Difference between revisions of "Talk:Main Page"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Why the UK election may be a good thing for Brexit)
(Labour gains in British election)
Line 149: Line 149:
 
:::::::::::::The article states that only 3,000 are "under investigation or active monitoring", while 23,000 "jihadist extremists living in Britain as potential terrorist attackers" exist. 20,000 of them are not being surveilled. Many of these attackers are not refugees themselves -- they and their families have been living in their current nation for years. However, they have chosen not to integrate into the country (in this case the UK) and adopt its values and culture. They don't care whether their adopted country (which provides their welfare) is violently overthrown in the name of Islam. They have no support for their country (even though their country and people's taxpayer dollars support them). Why are these people even tolerated? Of course, it's not like all Muslims or Arabs are like this, but these 23,000 show that Britian's immigration policy is not working as it should. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:14, 13 June 2017 (EDT)
 
:::::::::::::The article states that only 3,000 are "under investigation or active monitoring", while 23,000 "jihadist extremists living in Britain as potential terrorist attackers" exist. 20,000 of them are not being surveilled. Many of these attackers are not refugees themselves -- they and their families have been living in their current nation for years. However, they have chosen not to integrate into the country (in this case the UK) and adopt its values and culture. They don't care whether their adopted country (which provides their welfare) is violently overthrown in the name of Islam. They have no support for their country (even though their country and people's taxpayer dollars support them). Why are these people even tolerated? Of course, it's not like all Muslims or Arabs are like this, but these 23,000 show that Britian's immigration policy is not working as it should. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:14, 13 June 2017 (EDT)
 
::::::::::::::JohnZ, 23,000 is equal in strength to 2 fighting divisions, equal to about the number of US forces standing in South Korea, or half strength of [[Hezbollah|Iran's standing forces in Lebanon]]. They (a) are NATO trained, the most advanced training on the planet ([https://web.archive.org/web/20170216061621/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/01/obama-secret-syria-order_n_1730712.html?tw_p=twt ''per'' Obama's presidential covert action Finding and Executive Order] of 2012, (b) only lack NATO weapons which they have been trained on, (c) don't need NATO weapons to produce a high kill-ratio, (d) based on the kill-ratio from three UK attacks this year (5 perpetraters and 35 deaths, with 227 injured) taking the lower number of 3000, represents an immediate threat to the lives 21,000 potential victims of murder, with an additional 135,000 injured; (e) numerous other attacks, such as 9/11, have produced kill-ratio in excess of 1:200. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 13:06, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
 
::::::::::::::JohnZ, 23,000 is equal in strength to 2 fighting divisions, equal to about the number of US forces standing in South Korea, or half strength of [[Hezbollah|Iran's standing forces in Lebanon]]. They (a) are NATO trained, the most advanced training on the planet ([https://web.archive.org/web/20170216061621/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/01/obama-secret-syria-order_n_1730712.html?tw_p=twt ''per'' Obama's presidential covert action Finding and Executive Order] of 2012, (b) only lack NATO weapons which they have been trained on, (c) don't need NATO weapons to produce a high kill-ratio, (d) based on the kill-ratio from three UK attacks this year (5 perpetraters and 35 deaths, with 227 injured) taking the lower number of 3000, represents an immediate threat to the lives 21,000 potential victims of murder, with an additional 135,000 injured; (e) numerous other attacks, such as 9/11, have produced kill-ratio in excess of 1:200. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 13:06, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
@RobS: (a) & (b) are too silly to respond to. As for (c) - (e), sure, but the number of successful plots is - and I'd argue, always will be - vanishingly small. Our security services are competent and highly motivated, and the extremists - for the most part - are rank f______ amateurs playing at soldiers.
 +
 +
@1990'sguy: Get yourself a plane ticket. You need to see some "Muslim communities" in the flesh. My conversations today have all been about the [http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/40278085 England / Pakistan semi-final in the ICC Champions Trophy], rather than sharia or jihad or any of that other bollocks. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 21:19, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
  
 
== Update on Russia investigation ==
 
== Update on Russia investigation ==

Revision as of 20:19, 14 June 2017

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

Trump a man of his word

Despite the backlash, despite the lobbyists, the globalists, the socialists, the RINOs all begging for Trump to stay in the Paris Climate Accord, he breaks with it. The election of Jeb or any of the 16 other candidates would have seen us sticking to the accord. The left hook came with ending the TPP. The right upper cut was ending the Paris Accord. The people that lord over us are on the ropes. My confidence in Trump has reached a new level. --Jpatt 00:21, 2 June 2017 (EDT)

In the big scheme of things, Trump had nothing to lose by keeping his promise about this matter. It is not as if his decision is going to cause him to be even more hated by liberals/RINOS. I think he has pretty much plateaued when it comes to liberal/Democrat/RINO hatred towards him. Conservative (talk) 07:15, 2 June 2017 (EDT)
A serious attempt to control the climate would involve jobs lost and enormous costs. Yet the Paris Accord was the most popular treaty in history. From Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, from Albania to Yemen, the planet was awed by the sheer brilliance of an idea whose time had come: "Uncle Sucker pays." PeterKa (talk) 08:32, 2 June 2017 (EDT)
I agree that Trump is a man of his word. However, the Paris Accords were non-binding and voluntary targets, so this is more about setting a tone for international cooperation than it is about on-the-ground energy policy. Someone should write a series of articles about different energy options, carbon-capture, "clean coal", electric storage options, REGI, carbon tax, geothermal, and the various international treaties. JDano (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2017 (EDT)
In the next 20 years, energy use is expected to increase dramatically, especially in the non-OECD countries. It certainly won't decrease anywhere. We will need more of everything -- including coal, according to these projections. My favorite is a nuclear reactor redesigned to be nonproliferating. China is working on a thorium molten salt reactor.
In case anyone thought I was exaggerating when I wrote that this was the Uncle Sucker pays accord: "U.S. Paid $1 Billion To Paris Agreement Green Fund – All Other Nations Combined $0" The only country that made a serious attempt to comply with the carbon reductions required by the Kyoto Agreement was New Zealand. They nearly went bankrupt as a result. In the Paris Accord, the proposed reductions were voluntary. Assuming every country complied 100 percent and that the AGW theory is correct, the Accord would leave the world 0.6 degrees to 1.1 degrees Celsius cooler than it would otherwise be in 2100.[1] PeterKa (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2017 (EDT)

London Bridge

Theresa May is in way over her head. She is blaming the internet for spreading Islamic terror and it must be regulated. [2] May is no Thatcher that much is for sure. That is exactly the kind of Mealy-mouthed, 1000 words but no answer, statement we rejected with the election of Trump. In fact, that excuse aligns more with what a President Pelosi would say. Sad, UK citizens should take matters into their own hands in order to save their daughters from Muhammad's death cult. Drive them back to the Middle East. --Jpatt 11:42, 4 June 2017 (EDT)

Looks good - she even admits that "tolerance" is not meant for extremists. But what's the terrorist attack that galvanized this reaction? Is London Bridge really falling down?--Nathan (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2017 (EDT)

Qatar

Let me present a narrative which hopefully will help make sense out of many unresolved and unanswered questions over many years.

