Last modified on September 9, 2017, at 04:06

Talk:Main Page

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JDano (Talk | contribs) at 04:06, September 9, 2017. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Return to "Main Page" page.

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

Gilberto Kassab

It is not much told in the news in America, but the new cabinet minister of science, technology, and innovation in Brazil is a evangelical priest creationist. He is called Gilberto Kassab. --Unsigned comment by User:Hereforonequestion

Interesting. I just read his Wikipedia article. He seems like a conservative by Brazilian standards. I have not seen anything about him being a conservative Christian, however (even though he could very well be that). --1990'sguy (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2017 (EDT)

Recently alleged to have received US$10 million in bribes. But allegedly he's been doing that for years. NeilWalker (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2017 (EDT) I don't know any English source sure of he is a creationist, but this says Temer (current president in Brazil) hinted he would choose a creationist and this in Portuguese suggests Kassab is this. I am not sure that he is, but most I know think it, so you likely do not post this yet, just watch him. Yes he has taken bribes.--Hereforonequestion (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2017 (EDT)

Supporting the enemy

Why does the mainstream press generally take North Korea's side, when its dictator pretends that America is planning to attack it? Is it because the press has such a poor command of English that they don't know the difference between terms like "opening fire" and "returning fire" (or "initiating hostilities vs. "launching a counterattack")? Are they really and truly committed to the concept of moral equivalence?

More to the point, what can we do about it? --Ed Poor Talk 06:27, 21 August 2017 (EDT)

Intelligent Design?

Since the orbits of the Earth and Moon are elliptical, not all eclipses are total. Some are annular, hence the moon is not always the same size as the sun when viewed from Earth. The MPR blurb about intelligent design should be removed. --GinnyS (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2017 (EDT) (oops) [1] [2]

That's the administrators' call to make - and if they say it's not getting removed, it's not getting removed. Also, please sign your posts when you post on a talk page. Northwest (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2017 (EDT)
GinnyS, are you saying that partial solar eclipses disprove ID (or YEC)? The moon still looks like the same size as the sun, from the perspective of us on earth. Even if the elliptical orbit of the Moon is a factor, it is a very minor one -- you really don't see any difference. What the MPR blurb is saying, the fact that we have eclipses at all (due to the Sun and Moon looking the same size) is too much of a coincidence for it to have "just happened." Why isn't the Moon look 1.25, 1.5, 2, 5, 10, 20, etc. times larger/smaller than the sun? I think you (as an evolutionist) should just be happy that Andy did not link to creationism of young Earth creationism. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2017 (EDT)
The moon does not always appear to be the same size as the sun during annular eclipses. This is a fact that cannot be denied, there can be absolutely no argument unless a person is denying reality. The alleged premise about eclipses as stated on the MPR is utterly and completely untrue. I even provided a link to a CP article, what more could you want? If ID proponents claim all eclipses are total and not annular, this is simply another reason why it is pseudo science. On the other hand, if the administrators want to keep this claim on the MPR, the eclipse article should be edited to reflect the learned opinions of the ID crowd. --GinnyS (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2017 (EDT)
First off, the Moon and Sun are essentially the same size from our perspective -- not even close to being even 1.5 times (probably not even 1.25 times) larger/smaller than each other from our perspective. Personally, I think the Flood of Noah, which was very catastrophic (I think Walt Brown's hydroplate theory does a good job accurately explaining the past: [3]) may have slightly changed the Earth's orbit and some other astronomical components (of course, not dramatically -- we're still alive!). Also, after sin came into the world, the perfect universe created by God ("and it was very good") started to decay (Romans 8:19-22). --1990'sguy (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2017 (EDT)
If the earth and moon are essentially the same size from our perspective, lunar eclipses would not be differentiated between annular and total. This discussion is going nowhere. I dare you to delete all references to annular eclipses from the Solar Eclipse article.--GinnyS (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2017 (EDT)
I acknowledge that annular eclipses exist -- and so do other creationists and ID proponents. What I'm saying is that even when the elliptical orbit of the Moon makes a difference, the difference is very small. We don't see 20X difference, not even 1.5X. It's still almost exact. The greater light rules the day and the lesser light rules the night (Genesis 1:16), and they look the same size to us. What I'm also saying is that maybe these things were slightly different when the Earth was created and things were not corrupted by sin. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2017 (EDT)
If the intelligent design sought to make the sun and moon appear as the same size, the path of totality would be a very thin line. However, because the moon appears to be bigger than the sun, the path of totality is 70 miles wide. Again,the width of the path of totality will vary with each eclipse, but it shows that the shadow of the moon is longer than the distance between the moon and the earth (cutting off the umbra.) By simple geometry, the disk of the moon in the sky is actually larger than the sun during the Aug 21 total eclipse, and less than the sun during an annular eclipse. JDano (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2017 (EDT)

