epstein revelations, despite what the fake news/Soros/Media Matters/DNC disinformation machine tries to spin. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:01, 7 July 2019 (EDT)
You mentioned "Dershowitz", but Alan Dershowitz worked with Mike Cernovich and the Miami Herald to unseal the records. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 19:06, 7 July 2019 (EDT)
Yes. Commie libs accuse Dershowitz of going to fantasy island for Clinton-type tryst; Dershowitz visited the island to solicit funds for Harvard. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 20:43, 7 July 2019 (EDT)
Epstein is said to have the largest apartment in Manhattan, one of the most expensive real estate markets in the world. Dershowitz is said to have lived there. Dershowitz has been going on Fox news for the past year defending Trump. Fine. Maybe he was trying to curry favor with the Trump White House and Trump supporters. I don't know and I don't care. Come what may, I feel no compunction to defend Dershowitz. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 02:28, 10 July 2019 (EDT)

“I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,” Trump booms from a speakerphone. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it – Jeffrey enjoys his social life.” [12]

Expect the Epstein case to revive interest in the shenanigans that were going on at the now-defunct Trump Model Management. JohnZ (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2019 (EDT)

Do you have proof that Trump engaged in the behavior that Epstein is accused of? Karajou (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2019 (EDT)
Karajou: I got an idea, and I'm serious about it. As things develop in coming weeks and months (after Mueller testifies and the media wants to bury Russia Russia Russia once and for all), if any mainstream fake news narrative develops to where CP feels the need to address it, don't let them put it in any Trump-related articles or create new pages. Dump it all in the Pizzagate article, cause that's where it belongs. Create new subsections, etc., and address it there. We've told them this massive Pedo/Dem scandal was coming for years, and Pizzagate was just the tip of the iceberg. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 02:13, 10 July 2019 (EDT)
Trump tossed Epstein out of Mar-e-Lago. Epstein had a condo there. Virginia Roberts, at the center of the victims case, worked at Mar-e-Lago where Epstein met her. After Epstein's conviction, Trump tossed Epstein out. Trump was the only person, according to victims attorney's, with information about Epstein who was willing to help victims. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:37, 9 July 2019 (EDT)
Aye, but I imagine the initial lines of inquiry will be more about what did the (future) president know about Epstein and when? It won't be being easy being on record as aware of Epstein's preference for younger women, and then trying to claim ignorance that Epstein liked them that young. JohnZ (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2019 (EDT)
A man who had a preference for younger woman. That is so incredibly rare! You are grasping at straws JohnZ. The fact remains that Trump kicked Epstein out of Mar-e-Lago and Trump was the only person, according to victims attorney's, with information about Epstein who was willing to help victims.
The two people with the highest profiles who have the appearance of being a scum in regards to Epstein are Bill Clinton and UK's Prince Andrew. See: PRINCE Andrew has been dragged back into the Jeffrey Epstein paedo scandal as a photo of him with an 'underage prostitute' has been listed as an exhibit at a new court case.. Instead of looking across the ocean at Trump to look for misbehavior, you should be looking in your own backyard! Conservative (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2019 (EDT)
What a joke (and this is good material for MPR): Chuck Schumer calls for Acosta's resignation; and who heads the list of recipients of Epstein campaign contributions? Chuck Schumer. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:38, 9 July 2019 (EDT)
Acosta wrote a letter to explain what happened that you can read here. He blames the Florida authorities, as well as "Washington," which he says rejected his appeals. The Florida authorities were the ones who came up with the unique six-day-work-leave prison regime that made Epstein's sentence a joke. Epstein had a team of legal superstars that included both Alan Dershowitz and Ken Starr. President Bush was a good buddy of frequent Epstein travelling companion Bill Clinton and his administration was full of Clinton holdovers like Mueller. (After the disgraceful banking bailout, I don't cut Bush slack anymore.) PeterKa (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2019 (EDT)
I don't see where the Bushes factor in to any of this. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:50, 9 July 2019 (EDT)
Uh, because Acosta puts much of the blame for this on "Washington" and Bush was president at this time. Perhaps Acosta's comments are better interpreted as referring to Mueller, then the FBI director. When I read Acosta's letter, he struck me as a guy trying to do his best, but who didn't quite succeed. Deferring to local authority makes sense as a general principle, but the authorities in Palm Beach County were sadly outclassed in this case. PeterKa (talk) 02:49, 10 July 2019 (EDT)