Donald Trump met with Arab leaders in Riyadh. Within days of his leaving several broke diplomat relations with Qatar. Why? and What was discussed? Trump laid down the law -- the weapons supply program that Obama, Hillary, and John Brennan covertly established about March 2011 to groups in Libya and Turkey that evolved into ISIS is over. The Pentagon was out of the loop, that's why the Pentagon could not send assistance during the Benghazi massacre because the Pentagon was unaware US facilities in Benghazi were being used for storage of captured weapons from the Gaddafi regime, or that Benghazi airport was being used for transfer of the weapons to Incirlik in Turkey, near the Syrian border where jihadis were being trained. Michael Flynn, head of the DIA, became aware of the program when a Chinook helicopter was shot down in Afghanistan with a Stinger missile whose serial number matched a batch of Stinger missiles the Pentagon transfered to the CIA. Flynn was outraged, but kept out of the loop. The Obama administration (Hillary's State Dept. and Brennan's CIA) arranged for the return of some of the Stingers from the Taliban, through Qatar, by trading 5 Taliban commanders from Guantanamo for return of the Stingers. The episode had a demoralizing effect on the military - the fact that Obama, Hillary, and Brennan (a) were supplying weapons to jihadists, and (b) Obama, Hillary, and Brennan were releasing captured jihadist commanders back to the battlefield. Tensions between Flynn on one hand, and Hillary/Brennan on the other, led to Obama siding with Hillary/Brennan and firing Flynn.

Flynn, unemployed, went to work for Trump and told him the whole story. The Obama administration, principally Obama, Hillary, Brennan, and Susan Rice, knew that Trump now had full knowledge of what Flynn knew. Flynn also had a vendetta against Obama, Hillary, and Brennan for treating the lives of US military personal so recklessly. This led to efforts to silence Flynn further, discredit both Flynn and Trump, cover the conspirators tracks for their war crimes, and frame both Trump and Flynn up on bogus garbage by further misuse of US intelligence agencies.

Trump served notice face-to-face on Arab leaders (where the NSA can't monitor his calls) and told them "game over." Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, and UAE severed relation with Qatar within 30 minutes of each other. Hillary & Obama's ISIS program -- intended to remove Hezbollah from Israel's borders and weaken Iranian influence in region - is now dead meat. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:40, 6 June 2017 (EDT)

Sanders slight

NSA Leaker Is A Bernie Sanders Supporter Who ‘Resists’ Donald Trump.[2]
Another defeat for liberals who want to sabotage the Trump administration.

Why would we want to offend Sanders backers? to drive them back into the arms of Hillary or Elizabeth Warren? Wouldn't it be enough to the point out a member of the #Resistance is a traitor? or a climate change activist? or supporter of Iranian terrorism? There's plenty of ammunition to choose from, nonetheless we (again) take the path of isolating ourselves. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 20:26, 6 June 2017 (EDT)