If it's intelligently designed, why will looking at it completely destroy your eyes before you even realise? ScottAA (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2017 (EDT)

One fallacy committed by evolutionists/atheists when critiquing ID or YEC is that they assume we believe the universe was in the same state as it was since creation -- as Christians, those of us who believe YEC/ID know that the Earth has changed since the creation (sin came into the world, corruption started, global flood, etc.). I cannot definitively answer your question, but I think a reasonable answer is that the atmosphere was a little denser in the past, meaning that the sun's rays were not as strong. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2017 (EDT)
I don't recall any Bible passage that suggests that the Sun and the Moon appear to be the same size from the Earth's surface during an eclipse. JDano (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2017 (EDT)
Although I'm no atheist or evolutionist by any stretch, am closer to being a believer of Intelligent Design (though I'm iffy on young Earth creation, even if a bit more receptive to the idea) and I'm fully Christian, and I do believe in the global flood happening and being caused by God, I disagree with the idea that our eating from the apple caused several things to be radically altered. I'm pretty sure if it were that, the bible would have placed a LOT more emphasis on alterations than just Adam and Eve becoming aware that they're nude, like, I don't know, explicitly mentioning a lot of the animals all of a sudden becoming violent and then desiring to eat them, or in this particular case, the atmosphere losing density. Pokeria1 (talk) 08:07, 23 August 2017 (EDT)
@JDano: You're missing the point. What I'm getting at is that the fact that the Moon and Sun look the same size from our perspective is evidence in favor of our universe being intelligently designed. Quibbling about "sometimes the moon or the sun look just a little larger than the other" is silly. Let's not deny that they look the same size, with a very little amount of variation due to their elliptical orbits.
@Pokeria1: The Bible makes very clear how Adam and Eve's rebelling against God brought sin, death, and decay into the world. Genesis 3:14-19 gives some of the consequences, Romans 8:19-22 shows that the universe is subject to decay because of sin, and Romans 5:12-14 shows how death came to all people because of sin. 1 Corinthians 15:26 says that the last enemy is death, and I think we can clearly infer from the Bible that animal death started because of sin. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:52, 23 August 2017 (EDT)
When I think of the Bible "making very clear" about their rebelling causing it, I think of it more like the actual text saying "the second Adam and Eve bit into it, however, all the animals began acting strangely, snarling and slaughtering each other. Then, they started devouring each other before turning to Adam and Eve with murderous intent and a ravenous expression in their eyes. Adam and could barely recognize they were naked and ashamed before they had to hide from the murderous wildlife before them." THAT would have made it very clear that the animals turning on each other was indeed that, sort of like a horror story, or how Macbeth specifically detailed a lot of unnatural things that occurred the very second Macbeth murdered the king like horses eating each other and that stuff. So no, I'm sorry, but the Book of Genesis wasn't that clear. Pokeria1 (talk) 10:16, 23 August 2017 (EDT)
God originally made the Earth perfect with no sin or death -- he said it was "very good." It is because of Adam and Eve's sin, that we also now have, that the world and universe are in the not-so-good shape that it is in. Besides, if the Earth and universe are decaying, as Romans 8 tells us, it is gradual. When something decays, we only see the effects eventually, and they increase. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:35, 23 August 2017 (EDT)
Like I said, if God wanted to make it clear it was Adam and Eve's eating the apple that, say, carnivores came to be, that there was death and all of that, that the atmosphere grew less dense, He would have explicitly mentioned it in that specific passage in very graphic and disturbing detail, just like in Macbeth when it dealt with the immediate aftereffects of Macbeth murdering the king, or, heck, the opening to Tonic Trouble here. After all, He WAS the author of the Bible. Had I been in God's position, I specifically would have written the Book of Genesis, particularly the rebellion via Adam and Eve eating the fruit, EXACTLY in that manner specifically so as to ensure humanity would get, very bluntly, that they were responsible, almost pouring salt on the wound. And I wouldn't even BOTHER asking about where Adam and Eve were if I were in God's position either, or wondering why they were naked as well, I'd bluntly reveal it before they even asked in a demonstration of my omniscience as well, yet again, rubbing salt on the wound for them. I wouldn't go for the gradual approach, I'd go for the instantaneous approach. Besides, what makes you think the world would have had no sin or death even if Adam and Eve didn't eat from it? As far as I know, God, being all powerful and all knowing, would have made sure those were created simply because, as much as he likes creating good, he also enjoys destroying it as well simply because he could precisely because he's all powerful and all knowing. I know if I were in God's position, I would declare my creation good, but then decide to destroy it because I just find destroying even things I myself declared good creations fun especially if there's death and destruction, wouldn't even need Satan to rebel against me to do it. Pokeria1 (talk) 10:43, 23 August 2017 (EDT)
The Young Earth people can compute how much change in the moon's orbit would be needed to shift from a 70 mile wide path of totality to a pencil thin path of totality. If you assume that there was a constant gradual change since Adam and Eve, you can calculated the orbital shift per year. Without doing the math, I am sure that the change would be measurable, and has not continued during the 100s of years that man has recorded astronomical measurements. There is a tension between Young Earth viewpoints and this example of intelligent design. I would resolve this by rejected the claim that the eclipse is evidence of intelligent design. This is particularly true because there are many occultations that do not involve the Sun and the Moon, and there are not similar relationships with respect to shadow length. Thanks, JDano (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2017 (EDT)
@Pokeria1: God makes clear in his Word that sin and death came into the world because of what Adam and Eve did (see Romans 5, for example). Also, you may have written Genesis differently is you were God, but this is irrelevant because we are not God. God has His ways, and he chose to have Genesis written the way it is. Why that, over what you think it should/could have said? I don't know, but I obviously know what how it is already written.
@JDano: if you can fill me in with any young Earth scientific theories on this topic, I would appreciate it. The purpose of Intelligent Design is to show that there must be a creator behind the creation. Do you really think that it just happened that the Sun and Moon look the same size to us on Earth (and I don't really care about anyone's quibbling about how sometimes it looks just a teeny bit larger/smaller due to the elliptical orbit -- I accept that). Why isn't either the Moon or Sun look 2X, 5X, 20X, etc. larger than the other from our perspective? Coincidence? I think not. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2017 (EDT)

