Talk:Main Page/Archive index/156

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. RobS^{Deep 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."[1] PeterKa (talk) 01:55, 8 June 2017 (EDT)

Damaging? RobS^{Deep 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. RobS^{Deep 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.[2] 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.[3] 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. RobS^{Deep 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. RobS^{Deep 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.[4] 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: [5] --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: [6] --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? RobS^{Deep 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. RobS^{Deep 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. RobS^{Deep 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)

@JohnZ: too bad to hear of your cricket loss. But regardless, what I'm saying is true regardless of how much attention you are paying to it. I have not been to the UK yet, but I have been to mainland Europe about 11 times, spending at least 3.5 weeks there each time. Nobody is going to deny the major demographic shifts going on there, and my older relatives have seen it firsthand. We need smarter immigration policies, a greater focus on preserving national identity and culture, and an end to the "multiculturalism" garbage -- "a house divided against itself cannot stand." When you have people in a country who do not even support the general ideals and values of a country, that country is divided. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:26, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

@JohnZ, you need to learn something about training and the warrior culture. Training is what it's all about, moreso than material and equipment. A simple illustrations from British history: at Dunkirk in 1940, Hitler allowed 250,000 British soldiers to escape who abandoned their equipment on the shore. Those 250,000 formed the core to duplicate their knowledge, experience, and training in rebuilding British forces for Normandy invasion in 1944. And the ISIS jihadis have received NATO training, principally from Qatar Special Forces, how to fire a Stinger missile, etc. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 15:05, 16 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.[7] --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.[8] --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? RobS^{Deep 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,[9][10] 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,[11] 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.[12] 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)

Another update: The DUP will reportedly push for a hard Brexit rather than a soft Brexit as many had expected. This looks good for the UK's national sovereignty and bad for globalism -- as it should be. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

So on balance, despite Labour's big gain from 20 to 30%, and Tory loss of a majority, it would be a mistake to conclude this election was anti-Brexit? RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 14:59, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

Oh yes, there were so many other issues that the public found more important. There was the Conservative Party failed manifesto, which called for older people (the Tory base) to pay more for their own care, there were the terrorist attacks, Labour's (basically) infinite spending promises, and there was the fact that Corbyn was able to make a good impression on the British people despite his past life and positions. Brexit became a side-issue. Also, even the Labour Party put support for leaving the EU in their manifesto. The Liberal Democrats, the only party explicitly opposed to Brexit, did not do well in the election. I think what we've been hearing about the British people "rejecting a hard Brexit" is just media spin that ignores the many other issues that the people were more interested in. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

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

• Post Trump being elected right wing populism has faded in Europe?

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. RobS^{Deep 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. RobS^{Deep 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. RobS^{Deep 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.[13][14]. Easier language tests could be brought in for foreign nurses.[15]. 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)

To answer your original question, I think Trump is an exceptionally bad advert for any kind of political movement. I'm grateful he appears to be the high-water mark so far, and would argue he represents an object lesson in being careful what you (politically) wish for.

I'd also note that your point about "easy answers" is one of the reasons most thoughtful souls shy away from populist movements in the first place. I've seen plenty of interesting definitions of populism around here, but I've always taken it to mean telling people what they want to hear, irrespective of truth or practicality. JohnZ (talk) 21:38, 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. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 10:30, 14 June 2017 (EDT)

I must admit, I'm a bit surprised that the French Resistance, especially if it were communist, would even adopt the Cross of Lorraines as their symbol knowing how notoriously anti-religion and especially anti-Christian communists were. I would have thought they would have used, I don't know, a star or a sickle, hammer & sickle, or some other Communist symbol to indicate who they were serving. Well, either way, wouldn't be the last time "resist" had leftist connotations especially in France. I heard that the University of Vincennes in 1969 had the student protests led by Michel Foucault in solidarity with a similar demonstration at Sorbonne University had also used "resist" in a similar manner against the police. Pokeria1 (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2017 (EDT)

I'm talking about in numbers. The French Communist party was much better organized in much bigger numbers. But you're missing the main point: 'resistors' in many European countries were nothing to be proud of, then and now, because of the reckless disregard they had for the lives of fellow citizens, family, co-workers, fellow students, and strangers. Hollywood has made a myth of them, beginning during WWII down to today, that never was true. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 21:01, 18 June 2017 (EDT)