I changed the title. Conservative (talk)
Sanders attracts the unhinged. Jeremy Christian, the perpetrator in the Portland train knife attack, is a Bernie bro. On Facebook he wrote, "I gonna kill everybody who voted for Trump or Hillary!!!"[3] As far as the media is concerned, he is just another Muslim-bashing Trump supporter. PeterKa (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2017 (EDT)
Sanders won the DNC nomination, and was cheated by Hillary. Hillary won the popular vote in the general. From a Sanders backer perspective, neither one is legitimate and Bernie should be president. And very very much like Trump supporters, they do not believe a word of MSM reporting, and look for alternative sites. The hardcore Sanders backers are more concerned about Deep State cover up of the Murder of Seth Rich, and like all Republicans, concerned about DNC corruption, than the supposed Trump-Russia scandal, which they rightly see as more manufactured lies by the Hillary-swooning media. Sanders supporters, and Sanders himself, have been victimized the by the same group of corrupt media, Democrat establishment types, and Deep State operatives. Giving in to media lies is a betrayal of all they believe in. We need to court them in common cause, not ridicule or offend them. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:00, 6 June 2017 (EDT)
I despise Sanders and everything he stands for. However those that sided with him rejected the corruption of Hillary, the Democrat Party for what they've become. Rob is right for the most part, especially if those corrupt Democrats keep holding onto their power, keep winning super delegates and not the people, put in charge those rejected by the people- like Perez, nominate the next presidential nominee because it was their turn in the hierarchy. It's an opportunity for Trump to show progress in his fight against the Swamp. To win over those that reject the political machine and all it stands for.--Jpatt 22:33, 6 June 2017 (EDT)
Seth Rich was 26, Reality Winner, a Farsi speaking Air Force volunteer is 25. Among those people under 30 who grew up since 9/11, there is a deep strain of patriotism and love of country, although it became very corrupted under Obama. While I'm unconvinced someone is going to volunteer to serve their country and risk their life to protect the God-given constitutional right of one man sodomizing another in Afghanistan, we should avoid debating such issues with them for the next two election cycles, over the next three years. Pelosi, Sanders, and Hillary are in their 70s. We are on the cusp of generational change of leadership in the DNC. The next generation of DNC leaders are even more wacko. We need steer this younger generation - who genuinely love their country and want to be involved - away from corrupted ideals. It begins with engaging with them, and right now we have more in common and the same opponents. We should not focus on differences. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:31, 6 June 2017 (EDT)
I see your point, but I'm still not supporting Bernie Sanders, because he's a card carrying socialist, and I have absolutely no intention of supporting socialists after what they did to those of my religion or, heck, ANY religion whatsoever. They dug their own grave the moment they decided to make mass graves of various religions, especially us Christians, simply to prove there is no such thing as a religion or deity in the name of "scientific materialism." Even if it is to take down any corrupt democrats, siding with socialists is a very bad idea, since they generally turn out to be just as corrupt as the corrupt democrats we removed. Rob, remember how we sided with Stalin just to stop Hitler, and how that ended badly even after Hitler was deposed? Siding with Bernie Sanders is essentially the same as trying to side with Stalin during World War II, and will achieve the exact same bad results. Besides, as PeterKa pointed out, the Jeremy Christian guy was a Bernie Supporter. Pokeria1 (talk) 06:15, 7 June 2017 (EDT)
No, we should neither support Sanders nor attack Sanders, we should show solidarity with (a) the DNC is corrupt, (b} Seth Rich murder is being covered up, (c) the media is biased toward Hillary and the corrupt DNC machine. If you can't do these things, at a bare minimum stop attacking Sanders and alienating people who love the guy. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:31, 7 June 2017 (EDT)
Sorry, but no. We made that mistake with the French Enlightenment Philosophers such as Sade, Voltaire, Diderot, and Rousseau, and later Karl Marx, and both times we paid for it dearly with multiple mass graves. I have no intention of allowing us to make the same mistake three times. Quite bluntly, anyone who knowingly supports a guy who knowingly supported a communist group during Vietnam and tried to demonize Americans during that time, is automatically an enemy. They are either for us or against us. I'll avoid alienating those who don't know how Sanders is evil when they support him. But I WON'T stop attacking Sanders, or alienating those who do knowingly support such an evil man like him. The only way to truly stop evil is to fight it and destroy it. Pokeria1 (talk) 11:48, 7 June 2017 (EDT)
This has nothing to do with Sanders per se, it has everything to do with Sanders supporters in a limited capacity for a limited time spanning two election cycles in three years. Nobody gives a rip what their ideology is. We share common aims in taking down the corrupt DNC establishment, the corrupt mainstream media, and the corrupt Clinton machine. Period. Sanders himself won't last (he's 76), but Elizabeth Warren, the heir apparent, already cast her lot with the corrupt Clinton machine and corrupt DNC. The corrupt mainstream media will not trash her like they did Sanders & Trump. There's a limited window of opportunity right now, to poach some Sanders backers to the conservative movement. And it's not done by insulting them or debating ideology. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:39, 7 June 2017 (EDT)
Same goes for the Jill Stein/Gary Johnson voters, who are the stubborn, hardcore, anti-Hillary, anti-DNC, anti-MSM, left-wing idealogues and Sanders movement remnant whom we not only want, we need to put together an electoral coalition over 50%. Sound crazy? The Hillary/DNC/Deep State/MSM is the main opponent which is intent on destroying both the Sanders movement and the Trump movement. Look at the power they wield. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:04, 7 June 2017 (EDT)
Yeah, and we operated with that exact same idea when we aided Stalin to take out Hitler. Guess how well that turned out? Most of Eastern Europe and even parts of the Third World subjected to the horrors of Communism, millions more killed for that sick ideology, the whole Domino Theory ultimately coming to pass, letting them even HAVE our nuclear secrets, and right now most of our education systems and media being so entrenched with communist ideology that it is practically anti-American in all but name. Aiding them, even in the name of stopping Clinton, the corrupt DNC, the MSM, and all of that, will only get us back where we're started, start the cycle again with little change except for who is ultimately pulling the strings there. My idea is to outright get rid of leftist ideology, permanently, which means fighting against both those elements AND the Sanders movement, even the Gary Johnson elements if I must, in order to ensure any threats to God's iron-fisted rule over this planet are extinguished, not stopping until the left itself is completely and utterly DEAD. And yes, I mean exactly what I say about that. We've let Gramsci, the Frankfurt School, Marx, Nietzsche, and the French Enlightenment Philosophers (or, perhaps, the Enlightenment philosophy itself) get away and worked with them in promoting their ideologies for far TOO long, and have caused countless damage as a result. It's time we stopped giving them ANY support at all. Pokeria1 (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2017 (EDT)
To do that you still need a couple million more votes. You have three choices where they come from: (a) hardcore Democrats and Hillary backers; (b) Sanders/Stein/Johnson voters; (c) immigration.
And we're not talking about fighting WWII. We're talking about an electoral coalition for the 2018 Midterm elections and the 2020 Presidential election. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:38, 7 June 2017 (EDT)

Opportunity

After yesterday's blowout of James Comey, where many young liberal millennials again were led down the garden path by the DNC & MSM, [that's strike three: (1) Sanders stolen nomination; (2) Hillary as gonna win big; (3) Comey was going to get Trump impeached] we need to give the smarter ones credit for some intelligence. I find it hard to believe an under 35 ideological liberal Sanders/Stein/Johnson supporter is that shallow or ignorant to not see what is happening, and will blindly surrender their idealism to a demonstrably corrupt media and DNC. We should reachout to them, less we suffer a Theresa May-type setback. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:40, 9 June 2017 (EDT)

Breitbart

I doubt Breitbart moved leftist and it keeps growing exponentially, far from dead. They canned a reporter for Muslim political correctness. I've read stories completely the same as a liberal journalist would create (title was clickbait but the story was a non-story). They pushed rising homosexual journalist Milo. To jump out and say they are leftist is just insulting and false. Mike Cernovich has commented about issues with Breitbart's leadership. We need to stop dividing the right into factions based solely on who is pure. It's another reason why a true conservative can't gain the highest office. The struggle on the right is real. --Jpatt 22:10, 6 June 2017 (EDT)

Amen. Bottomline: if Trump is ever to break the 50% mark in approval ratings or a general election, it can only come from Sanders supporters. The sooner we accept this and start acting on it, the better. All else is peeing in the wind. RobSDeep Six the Deep State!</port Breitbart]].sup> 22:21, 6 June 2017 (EDT)
Is it right to abandon Breitbart news? Please read: Essay: Why I no longer support Breitbart.
A farther right-wing alternative to Fox News and Breitbart News is going to spring up. It is not a matter of if. It is a matter of when. The political center is shrinking. Conservative (talk) 03:58, 7 June 2017 (EDT)
You are projecting again user:Conservative. You don't support it doesn't mean it's dead. Nothing in life is perfect and there will never be a perfect conservative candidate nor conservative news source. Critique them is fine, explain their failings and weakness, I am alright with that. Calling them liberal would be a credibility mistake. --Jpatt 10:16, 7 June 2017 (EDT)
A balance needs to be restored. The Bush administration very effectively created the division between Muslims, and radical Muslim terrorists. Unhappy with the status quo, the Obama extremists erased all references to Islam or Muslims. Now the pendulum has swung back to where McHugh of Brietbart did wholesale Twitter postings attacking all Muslims. She's probably too young to remember 9/11, so we are right back where we started in 2001-2003, educating people about terrorists and their motivations.
The big problem is, which Obama exacerbated, there are more of them (terrorists), and they are more widespread. Brietbart is taking the lead in educating people on these issues. The mainstream media sure hasn't, and can't, and won't. They exacerbated the situation along with Obama. McHugh was rightly fired, as Kelly Griffen was, too.
We need to show leadership, as Brietbart has done, and educate people on (1) the true nature of Islam, and (2) the true nature of the terrorist threat. Sanctioning wholesale bigotry, which is what McHugh did, should not be tolerated. The only solution to the problem as she stated it would be Hitler-style round-ups of 2.7 million Muslims based on identity cards, and ship them Allah-knows-where, or put them behind barbed wire. This is insanity. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:26, 7 June 2017 (EDT)
Balance? BALANCE?! I don't recall Jesus ever asking for Balance. If anything, his exact words was that he'd spit out the lukewarm, ie, those who believe in balance between two extremes. And for the record, balance won't educate people on the fact that Islam has its adherents practicing Taquiyya, which literally means they are allowed to lie to a non-Muslim to screw them over. In other words, that makes them inherently untrustworthy. And God never wants balance, he wants the whole pie to himself. Pokeria1 (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2017 (EDT)