Jonah and the Solar Eclipse in Ancient Nineveh.[4]

“An archaeological find of cuneiform tablets was found in the 19th century describing events in Nineveh. A famous eclipse mentioned in the tablets was known as the Bur-Sagale eclipse, which is verified by NASA as occurring on June 15, 763 BC. The path of totality was right over Nineveh. God had declared the sun and the moon were for signs, and now the Ninevites saw the wrath of God coming even before Jonah arrived a couple months later. When Jonah arrived, they were ripe for repentance.”[5]

Solar eclipse 2017 is a warning![6]

The next solar eclipse to hit North America is 2024.

Can a Solar Eclipse Trigger an Earthquake?.[7]

Mega earthquake in Cascadia fault line is predicted to hit Washington, Oregon and Northern California and it is going to happen sooner than scientists previously believed and it was previously believed not to be even a future threat. [8][9][10] The next Cascadia earthquake is expected to be one of the the largest earthquakes on the planet and up to a 9 richter scale earthquake. There is a 33% chance of a mega Cascadia earthquake in the next 43 years.[11] Waves of biblical proportions would be created. Oregon and Washington have the highest rates of irreligion in the United States.[12] If only atheists understood geology better! MarkLM8 (talk)

For what it is worth, I increasingly have the view that interesting phenomena like eclipses and many other aspects of nature and mankind are for the interest, amusement, or humor of God, much as mankind creates games and contests for our human amusement. The sun and the moon appear to be nearly the same size to create a spectacular eclipse, and equanimity at other times. A 2x difference would be boring and poor artwork in comparison.
Racial diversity is impossible for an atheist to explain in a plausible way. It's not explained by the Book of Genesis either. But it is easily explained by realizing that God made his creation an interesting place for Him and for us.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2017 (EDT)
That is an interesting comment. I wonder if you could comment further on how atheistic theories fail to explain racial diversity, or on how you feel that diversity arose (again? or for the first time?) following the Flood. From context it sounds like your mechanism would be supernatural.--Brossa (talk) 10:16, 24 August 2017 (EDT)
Evolutionists originally thought that putting a blond person in Africa, or a black person in Sweden, would result in changes in skin color over many generations. It doesn't, and atheists have no plausible way of generating a blond from two black parents, or a black from two blond parents.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2017 (EDT)
The origin of the human races by Creation Ministries International. MarkLM8 (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2017 (EDT)
MarkLM8, that article is interesting, but it appears to contradict Aschlafly's point above. The article refers to reproductive isolation, genetic variation, and differential survival of offspring to explain the development of racial characteristics, but these are the mechanisms that an evolutionist would cite (they would perhaps add genetic drift), and they are purely naturalistic processes. Ashlafly says above that there is no naturalistic way to generate a blonde from black parents, or vice versa. Perhaps I misunderstand his claim, but he seems to say that racial characteristics can only arise via divine intervention.--Brossa (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2017 (EDT)
My main point is that there is no plausible atheistic explanation. It's a double standard to criticize faith-based explanations when atheistic alternatives are entirely implausible.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2017 (EDT)
I offered no criticism of a faith-based explanation. I'm not even sure that you've offered one yet. I pointed out to MarkLM8 that the CMI explanation was incompatible with your earlier statement, since the mechanisms cited by CMI are all naturalistic. --Brossa (talk) 10:26, 25 August 2017 (EDT)