Acosta answered to Gonzales. Bringing Bush's name into it only confuses what is already a confusing story for most people. Read the Little Black Book as a starting point. Zerohedge has link to a twitter feed at the end that also is worth reading. Also, the Vanity Fair article. (I'll find the link later).
The issue is twofold at this point:
(a) Was Epstein acting on his own to blackmail the rich for personal gain? or
(b) Was Epstein part of an Israeli intelligence operation to blackmail the rich and elite of the world?
This is where the role of Ghislaine Maxwell (pron. ji-lane) comes in, daughter of the mysterious Robert Maxwell (d.1991). His story has yet to be written in definitive form. [13] Suffice it to say, he worked for Mossad and was whacked by Mossad. He's buried on the Mount of Olives.
I would suggest to follow the first track, Epstein has self-motivations. If Prince Andrew or Alan Dershowitz wish to argue they were framed by the Mossad, then we can follow that track.
Bush is a non-factor. Trump is a witness for Virginia Roberts. Unless Virginia Roberts claims Trump sold her to Epstein or something along that line, ANY discussion of Trump is B.S., fake news, misinformation, and intended to sidetrack and cover up crimes of others, The Collusion Hoax II. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:39, 10 July 2019 (EDT)
See if you can work Soros and the Illuminati in there somewhere. Back in the real world, we await Trump's inevitable attempt to claim he was shocked, shocked, to discover Epstein's taste for younger women extended to underage girls. JohnZ (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2019 (EDT)
I am too ignorant of the situation to write a proper page on this pervert, but a page on him should definitely exist! This sick man is a perfect example of the U.S justice system's zero tolerance toward crime, no matter how rich or powerful one might be. Nobody is above the law, and we fought a war in 1776 to see to that. --PiousOne (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2019 (EDT)
It already exists: Jeffrey Epstein --1990'sguy (talk) 22:49, 10 July 2019 (EDT)
Thank you. I feel pretty stupid having not found that with a search. --PiousOne (talk) 23:03, 10 July 2019 (EDT)
PiousOne, you certainly haven't lived up to your name. You tried to dodge a five-year block by originating a new account, and yet you still try to combine editing Conservapedia with foolish expressions of anger against President Trump. You also wasted your opportunity to get a lighter sentence by visiting the blocking admin, so it's only fitting that you receive the same block for this account. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 14:02, 11 July 2019 (EDT)
Acosta just resigned. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 13:27, 12 July 2019 (EDT)
Acosta's 2007 deal could make Berman's indictment double jeopardy, according to Andrew McCarthy. There are new victims coming forward, so perhaps the indictment can be amended. But at this point, it appears to be so much grandstanding. PeterKa (talk) 08:35, 13 July 2019 (EDT)
The issue surrounds the fact that Epstein plead to a single count of prostitution, not trafficing, child molestation, or conspiracy (how a child victim is labeled a prostitute is a separate matter). There is no jeopardy in a conspiracy charge. Prince Andrew (formerly second in line to the throne), Dershowitz, Alec Baldwin, et al ad infinitum are quite nervous. The only resolution at this point seems to be for Epstein to accidentally die in his jail cell awaiting trial. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:27, 13 July 2019 (EDT)

After a rocky start, illegal aliens with final deportation orders to be removed by ICE

As you know, two weeks ago, acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan was accused of leaking information on the planned deportation of 2,000 illegal aliens with final deportations orders. Those plans were cancelled, and new plans are to be carried into execution Monday of deporting all 925,000 of them. Perhaps surprisingly, roughly 40% of them are not from Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras or Guatemala. Democrats and leftist radicals encourage the American public to hate ICE officers. Ironically this only elevates ICE officers to hero status, especially since they do more than deport but fight and deter border crime.[1]

VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 22:40, 7 July 2019 (EDT)

As I understand it, Africans are flying into Ecuador and hitching a ride to Panama. Reports claim the usual underground railroad smuggling camps right now are overwhelmed with tens of thousands, much more than capacity, making the trek. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:43, 8 July 2019 (EDT)


Soccer is the most popular sport in the world so it’s far from most of world not wanting to watch or play it - the main page item should be changed. JohnSelway (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2019 (EDT)