I would not call Breitbart a liberal news outlet. But after they lost Bannon, this most recent event shows that Breitbart went from being a right-wing news website to being a cuckservative news website. I already found replacement news sources which are far better. It is just a matter of time before they lose a large chunk of their audience. I am spending less time following the news anyways. Conservative (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2017 (EDT)

Yeah, and it doesn't help that Internet Explorer currently has trouble allowing me to read their articles without freezing up and reloading the page anyways. Pokeria1 (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2017 (EDT)
Pokeria1, I had the same problem with Internet Explorer. Now I use Chrome, and it works much better when I read Breitbart or other news sources.
Regarding Breitbart, yes, I am also getting the impression that it is sliding towards the Left, but it is still pretty conservative overall. I happen to agree with Jpatt on this. The great thing about the present day is how many news outlets exist. If Breitbart ever becomes liberal, I can still go to Fox, the Washington Times, the Washington Examiner, or the Washington Free Beacon, among other sites. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2017 (EDT)
I don't rely on any single one source. I have individual journalists (whoever they work for) and news organizations rated on a scale of reliability. The trap a consumer of news falls into is, swallowing whatever garbage any organization puts out daily to meet a deadline and collect revenues from advertisers for that days' 24 hour cycle. Once you fall into this rut, you loose perspective of the larger picture.
One must learn to pick up on news stories were a reporter is focused on a large, ongoing story, and deem the credibility of it's reporting (for example, Daily Caller is the only source focused on the huge Awan investigation scandal right now, with Politico doing some peripheral reporting aimed at cover up for the Democrats, not informing at all). When a breaking story occurs, instinctively you'll learn which timely source to use.
Brietbart & InfoWars I seldom use for anything, except when they come up on a research project. You would never want to use Brietbart or InfoWars as a source on breaking news, even FOX is risky, because you know dang well you'll have CNN & the New York Times refuting it within hours, and the whole world calling you am idiot (as just happened recently on FOX's Seth Rich story). You need about 72 hours for those stories to ripen and develop. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:04, 7 June 2017 (EDT)
Muslim terrorism/rapists/rioting/etc. being avoided by not bringing in tons of Muslims into your country is Right-Wing 101. Breitbart isn't even getting that right.
And previously, their leading spokesman was a homosexual who recently advocated pederasty in certain cases.
Breibart has failed Civilization 101. And there is no indication they are moving in the right direction as far as righting the ship. Conservative (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2017 (EDT)
I realize that Breitbart was a big help in getting Trump elected. I am grateful that Steve Bannon created Breitbart. It is a pity that he didn't find a replacement as good as himself. Conservative (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2017 (EDT)
Louise Mensch, who re-started the Trump-Russia hacking scandal on election Eve, hoping to jumpstart Hillary's campaign after Comey reopened the email investigation, the first to leak about FISA warrants in Heatstreet on Nov. 7th and an authority on the alleged details of Trump-Russia, on obvious Deep State mouthpiece, claims Vladimir Putin murdered Andrew Brietbart. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:26, 7 June 2017 (EDT)

I thought about my commentary on Breitbart. While I will no longer use Breitbart as a primary source of information, I think they still have a lot of useful content. Conservative (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2017 (EDT)

A possible reason why Breitbart moved leftward on Muslim immigration

Advertising revenue is down 90 percent at Breitbart.[4]

Perhaps, the advertising is the real problem. Post Trump being elected the mainstream media hammered Bannon/Breitbart. Also, leftists are pushing advertisers not to advertise on right-wing news outlets. Maybe Breitbart is moving leftward into cuckservative territory on immigration to stay profitable. Conservative (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2017 (EDT)

I just researched Brietbart, and the Mercer family remain big owners, so I don't think there's a big shift in editorial policy. You should recognize, Bannon & Trump are going through what every White House goes through - reconciling campaign rhetoric with reality, what can practically be accomplished, while remaining true to their ideological objectives and voters. Tough task. It's exactly what Baby Bush and Obama had to do, too. Walk back tuff talk on terrorism while being fair to the vast majority of Muslims worldwide who have no connection (Obama went too far denying any connection to Islam).
Saudi Arabia is not the bogeyman. And we need to spend time explaining two currents within fundamentalist Salafi-Wahhabism, one, the Saudi state official religion, the other, a renegade version that seeks to overthrow the Saudi state.
If your looking for good source, I'd recommend Tyler Durden of zerohedgefund. I don't know if he cranks out daily filler, but on the big, important, often confusing stories, he is very fast to put out excellent researched analysis with good supporting links. Has a knowledgeable following, and a much tougher target for the MSM hatemongers to destroy. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:34, 7 June 2017 (EDT)

Comey's written testimony

Worth a read. JohnZ (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2017 (EDT)

Yah, he clearly says he informed Congress Trump was not the subject of investigation, yet Democrat members have have been lying to the media for months. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:07, 7 June 2017 (EDT)
Here it is: "I explained that we had briefed the leadership of Congress on exactly which individuals we were investigating and that we had told those Congressional leaders that we were not personally investigating President Trump. I reminded [Trump] I had previously told him that." PeterKa (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2017 (EDT)
The most damaging part of the memo for Trump is where Comey quotes him as saying, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” If only he was as clever at these things as Obama, Trump would have said something more along the lines of, "I don't think it posed a national security problem....I do think that the way it's been ginned-up is in part because of — in part — because of politics."[5] PeterKa (talk) 01:55, 8 June 2017 (EDT)
Damaging? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:21, 8 June 2017 (EDT)
The Jan. 6 memo Comey wrote on a secure laptop. It is not his personal property. In fact, the other memos per his testimony, were held as possible future evidence. Comey admitted to leaking them. Comey needs to be prosecuted, and not by Robert Mueller who is a personal friend. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:14, 8 June 2017 (EDT)
I love the smell of wishful thinking in the morning. JohnZ (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2017 (EDT)

Trump took a political battle axe to Comey when he fired him. This is especially true because Comey said Trump was not under investigation.