Creationists believe in adaptation. Natural selection was advocated by the creationist Edward Blythe before it was advocated by Charles Darwin. Darwin engaged in plagiarism.[13][14]

Adaptation/variation is not evolution.

In 1988, the prominent Harvard University biologist/evolutionist Ernst Mayr wrote in his essay Does Microevolution Explain Macroevolution?: "Among all the claims made during the evolutionary synthesis, perhaps the one that found least acceptance was the assertion that all phenomena of macroevolution can be ‘reduced to,' that is, explained by, microevolutionary genetic processes. Not surprisingly, this claim was usually supported by geneticists but was widely rejected by the very biologists who dealt with macroevolution, the morphologists and paleontologists. Many of them insisted that there is more or less complete discontinuity between the processes at the two levels—that what happens at the species level is entirely different from what happens at the level of the higher categories. Now, 50 years later the controversy remains undecided. ...In this respect, indeed, macroevolution as a field of study is completely decoupled from microevolution."[15] MarkLM8 (talk) 01:59, 25 August 2017 (EDT)

Creationism/ID are going to win in the end.
Antulio J. Echevarria, Director of Research, Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College said about the "war of ideas": "Hence, physical events, whether intended or incidental, typically play determining roles in the ways wars of ideas unfold, and how (or whether) they are end." Britain/Germany/France have been the big historical players when it comes to evolutionism/atheism in the West. And all those countries are being overrun by Muslim/evangelical creationists (see also: European desecularization in the 21st century). Should Jesus tarry, evolutionism will be voted out of the schools in the Britain/Germany/France just like it was in Turkey.MarkLM8 (talk) 03:27, 25 August 2017 (EDT)

Robert Lee

ESPN assigned Lee (who is Asian-American) to a different game, so there is no impact on his income or status. Perhaps we should change the MPR bullet to say "reassigned". Thanks, JDano (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2017 (EDT)

But it's correct he was removed from a particular game, right? As to income or status, that was never the issue or anyone's concern here. It's still political correctness run amok, which even liberals would agree does happen, right?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2017 (EDT)

IRS problems continue

It has been reported that IRS commissioner John Koskinen re-hired 212 employees that were fired for things such as "tax evasion, theft, and abuse of taxpayer data."[16] Personally, I wish Trump would have fired Koskinen, even though I do know that his term ends this year. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2017 (EDT)

Border crossings and Hurricane Harvey

THe ACLU tried to get the DHS to close the border crossings in Texas due to Hurricane Harvey (even though the Hurricane was north of the border). If it had done so, anyone probably could have just crossed the border, and it would have been easier for illegals to cross over. The DHS refused the ACLU's demands.[17][18] --1990'sguy (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2017 (EDT)