Women's soccer? I am skeptical. Why Aren't Women's Sports as Big as Men's?, The Atlantic. Why do fans ignore women’s pro sports?, Boston Globe.
As far as popularity, the ice skating queens and the top women's gymnasts will always win hands down when compared to women's soccer.
JohnSelway, as much as I hate to say it, you are wrong again.Conservative (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2019 (EDT)
The mainpage doesn't say woman soccer - it says "...despite how most of the world does not play that game, or want to."
See here "Association football, or soccer, is the most popular sport in the world. It is estimated that more than half of the world's population consider themselves to be association football (soccer) fans"
So if you are only referring to womens soccer then I am right - the main page item should be changed. JohnSelway (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2019 (EDT)
"Google persists in overhyping liberal women's soccer, despite how most of the world does not play that game, or want to. Nearly all the quarterfinalist players were white, in contrast with competitive world sports." (Bolding added for emphasis).
You certainly don't have an airtight case when it comes to your soccer complaint. The "that" can certainly refer to women's soccer.
JohnSelway, you purposefully gave a partial quote. Many times I don't think you are being honest/sincere. You trash Trump for example, while totally ignoring all his accomplishments (World's most competitive economy, deregulation, big reduction of ISIS influence, etc.). Trump is certainly not perfect, but you way overdo the criticism. Let's take the examples of King David or Samson. You can certainly find things in the Bible to trash David/Samson, yet they had accomplishments too.Conservative (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2019 (EDT)

Double standard

You mention a liberal double standard on the main page (which I agree with) but isn’t it a conservative double standard to highlight Biden stammering and slurring when Trump does the same? This isn’t about Trump - more about how Conservapedia maintains its integrity. JohnSelway (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2019 (EDT)

Except that Trump doesn't do what Biden does. He doesn't stammer or get confused when speaking. Sure, you may not like how he speaks (he speaks differently from a typical boring politician), but he's very effective (see his 2016 victory). --1990'sguy (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2019 (EDT)
He doesn't stammer or get confused when speaking. You're kidding right? JohnSelway (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2019 (EDT)
It's obvious Biden is on some kind of medication. He's pro-nuclear war with Kim jong-un. The man is a danger and menace to World Peace. It will take "thoughts and prayers" for him to make it to the first round of primary voting in February 2020, which communist Democrats have made clear they do not believe in. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:48, 13 July 2019 (EDT)
The item criticizes Biden without mentioning Trump. Conservatives can talk about topics other than Trump -- that's not what "double standard" means. What JS is doing is another rhetorical device called tu quoque or whataboutism. After Fire and Fury was published, the liberal media spent a month using every opportunity to tell us that Trump was demented. So the subject has been done to death already. Trump tweets and speaks in public in an unscripted manner all the time. Everyone in America is a position to assess his mental state. Biden is both less coherent and not as bright as Trump. Unlike Trump, he avoids public appearances as much as possible. PeterKa (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2019 (EDT)
Exactly. Here's the double standard: it is only Trump critics that hang on Trump's every utterance breathlessly (worship of false messiahs is an inherent principle of leftism); normal people and the rest of sane humanity realize that people sometimes make mistakes or are misquoted. We don't hang on his every utterance and understand the context in which Mr. Trump speaks. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:23, 13 July 2019 (EDT)

No one believes in global warming

Do you think AOC is trying to save the world from climate change? Think again! "The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is that it wasn't originally a climate thing at all," according to Saikat Chakrabarti, the brains and money behind the AOC phenomenon. "We really think of it as more of a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing." See "The Green New Deal was never about climate change; it's just AOC's excuse to destroy America's economy." The quote above comes from a worshipful profile in Washington Post Magazine. Assuming that AOC's supporters are OK with this revelation, is it not proof positive that climate alarmism was a fraud all along? PeterKa (talk) 00:42, 14 July 2019 (EDT)

It's been a fraud from day one, concocted by people who couldn't predict the weather to accuse people of changing the weather so they could get their hands on taxpayer money. Remember, when it comes to us wanting to keep what we earn, it's the libs who accuse us of being greedy. Karajou (talk) 00:53, 14 July 2019 (EDT)
Green New Deal is based om pseudoscience. Slave reparations, Medicare for All, and a guaranteed income will not stop carbon emissions. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:00, 14 July 2019 (EDT)