Trump is not going to be convicted/impeached over anything related to the election or the transition period. It is the liberals who are engaged in wishful thinking.Conservative (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2017 (EDT)

Hahaha. Ever heard the one about the guy who fell off a skyscraper? On his way down past each floor, he reassures himself, "So far, so good... so far, so good..." JohnZ (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2017 (EDT)
Wait a second, didn't your type of people (leftists and "moderates") continually reassure yourselves that Trump wouldn't win? "He's not a serious candidate...he'll drop out before Iowa....He won't even come close to winning the primaries....if we join together we'll defeat him....he won't win the convention vote....he'll never win the general election....he'll definitely lose because of the 11-year-old Access Hollywood video....the entire GOP will fall with him....he won the election, but he won't win the Electors....IT WAS RUSSIA'S FAULT!!!" Look where we've come, despite your past predictions. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2017 (EDT)
Aye. Sadly, we had faith in you lot. We kept telling ourselves that - when it came to the crunch - decent, God-fearing conservatives such as yourself could never vote for such an obviously amoral huckster. JohnZ (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2017 (EDT)
"such an obviously amoral huckster" --> you mean Hillary Clinton, the corrupt far-left anti-Christian politician who bullied women abused by her very amoral husband? We Christians voted for the candidate strongly opposed to abortion and who has strongly defended religious liberty. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2017 (EDT)
You're relatively new round here, so perhaps you won't RINO Trump with the vigour that others will once his presidency crumbles in ignominy. It'll make your head spin, and I'll enjoy telling you I told you so. JohnZ (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2017 (EDT)
Once again, you are very confident in yourself. Overconfident, I would say. The current UK election is an example of how we shouldn't jump to conclusions. You guys made a bunch of bad predictions regarding Trump during the 2016 election. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2017 (EDT)

Travel to U.S. increases

For April, travel to the U.S. was up 4 percent year-on-year. For 2017 as a whole, it's on track to be up 1.8 percent over 2016.[6] Worldwide, travel is expected to decline. France, normally the number one tourist destination, has been hit hard by Islamic terrorism. Who said a Muslim ban would hurt tourism? It's America's selling point! PeterKa (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2017 (EDT)

Where does Trump-Russia go?

Chris Matthews says Comey's testimony is the end of the line for the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory.[7] To me, it was always "not even wrong," as the mathematicians say. By this I mean, it's hard to think of a way the theory could be proven or disproven by investigation or evidence. Everyone has their opinion, and that's about as far this issue can ever go. The Dems plan to shift their focus to obstruction of justice. Somebody should have asked Comey if deleting 33,000 emails while under FBI investigation is obstruction of justice. The president has the constitutional authority to order the FBI to discontinue investigations, as Alan Dershowitz explains. The Flynn stuff is pretty small beer compared to Obama's repeated interference in the Hillary email investigation. PeterKa (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2017 (EDT)

What is Trump-Russia? haven't been following. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:49, 8 June 2017 (EDT)
Trump Russia, Kushner Russia, Flynn Russia, Manafort Russia. But we'll have no discussion on Hillary Russia, BJ Clinton Russia, John Podesta Russia nor Tony Podesta Russia. It's all about being more flexible after the elections. --Jpatt 00:46, 9 June 2017 (EDT)
That is precisely why Congressional investigations will end in a bipartisan compromise, with nobody being prosecuted. Meanwhile, the Obama-Hillary-Brennan-CIA allies --> the Islamic State, have turned directly on Iran, after Trump shut down the supply-line by isolating Qatar. So, Trump is in bed with the anti-Iran (hence Assad & Putin as well) Deep State; we've entered a new stage with Trump slowly getting in charge of IC. He needs to prosecute the former FBI Director. Geez, Obama prosecuted a CIA Director. If that's what it takes to drain the Deep State swamp, do it. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:55, 9 June 2017 (EDT)

Labour gains in British election

All the jihadi terrorism lately apparently isn't enough to scare the British away from Corbyn and the Labour Party. They are projected to gain 29 seats to 261.[8] UKIP has been wiped out. The Conservatives have 322 seats, plus eight for the Democratic Unionist Party. 326 is a majority. I guess we all need learn more about the new kingmakers. This article says that the DUP is, "staunchly pro-union and pro-Brexit, making them a shoe-in for a Tory coalition." PeterKa (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2017 (EDT)