Posted. Thanks for the tip.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:41, 27 August 2017 (EDT)
Just an illustration of just how stupid - and I really mean STUPID - liberals can get. Opening a national border so illegals can move into the path of a hurricane? That's just a massive amount of idiocy there. Karajou (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2017 (EDT)
Wow! I just couldn’t let this one slip by. Please look at a map and realize the hurricane made landfall at the gulf coast of Texas, not the Texas/Mexico border. Border Control check points are located at least 25 miles and up to 100 miles from the border. The ACLU wanted the Border Control to relax enforcement at the check points north of the border, not the border itself. There actually are limits to the stupidity of liberals, even the ones comprising the ACLU. --GinnyS (talk) 11:35, 27 August 2017 (EDT) [19] [20]
Border patrol texas.png
You are indeed correct, GinnyS. The pic is from Google Maps, showing the majority of checkpoints as being between 60-100 miles inland. The marked one is from the Corpus Christi checkpoint, which is where Hurricane Harvey's eyewall went ashore. The one actually at the border is in Brownsville. But there are a couple things you missed. First is the fact that the border itself is patrolled; they're not going to abandon the border at all just to inhabit office space 80 miles inland and expect illegals to announce themselves there. Second, crossing the border to go north still sends them into the hurricane's path, and the best way to avoid Harvey is to go the opposite direction. Third, demanding that the borders be open for anyone to just waltz in is not acceptable under any circumstances, and no one here is going to support the ACLU's insistence that we should just look the other way, hurricane or not. Karajou (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2017 (EDT)
I didn’t miss the fact about the southern border being patrolled; there are actually limits to my stupidity also. Is there any evidence the ACLU wanted the CBP to abandon or open the Texas/Mexico border? I don’t know of any, but based on your no-holds-barred assertions, I’m sure you could provide a quality reference. Conservapedia is the only organization making the claim the ACLU wants the CBP to open the Texas/Mexico border. Even the lunatic fringe whack-jobs aren’t making this claim. Before you insist the people or organizations you despise are stupid, you may want to get your own ducks in a row. --GinnyS (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2017 (EDT)
How is Conservapedia the only one making this claim? Is their no news link listed? Do the links provided here [21] consist of news, or are they just figments of the imagination of someone who needs his ducks in a row? Karajou (talk) 12:36, 27 August 2017 (EDT)
Groan… You are making a completely unreferenced assertion, namely; ‘Opening a national border so illegals can move into the path of a hurricane? That's just a massive amount of idiocy there.’ I have yet to find any reference for the ACLU wanting the Texas/Mexico border to be opened. CP is the only one. Your list of references did NOTHING to back up your claim. The ACLU wants the border check points opened, not the border itself. You’re saying liberals are idiots because of your ludicrous argument. Incredible, you’re so blinded by partisan outrage your reasoning is completely screwed up. I rest my case. Time to watch the Belgium Grand Prix. --GinnyS (talk) 13:11, 27 August 2017 (EDT)
The only one who is partisan is you; the only one who is blinded is you. Reasoning screwed up? What would an illegal do at an open border checkpoint some 100 miles from the border itself? You honestly think such an illegal would check in?
Since you're here just to argue with your arrogant liberal superiority complex, you now have your chance to watch the Belgium Grand Prix over and over again, without interruption. Conservapedia will be better off without you. Karajou (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2017 (EDT)

"No you" says Karajou one minute before he bans GinnyS. New user, not liberal at all, and I've only lurked for a little but, but this seemed like an angry overreaction. Does anyone else feel this way? Bucktheducks (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2017 (EDT)

Considering that the banned user in question later came back with a sockpuppet account, pretending to be someone else (my guess, anyway) and basically made an obscenity-filled death threat against Karajou and made other obscene posts on his and other admins' talk pages as a highly immature form of lashing out in retaliation for the ban (that sockpuppet also got banned quickly as a result), I'd say that the ban was very justified. Northwest (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2017 (EDT)

Jackson and the $20 bill

Mnuchin has announced that the next round of design changes to the $20 bill will focus on "security purposes," i.e. adding anti-counterfeiting features.[22] That suggests that the portrait of Andrew Jackson, a Trump favorite, gets to stay. Obama wanted to replace Jackson with Harriet Tubman. I would not rank Jackson highly as a president. His crusade against paper money wreaked the economy. That he appointed Roger Taney, author of the Dred Scott decision, is another strike against him. But Jackson was an outstanding soldier who defeated the British at the Battle of New Orleans. PeterKa (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2017 (EDT)

North Korean nuclear test

This latest blast is not likely to be an H-bomb or "ICBM ready," but it does appear to be North Korea's first unambiguously nuclear blast. At magnitude 6.3, it's more than 100 times more powerful than North Korea's 2006 test (magnitude 4.2). Scholars estimated the 2006 blast at 0.48 kilotons. If this is the same test site, or at least a site the same seismic characteristics, the yield was around 50 kilotons. Hiroshima was 16 kilotons. An H-bomb is at least 20 times more powerful than this blast. PeterKa (talk) 08:55, 3 September 2017 (EDT)

  • So what can we do about this problem? It's pointless to talk to the North Korean puppet state when we can deal directly with the Chinese puppet master. Tell the Chinese that this is their problem. If they don't accept responsibility, Chinese banks that do business with NK can be sanctioned as “primary money laundering concerns” under Section 311 of the Patriot Act.[23] In 2005, Bush successfully brought China to heel by sanctioning a little bank in Macau favored by Pyongyang.[24] That's just a taste of what might happen if the U.S Treasury applied the same tactic to a major bank. PeterKa (talk) 10:14, 3 September 2017 (EDT)
China will likely* do very little; they're content with the status quo. If the present Pyongyang regime falls, China will have millions of refugees pouring into their country, and the prospect of a unified Korean peninsula that will enable a US military presence on their border. The US can threaten a trade war with China, but China knows that's a war it would win. Unfortunately, decades of kicking the problem of North Korea into the long grass - while China increased its own economic clout - has led to the West unwittingly painting itself into a corner. (*Of course, I'm neither an expert nor a clairvoyant; China - and Russia - may yet surprise us. Again.) NeilWalker (talk) 11:46, 3 September 2017 (EDT)
The Iranians endured punishing UN sanctions for years in order to better serve Allah, or whatever. The Chinese are not like that. Everyone's in it for the money these days. Look at Xi Jinping. His foreign policy is take his graft earnings and stuff them in his overseas accounts, as the Panama Papers show. Nobody makes money in a trade war. Potential refugees and U.S. troops in the North will not be decisive factors. The other option is war, so have to hope banking sanctions work again. PeterKa (talk) 12:41, 3 September 2017 (EDT)
"The other option is war..." That's a false dichotomy; war is not an option, and hasn't been for many years. This is what China thinks about sanctions, and you can guarantee that whatever trade they're openly admitting to is just a fraction of what they're actually carrying out. NeilWalker (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2017 (EDT)
Did you tell the North Koreans that war isn't an option? They have sacrificed a great deal to obtain these weapons. They are going to do something with them once they have them. The threats against Guam and LA might be bluster, but Japan is a more realistic target: "NKorea missile fear sets pre-emptive strike debate in Japan." Trump used the intellectual property issue to force China to agree to UN sanctions last month. Banking sanctions would pack a bigger wallop than IP retaliatory tariffs.
This issue is usually portrayed as those crazy Norks pushing the limits and China going along for the ride, just worried about refugees. The Norks have a system that doesn't work or produce anything of value. No way could they build a nuke on their own. You remember the Sony hack? That was blamed on North Korea too. But it was done by a group based in Shenyang in northeastern China. China made a decision to ramp up "trade" with North Korea sometime around 2011. The timing shows the motivation: They knew Obama was not ready to sanction them the way Bush did. In short, the current crisis is something the Chinese have been planning for at least six years.
If the Chinese fomented this crisis, the obvious question is, what's in it for them? If you go by the domestic Chinese press, the big foreign policy issue these days is THAAD, an anti-missile system that the U.S. is installing in Korea.[25] Perhaps the idea was to blackmail the U.S. and South Korea concerning this system. Hey, it's a plan that might have worked if only Hillary had been elected. PeterKa (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2017 (EDT)
North Korean rockets consist of parts made in China with the North Koreans snapping the parts together, at most. See "North Korea’s rockets get an important boost from China." PeterKa (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2017 (EDT)
  • Nothing newsworthy is happening in Korea, at least according to the Chinese press. There was nothing about the crisis yesterday or the day before. Today, they finally broke the story this way: "China lodges representations to DPRK embassy over nuclear test." That rated third item on People's Daily and fifth on Xinhua. The nuclear test can't compete with the excitement of the BRICs business forum in Xiamen. Communist news has always been an oxymoron. With a party congress scheduled for October 18, censorship is tighter than ever these days. PeterKa (talk) 04:24, 5 September 2017 (EDT)

Undoing DACA

I thought Tucker Carlson did a good monologue on Friday about how the GOP might cave in and pass amnesty that it said it opposed for at least four years. If Trump were less timid and chose just to repeal DACA on day 1 with no delay in the repeal, he would not have encountered as much opposition as now. In fact, he should have done pretty much everything on day one -- no need to delay and let the opposition gain strength. But oh well, we can't change the past -- at least Trump already did as much as he did up to today. In general, however, it seems to me that many conservatives fall for trying to look like they "have a heart" and act so timid that they are unable to advance conservative policies.