Sinn Fein won four seats, but won't participate. So a majority is actually (650-4)/2 +1 = 324. PeterKa (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2017 (EDT)
The latest predictions are for the Conservative Party to be just short of a majority. The Democratic Unionist Party has 10 seats (a very good result), with Northern Ireland's results all in. This might actually help Brexit, as the DUP is strongly in favor of Brexit, and it is a very conservative, right-wing party. The hung parliament means that the Tories need the DUP, and the latter may be able to ensure that the former keeps its Brexit promises. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2017 (EDT)
Here is a live feed of the results: [9] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2017 (EDT)
Hello, I often come here to post about British politics when a big event happens, it's nice to be back. The Conservative Party may not get 310 seats. The speaker of The House of Commons is a Conservative MP but by law he must remain neutral and only vote in the event of tie in which case, again by law, must always to vote for the status quo so his seat is not included. If the UUP/DUP form an alliance it would alienate even moderate Irish Nationalists so I think that will not happen. I predict that May will resign, Boris Johnson or Amber Rudd will become and interim Prime Minister and there will be another election in October.--Tory1 (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2017 (EDT)
That would be bad for the Tories and for Brexit. I don't see the Tories agreeing to this (but, of course, I'm not British, so what can I say?). The UUP does not hold seats in the House of Commons any longer -- SF defeated them in Fermanagh & South Tyrone. Is the pressure so extreme on the DUP that they will not agree to a coalition? Not even support for a Conservative minority government? --1990'sguy (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2017 (EDT)
A minority government cannot work, they cannot pass laws and they cannot negotiate Brexit. Imagine if the Republicans lost the majority in Congress and then gained the power to veto any executive order that President Trump makes, at the same time removing the Presidents veto. That is the sort of power a minority PM would have.--Tory1 (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2017 (EDT)
Sorry , I misread you. The pressure would be on the Conservatives, not the Unionists.--Tory1 (talk) 00:17, 9 June 2017 (EDT)
Hopefully I'm not misunderstanding you: What I mean is the Tories form a minority government with the support of the DUP (they wouldn't actually join the goverment, but they would block votes of no confidence and help pass the Conservative agenda). Regarding the U.S., Congress needs a two-thirds vote to override the president's vetos or overturn his desisions. On an unrelated note, the UK election is not escaping U.S. politics: [10] --1990'sguy (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2017 (EDT)
May is a disaster for Britain. She is clearly in over her head. --Jpatt 00:42, 9 June 2017 (EDT)
Totally agree Jpatt. She made a huge miscalculation, she thought that pushing a hard Brexit would get her the votes of all the Brexiters, that is not how it works. Brexit in itself is neither a liberal or conservative thing, but there are conservative and liberal factions within it, conservatives preferring hard, liberals soft. More prefer the soft option.--Tory1 (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2017 (EDT)
It seems like the adult conversation is over and the Kids are waking up(see below). I will be off now, see you in October.--Tory1 (talk) 03:27, 9 June 2017 (EDT)
May seems to think the DUP can bail her out: "Theresa May in talks with DUP over forming coalition." The coalition math is 315 318 Conservative seats plus 10 DUP. Substract one for the speakership gives you 327. Sinn Féin has seven seats. So (650-8)/2 +1 = 322 seats are required for a majority. "Hard Brexit" suggests a hard international border between the republic and Northern Ireland, which the DUP opposes. PeterKa (talk) 05:41, 9 June 2017 (EDT)
@Tory1: What do think of Mark Steyn's analysis? He says all the terrorism had no effect on the voting: "Theresa May started this campaign as Mrs Thatcher and ended it as Kim Campbell." PeterKa (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2017 (EDT)
So this is a reaction to Crash of 2008 austerity measures? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:04, 9 June 2017 (EDT)
Peter, that is a decent analysis by Mr Steyn but she was never Thatcher, from my point of view she started of this election as Hilary Clinton and ended it as Hilary Clinton. RobS, no, the crash is well behind us now. A good way to show the effect of the crash is to look at house prices which are 15/20 % higher than they were before the crash. Conservative, the DUP are strong protestants and are very socially conservative although more fiscally liberal. Conservative protestants hold the balance of power in The UK, they are the kingmakers.--Tory1 (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2017 (EDT)
I taught Nineteen Eighty-Four to some of my classes recently, so I have the image in my mind of a London where bombs go off without warning as the locals go about their business and try not to notice. The 2016 exit polls showed that terrorism was the No. 1 concern of U.S. voters. Steyn argues that the British are way past that sort of thing and are "Getting Used to It." He illustrates the decline of civilization by comparing the outrage over Enniskillen in 1987 to today's ennui. Only tweets can spark outrage these days. PeterKa (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2017 (EDT)
I shudder to think of the dog's dinner you must've made of teaching Nineteen Eighty-Four. Any man who can read that Steyn article beyond "the remorseless Islamization of Britain" without being incapacitated by laughter should be instantly barred from teaching. JohnZ (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2017 (EDT)
So Britain is getting lie Baghdad, a terrorist attack is like bad weather or traffic congestion, just another inconvenience of modern life. Thank God for Susan Rice who recently told Americans we can look forward to the same thing after eight years of her and Obama. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:51, 9 June 2017 (EDT)
@JohnZ: 23,000 jihadists? People getting arrested for "Islamophobic" comments? You say that "the remorseless Islamization of Britain" is laughable? Seriously? And you're saying that anyone who doesn't agree with you should be banned from teaching? PeterKa apparently does not indoctrinate his students with far-left ideology like most other teachers and most certainly should not be banned from teaching. Whatever happened to tolerance on the part of the Left? They clammer for "diversity" but shun diversity of ideas. Groupthink is what it is. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2017 (EDT)
It's laughable because it's not happening. There's about 2.7 million Muslims in the UK. 23,000 "jihadists" is less than 1% of that population, and your linked article states only 3,000 of those are regarded as a threat (~0.1% of that population).
Now, I don't know about you, but if someone showed me the maths that said 99.9% of UK Muslims aren't regarded as a threat, then I'd feel pretty f______ relaxed about UK Muslims in general. JohnZ (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2017 (EDT)
The article states that only 3,000 are "under investigation or active monitoring", while 23,000 "jihadist extremists living in Britain as potential terrorist attackers" exist. 20,000 of them are not being surveilled. Many of these attackers are not refugees themselves -- they and their families have been living in their current nation for years. However, they have chosen not to integrate into the country (in this case the UK) and adopt its values and culture. They don't care whether their adopted country (which provides their welfare) is violently overthrown in the name of Islam. They have no support for their country (even though their country and people's taxpayer dollars support them). Why are these people even tolerated? Of course, it's not like all Muslims or Arabs are like this, but these 23,000 show that Britian's immigration policy is not working as it should. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2017 (EDT)
JohnZ, 23,000 is equal in strength to 2 fighting divisions, equal to about the number of US forces standing in South Korea, or half strength of Iran's standing forces in Lebanon. They (a) are NATO trained, the most advanced training on the planet (per Obama's presidential covert action Finding and Executive Order of 2012, (b) only lack NATO weapons which they have been trained on, (c) don't need NATO weapons to produce a high kill-ratio, (d) based on the kill-ratio from three UK attacks this year (5 perpetraters and 35 deaths, with 227 injured) taking the lower number of 3000, represents an immediate threat to the lives 21,000 potential victims of murder, with an additional 135,000 injured; (e) numerous other attacks, such as 9/11, have produced kill-ratio in excess of 1:200. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:06, 14 June 2017 (EDT)

@RobS: (a) & (b) are too silly to respond to. As for (c) - (e), sure, but the number of successful plots is - and I'd argue, always will be - vanishingly small. Our security services are competent and highly motivated, and the extremists - for the most part - are rank f______ amateurs playing at soldiers.

@1990'sguy: Get yourself a plane ticket. You need to see some "Muslim communities" in the flesh. My conversations today have all been about the England / Pakistan semi-final in the ICC Champions Trophy, rather than sharia or jihad or any of that other bollocks. JohnZ (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2017 (EDT)

Update on Russia investigation

I doubt Robert Mueller's team can be fair in investigating the Trump Administration considering that four of its people donated to HRC's 2016 campaign.[11] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2017 (EDT)

Why the UK election may be a good thing for Brexit

Many people have stated that the election results mean a "soft Brexit" may be in order. However, I think the election may help achieve a harder Brexit.

First, the Conservative Party, whose majority of governing elites opposed Brexit in the first place, will have to enter a coalition with the DUP, which strongly supported Brexit and opposes any special status for Northern Ireland where it would remain in the EU.

Second, it is likely that with a major victory, Theresa May would have been able to implement a soft Brexit. She was going to shake up her cabinet, but because of the election results, she was forced to keep it basically the same. Pro-Brexit politicians Davis and Johnson keep their positions. Besides, May originally opposed Brexit, and her closest allies strongly support the EU.

Third, with a major victory, May would have been able to circumvent the pro-Brexit minority in the House of Commons. Now, she has to satisfy them.

Fourth, Brexit Secretary David Davis is still assuring that he will push to end the free movement of peoples on the UK.[12] --1990'sguy (talk) 00:27, 13 June 2017 (EDT)

That is a hopeful spin on the disastrous U.K. election results, but -1 times -1 does equal +1. So you may be right, as multiple negatives can cause an unexpectedly positive result. Thanks for your insights.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2017 (EDT)
'90sguy, What's the low-down on Corbyn's Brexit stance? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 03:23, 13 June 2017 (EDT)
He's Eurosceptic at heart, as evidenced by his lukewarm support for Labour's official Remain campaign. He'd prefer much more state intervention in, and management of, the economy than current EU rules allow. I suspect he also views free movement of labour as mainly serving corporate interests by holding down wages.
His preferred Brexit is probably best described as exiting firmly stage left, rather than hard right. He'd likely leave the single market to regain full border control, but keep most of the Social Chapter legislation, etc. on the books.
@1990's guy: May will be ousted once the DUP deal is done and the Tories have had a chance to draw breath. I don't honestly see how she or her successor will be able to get any remotely controversial legislation through parliament because the electoral arithmetic is so delicately balanced. You're correct, though, in saying she wanted a bigger majority to avoid being beholden to the hardest Brexit fantasies of the 20-30 or so swivel-eyed loons on her backbenches. JohnZ (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2017 (EDT)
@RobS: JohnZ is basically correct, abeit from a left-wing perspective. The Labour Party endorsed the "Remain" campaign in the Brexit referendum. However, Corbyn does not look highly upon the EU and was accused of not enthusiastically campaigning for "Remain."
However, Corbyn's reasons for opposing the EU are very different from someone like Nigel Farage or many of us at CP. Being someone of the fringe-left,[13][14] he thinks the EU is too friendly to capitalism and the free market (even though the EU's many economic regulations and crony capitalism are ridiculous). Corbyn is not good news for conservative on the Brexit issue. I have not read much on Corbyn's exact views, but based on the views of many European left-wingers similar to Corbyn (such as Jean-Luc Mélenchon in France), they still strongly support mass immigration, an eventual one-world government (think Marx and Lenin), and they strongly oppose any type of nationalism or national sovereignty.
@JohnZ: although I have not read too much on Corbyn's views per se, I am very skeptical that he wants to re-establish border controls in Britain. Most (if not all) far-left socialists would support the EU (including no borders) if it abandoned its support for any type or distortion of a capitalist free market system. Do you have a source in support of your statement that "he'd likely leave the single market to regain full border control"? --1990'sguy (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2017 (EDT)
Some updates: the Brexit negotiating team has been shaken up, and it seems like a mixed bag. While an MP who has been described as an "arch Brexiteer" has been appointed as a junior Brexit minister,[15] another pro-Brexit junior minister was removed by May and replaced with someone who probably supported "Remain." It seems like May is trying to please both sides.
Also: the MP's of Sinn Fein (a far-left, pro-Irish unification, anti-Brexit party) have flown to London to take their seats.[16] This is unusual because they have refused to take up their seats in parliament for over a century out of protest. They achieved an impressive result in the election, and their votes matter because the parliament is split almost evenly between conservatives and leftists. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2017 (EDT)
No, I don't have any specific sources. It's an inference from his general Euroscepticism and various statements he's made on the campaign trail. Corbyn isn't anti-immigration on any cultural / security grounds, but he's acutely aware of anti-immigrant sentiment in many traditional Labour working-class heartlands (cf. the UKIP surge in 2015).
His analysis (I believe) is that unskilled / semi-skilled UK workers' wages have been held down by an abundance of cheap EU migrant labour, and will continue to be unless some degree of scarcity can be imposed via border controls. From both a narrow electoral and a wider ideological standpoint, I suspect he's fully prepared to risk the long-term economic consequences of life outside the single market if it means unskilled / semi-skilled UK workers get to enjoy a short-to-medium term boost in their hourly pay rate.
I freely concede I might be completely wrong about this, but it's my honest evaluation of what I've seen and heard from him. JohnZ (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2017 (EDT)

Right wing populism is fading in Europe despite recent terrorist attacks?

Terrorist attacks are up, but European right wing populism is fading in popularity since November of 2016?

Why is this happening? Is this happening?

Is it because Europe has not develop a sufficiently strong right-wing press and/or poor message management of right wing European policies?

Is it because the American and European press is hammering Donald Trump and a large section of the European public is drinking the Kool-Aid?

Is it because Europeans don't like many of the policies of right-wing political parties and the more they found out about the parties, the more they disliked them?

Is it because Europe is very liberal and dislike the fact that Trump ignores political correctness?

Is it because moderates dislike stronger measures being taken regarding Muslim immigration? Is it just a matter of more and more terror attacks occurring before moderates sober up?

Is it because Trump is demanding NATO partners stop being leeches and honor their pledges about funding NATO?

Is it culture clash? Trump's personality?

Is it because Trump has faced a lot of opposition and people had unrealistic expectations? Conservative (talk) 06:59, 14 June 2017 (EDT)