I've already seen mixed reviews from conservatives on the Politico report that Trump will undo DACA, but with a six-month delay.[26][27][28] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2017 (EDT)

Liberals are going nuts: "Ending DACA would be Trump’s most evil act." The idea that Obama's powers as president were limited comes from the constitution, a document written by slaveholders. What could be more evil than reversing Obama's unconstitutional executive actions? PeterKa (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2017 (EDT)
This is why Trump should have done everything on day 1. Liberals are probably going to say that every one of Trump's major decisions is his "most evil act." Their argument, as stupid as it is, gets stronger the longer Trump hesitates. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2017 (EDT)
Perhaps the Washington Post meant to write "most evil act yet." I am waiting for the headline: "Trump: Not as evil this week as last week." When Trump talks about voter fraud, the media reaction is even more hysterical than when he talks about immigration. Historically, the Democrats were the party of the white working class. Now it's the party of illegal immigration and voter fraud. If we pass laws requiring that voters present ID and proof of citizenship, the party, at least in its current anti-American form, is finished. PeterKa (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2017 (EDT)
  • Something about DACA really brings out the stupid. Here is USA Today: "DACA could be ruinous Prop 187 moment with Latinos for Trump and GOP." According to this article, Hispanics who were fine with the wall and Trump's rhetoric up to now will turn against Republicans over DACA and hand permanent control of the federal government to the Dems. This Anne Coulter column annihilates the Prop. 187 myth: (1) Most Hispanics aren't single-issue immigration voters. (2) Those that are are already firmly in the Dem camp since no Republican can outbid the Dems on this issue. Despite his pro-amnesty views, McCain generated zero Hispanic buzz when he ran for president in 2008. So there is no basis to think pandering on this issue will result in any payoff for Republicans at the ballot box. As for Prop. 187 itself, Pete Wilson rode it to reelection victory in 1994. One third of Hispanic voters supported Prop. 187, a higher percentage of the Hispanic vote than Romney got. PeterKa (talk) 05:54, 6 September 2017 (EDT)
The Associated Press referred to DACA recipiants as "undocumented citizens. The Left's desire to remove any meaningful definition of citizenship and legal status has reached a new level. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2017 (EDT)
The latest is that Trump will "revisit" DACA in six months.[29] This is being widely interpreted to mean that he might not cancel the program. If so, it undermines the logic of the original announcement, which was to force Congress to act before the six month deadline elapsed. No Republican congressman will go out on limb as long as there is a chance that Trump will come along six months from now and saw that limb off. Perhaps the DACA announcement was just a way to distract the media while Trump capitulated on North Korea. PeterKa (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2017 (EDT)

Why liberals can't be trusted to fight terrorism

Because their children join terrorist groups: Tim Kaine's son is a member of Antifa. PeterKa (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2017 (EDT)

NYT Best Seller list loses credibility

Regnery Publishing is no longer allowing its writers to brag about being on the NYT Best Sellers list due to its bias in choosing which books to include on the list: [30][31][32] The NYT once was considered arguably the most authoritative publication in the U.S., and it's good that the media market is much more competitive in that respect. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2017 (EDT)

The problem is that authors like John Wesley Rawles can manipulate the list by organizing a one-week long concentrated bulk purchase of a book. See The New York Times Best Seller List. JDano (talk) 08:46, 6 September 2017 (EDT)
I think there are bigger problems with the list than Rawles. The real problem is more with who is excluded, rather than who manipulates data to be included. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:10, 6 September 2017 (EDT)
Regnery is switching to Publisher's Weekly: [33] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2017 (EDT)
Because of people like Rawles, they now mark entries that they catch with a dagger or exclude them from the list altogether. JDano (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2017 (EDT)

A worrying survey shows declining numbers of white Christians

I am concerned to see the results of this survey. I myself am of an older generation, and I can see the lack of young people in our churches. It's sad - I do hope we don't all disappear. JanW (talk) 12:37, 6 September 2017 (EDT)

I have been noticing the same. However, I think it is important to trust God. He has sent revivals before, and he may do so again. Even if he does not, his spirit is still working--they may be few, but he will not allow the good news to die out. It is still our responsibility to keep up the good work, but ultimately he is in control. --David B (TALK) 14:55, 6 September 2017 (EDT)
JanW, if you're a Christian, you can be confident. Just read Revelation, for example. We know that God will win (we can even put that in the past tense). Or, just go to a country like China, where Christianity is severely persecuted (I've been told by a Chinese Christian friend that it depends on the province) -- the number of Christians is dramatically growing, possibly at 100 million by now. The number of people who call themselves Christians is decreasing, and it is bad that the culture is going away from the faith, but I think it is also true that those that remain have a serious faith, rather than being just cultural Christians. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2017 (EDT)
Even some irreligious scholars are indicating that the USA will hit peak secular by 2043: United States, irreligion vs. religion and demographics. Hispanics and Hispanic evangelicals are rising and Hispanics are more resistant to secularization: Atheism and Latino Americans
In addition, the United States has 17 trillion dollars of debt. Countries are moving away from the USA dollar as a world reserve currency at an increasing rate and this will likely have a major negative effect on the USA's economy within a generation or sooner. [34] In the 2030s the USA could have a major economic depression worse than the 1930s economic depression.[35][36] Historically, evangelicalism has often thrived during times of economic/political uncertainty.[37] And America has gone through periods of religious revival. In the United States, there were a series of Christian revivals/awakenings between 1730 and the 1970s (see: First Great Awakening and Second Great Awakening and Third Great Awakening and Fourth Great Awakening and Jesus Movement).Conservative (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2017 (EDT)