The site making that claim (FiveThirtyEight.com) sounds like a liberal website to me - so in other words, just more fake news from the liberal media. Northwest (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
Ever hear of the genetic fallacy? Is there data indicating the article is wrong? Conservative (talk) 09:26, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
Populism was, up to less than 12 months ago (basically prior to the Brexit vote) a distinctly American term and phenomenon. With the success of the Brexit vote coinciding with the rise of Trumpism, the global media assigned the term to pro-Brexiters, the French NF, the German AFD, and the general anti-immigration, anti-EU, anti-globalists sentiment throughout Europe. European MSM and anti-globalists have somewhat embraced the term without fully understanding its meaning. Under this definition, William Jennings Bryan (and George McGovern too, I suppose) are Nazis. So I wouldn't​ be to quick to read anything into it.
The AFD is unlikely to win the German Chancellorship, so with Le Pen's defeat, Theresa May's setback, the Ossoff-Handel special election in Georgia, German elections in October, and the supposedly pessimistic sentiment among Republicans about the 2018 Midterms, we'll see more and more stories about the defeat of populism and the resurgence of globalism (the commie Corbyn is the face of globalism in the UK, again). It's just 'programmed media,' as I call it. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 09:27, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
I am skeptical of right wing populism to a certain degree. Winston Churchill promised change via blood, sweat and tears.
Trump promises big positive changes via: no major cuts to some of the major social programs; big infrastructure spending; big defense spending and major cuts in taxes.
Granted Trump also promises: greater efficiency via a simplified tax code and cuts in regulation and better trade terms to stimulate American job creation.
But I am still skeptical of right wing populism. Often positive changes require sacrifice and short term pain. There has been decades of wrongheaded policy. America has a huge federal government debt. America's infrastructure is in disrepair and it is going to require sacrifices to fix it (when a person has a leaky roof, they don't rejoice that their "infrastructure spending" is going to stimulate their personal economic condition).
It seems to me that some consequences are going to have to be paid for decades of bad policy and right wing populism sugarcoats things. I think Ron Paul is more honest and America is going to face some very difficult economic consequences for its poor leadership in the past. Conservative (talk) 09:56, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
I think there are a few reasons for the low success of the right-wing populists right now. One, as Trump was elected, some thought the momentum was going in their favor and that they would win if they campaigned like Trump (Norbert Hofer of Austria did that and Le Pen to an extent). However, being a citizen of a European country, I now how hated Trump is by most Europeans, especially with no conservative or alternative media to fight back. Trump's victory may have made them more complacent, kind of like now Obama's victory made Democrats complacent and Republicans active.
Also, some of the right-wing populist parties are going through power struggles. The AfD is going through a battle over which direction the party should take, and that is hurting its standing in the polls. UKIP has similar battles now that Nigel Farage resigned as president (although he may run again for party president soon). The French National Front is going through a similar struggle as to which policies to take, now that Le Pen lost.
In the case of Le Pen, she ran a terrible campaign. She should have acted more polite in the debates rather than as rude as she was. She turned off about every voter that she attracted after the first election round according to the polls.
Right-wing populists need to unite together rather than squabble, they need to realize that Trump's victory in the U.S. and the Brexit referendum does not ensure success for them in Europe, and they need to learn how to appeal to voters in their own countries. Then they will see success. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:50, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
Right Wing Populism is term invented by my old friend Chip Berlet to explain Reagan Democrats in the 1980s. He and I (and many others) had many debates about this oxymoronic phrase, but he ultimately has been successful with it and the phrase is now taken as gospel in the liberal lexicon and among journalism graduates. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 09:58, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
How is right-wing populism oxymoronic? Populism is not bound by any one ideology, other than anti-elitism. What we are seeing in Europe seems to be a form of populism from a right-wing standpoint. Many of these parties support increased government spending, despite their conservative stances on other issues. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:10, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
Prior to Berlet's book (c.2000), 'Populism' was distinctly analogous to left-wing popular movements versus greedy capitalist right-wing elitism. Other books (What's the Matter With Kansas) appeared as well to explain why traditional Democrats were voting Republican (see Southern Strategy, too). Berlet began with concern over Lyndon LaRouche running as a Democrat in 1980 on a one-world-international-banker-conspiracy theory message using New Deal rhetoric ("economic royalists"). Berlet is an exremist who anybody that knows or has dealt with him can attest, labels anyone that disagrees with him on anything, as a fascist. The term that he authored has now become mainstream, even in Europe now over the past several months. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:33, 14 June 2017 (EDT)


I think there are going to be some big consequences to the Western civilization's recent decline. And lots of changes are going to be required to fix some things.

But for every bad decision and change that is needed, there are opportunities for hardworking individuals.

For example, NHS facing major crisis after Brexit leaves hospitals 40,000 nurses short.[17][18]. Easier language tests could be brought in for foreign nurses.[19]. Britain has made some mistakes in terms of its supply of nurses. At the same time, there is the potential for hardworking nurse recruiters to cash in on Britain's many mistakes when it came to its nursing policies.

Continued mass immigration of Muslims to Britain is going to cause unnecessary bloodshed in Britain. On the other hand, companies which deal with private security and self-defense could profit from the poor public policy decisions of British politicians.

The future has always belonged to hardworking problem fixers. Conservative (talk) 10:23, 14 June 2017 (EDT)

Protestant Christianity is seeing explosive growth in China and Christianity is growing in Asia. Evangelicalism is growing in Latin America and Africa.
The world is going to become a more competitive place (See: Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.). The rest of the world is going to compete at a higher level in relation to the Western World.
Unless the West reforms itself, the 21st century could be an Asian Century.Conservative (talk) 10:42, 14 June 2017 (EDT)

The meaning of "Resistance" vs Patriotism

Hollywood since WWII anti-Nazi propaganda has done much to distort and obscure many historical facts and currents about European politics. Let's begin with the myth of "French Resistance".

  • On the ground in France the "French Resistance" was the French Communist Party, and not Gaullists.
  • DeGaulle was an anti-communist, who set up a "patriotic resistance" movement outside France with a handful of Nazi "resisters". In numbers of resisters, the Gaullists were vastly outnumbered by the much better organized French Resistance Communist party.
  • But the vast majority of "French Patriots" stayed home and supported the French government, the Vichy regime.
  • After the war, of course (as in Germany and elsewhere) everybody was a member of "the Resistance", and "a patriot" couldn't be found.
  • "Resisters" during the war, of any stripe (Gaullists or communist) were deemed "extremist" by patriots (supporters of Nazi occupation) for the following reason: the Nazi's use of terrorism. This terrorism was the use of quota lists. If for example, one German was killed, 10 Frenchmen would be killed in reprisal (quotas varied, in Denmark it was 1-1, in Czechoslovakia it was 5000-1). To fill the quota, the Germans usually started with those closest to the suspects, family, neighbors, co-workers. So, if a "resistor" showed any anti-regime sentiment, a "patriot" had a duty to report to the Gestapo the extremist threat the resister posed to their family and neighborhood.
  • The Vichy "patriots", who made up about 97% of the French population "on the ground", were ostracized after the war, and continue to be so. So today, in France, Sweden, Germany, and elsewhere, "patriotism" is "far right wing," despite the fact that the "Resistance" - the Communist party (Comintern) has been thoroughly discredited. LePen is too associated with French patriotism, thus "far right".

This only scratches the surface of the underlying currents of European politics that Hollywood has obscured for 7 decades, but Europeans know and understand well. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:30, 14 June 2017 (EDT)

James Hodgkinson

This guys social media showed he followed every rotten left-wing personality and every fake generated outrage being spewed. Their poison rhetoric is affecting people and creating the conditions for more of the same. Add to the mix the Griffin beheading and NYC death of Trump play, I don't see the wickedness ending anytime soon. Liberals have declared the world is over now that Trump runs the show. --Jpatt 17:36, 14 June 2017 (EDT)