Consider these 2 matters:

1. As far as the United States:

In June 2016, American Interest reported:

"First of all, religious belief is still very powerful and widespread, and there is nothing inevitable about its decline. In fact, the proportion of people who say they believe in God actually ticked modestly upward, from 86 percent to 89 percent, since Gallup last asked the question in 2014.[38]

In 2017, the atheist activist Lee Moore declared about American atheist organizations:

"If you look at the major atheist groups right now, like the national groups, the ones that are doing the real activist work... They are not bringing in the kind of donations they used to. Most of them are starved for cash. They're downsizing left and right. Because people aren't just giving like they used to. And I talked to a lot of the major donors out there and they said, "Well, we're kind of tired of seeing the atheist community just fight amongst itself and not really get anything done. We'd rather not give money if we don't think it's going to go somewhere."[39]

General Douglas MacArthur declared: "The history of war proves that nine out of ten times an army has been destroyed because its supply lines have been cut off...”

2. We live inn a world of globalization (global communications, immigration, global trade, easier travel, etc.).

So what happens elsewhere in the world is going to have an effect on the USA.

Here is what is happening in the world:

I hope that lets you have a big picture view of things. If you apply systems thinking, looking at major trends and multivariable analysis to the issue of what is the future of Christianity in the United States, it can give you a more realistic appraisal of things. Conservative (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2017 (EDT)

Anti-white supremacist resolutions

While the ideology they condemn is evil, the resolutions themselves, such as a bipartisan one introduced in the Senate, are not much better. Political correctness is still a strong force, and while the Antifa is almost never condemned, the definition of a "white supremacist" is in danger of being widened to include people who don't actually hold to that ideology -- essentially what liberals frequently do. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2017 (EDT)

The top Dems in the 2020 race

The Washington Post says it's Bernie Sanders vs Joe Biden for the 2020 Democratic nomination: "The top 15 possible 2020 Democratic nominees, ranked." Uh, Joe Biden? What happened to Elizabeth Warren? I guess America is just not ready for a fake Cherokee nominee. PeterKa (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2017 (EDT)

Biden has run for president several times already. Each time, he has been promoted by a circle of opinion makers based in Washington. But he has never generated any excitement among primary voters, much less won a primary. Judging from her recently released book, Hillary has a huge grudge against Sanders. If she backs Biden, he will presumably go further than he has in the past. Still, he's 74 and has no outstanding accomplishments to boast of. Instead, he is known mainly for making dumb comments. The one I found most amusing was about how "clean" Obama is. Do Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton smell bad? In any case, Obama must have realized the guy was an idiot and would pose no threat to him as vice president. According to Biden, he was the only member of the cabinet to oppose the Bin Laden raid. Panetta was the only one who supported it. That implies Hillary and the other cabinet members were useless seat warmers who simply occupied space. PeterKa (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2017 (EDT)
I find it hard to believe that Bernie Sanders has a decent chance in 2020. He's already 76 (today is actually his birthday, and he'll be 79 in 2020), and I would think that he would let the other "progressive" socialists run in his place. I personally think Kamala Harris would do well in the Dem primaries. I don't see Biden running either. He's a spent force. I would think that they would step aside for the newer politicians to run. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2017 (EDT)
So if Sanders is elected in 2020 and serves two terms, he'll be 87 at the end of it. When they were running against McCain in 2008, the Dems told us America was "no country for old men." He was 72 at that time. IMO, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker is their best shot at the title. But 2020 is likely to be another tough year for the Dems. So why not let the Sanders wing of the party have some fun? It's smarter to keep Booker in reserve for 2024, assuming the North Koreans don't blow us up by then. After the 2016 election, the Dems vowed to get a woman elected. That moment seems to have passed. PeterKa (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2017 (EDT)