Yeah, no kidding, and the fact that Jean-Paul Sartre was considered a hero because of this even though he rarely even worked with the French Resistance despite carrying card carrying membership and if anything aided the Nazis more to such an extent that he considered Nazi-occupied France more "liberating" than Free France (and then having the... gall to call Charles de Gaulle a Nazi/Fascist when HE spent a lot more time actually fighting the Nazis than Sartre did) certainly doesn't help. To be honest, I'm surprised he was neither executed nor otherwise humiliated for being a collaborator and instead treated as a French Resistance hero. Probably the only "resistor" who actually WAS worthy of respect among Europeans was Charles de Gaulle. Pokeria1 (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2017 (EDT)

Actually, you are making my point. Much is not known about Resistance, because of the myth making both during and after the war. During the war, a resister of any stripe would have to separate himself from family, friends, etc., and absolutely keep his mouth shut about discussing politics. These people actually we're very few in number, most probably did not survive the war. After the war, many many claimed to be resistors who were not. And there were not many real resistors alive to dispute their BS stories.

Barabas in the Bible, for example, was a resistor of the Roman occupation. As a member of the Resistance movement - the Zeolots - Barabas was a murderer. The Bible doesn't tell us who he murdered, but it likely was either a Roman soldier - which would spark reprisals against innocent civilians - or a Jewish collaborator with the Romans (a Publican likely) - which could spark a smaller reprisal action. Either way, Barabas was not considered a hero among the occupied civilian population. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 21:19, 18 June 2017 (EDT)

I know, I know. And I heard that even the American Minutemen may not have necessarily been popular either. And I know that at least one person besides de Gaulle lived long enough to see Sartre take credit, and he made it pretty clear he was not happy with the whole thing, even saying he risked his own life fighting the Nazis while Sartre was getting his plays approved by the Nazi censors. I don't remember his name, but I do remember finding that quote somewhere. Pokeria1 (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2017 (EDT)

The Czechs understand this issue better than anyone, after what happened at Lidowice. In this movie (which I highly recommend), the character Franta, leader of the Czech Resistance (a Commissar attached to the Red Army) opens the movie by snitching out a Jewish escapee from Theresienstadt for fear of the entire village being wiped out. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 21:42, 18 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)

Here are some articles about him: [16][17] The SPLC admitted that this guy was a supporter of their hate organization: [18] So much for Trump supporter violence. Of course, if this was a Trump supporter, the MSM would be all over this and how Trump is ruining the country. Now that it's (another) leftist doing these things, the media is silent on this. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:09, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

Trump needs to start using the bully pulpit. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 01:08, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

James archive of fake news and leftwing bomb throwers [19] --Jpatt 08:37, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

Megyn Kelly

Who could have thought that Kelly would have become an enemy of the Left and MSM? But indeed, now that she decided to interview a person especially hated by leftists, the MSM is acting as if the whole Trump fiasco never happened.[20] --1990'sguy (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

She was never accepted by the left despite being a feminist, despite Hillary showering on her glowing praise, despite leaving Fox, despite hating on Trump. She will always be the enemy of the left. Now she is disliked by both the left and right. Good.--Jpatt 08:42, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

Christianity and left-wing politics: Tim Farron

Tim Farron, the leader of the loony left-wing Liberal Democratic Party (which still strongly opposes any type of Brexit and supports loony ideas such as full recreational drug legalization), resigned today (my time; yesterday, British time) because being the leader of such a far-left party that strongly supports abortion and homosexual "marriage" conflicted with his Christian faith.[21][22] Additionally, the other LibDems could not tolerate his views (which are actually quite compromised and supportive of some left-wing, unbiblical views) and one member, resigned as shadow secretary because of that. This is a good example of the compatibility of biblical Christianity and left-wing politics -- Farron is not even a particularly conservative or fundamentalist Christian, and he is still basically forced to step down. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:19, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

I believe China's experiment with drug legalization was a failure, but perhaps it was due to the Brits wanting to actively sell opium to the Chinese? Frankly, I don't know my history well enough to answer this question.

What has been the result of Denmark's experiment with drug legalization?

The reason I ask is that prohibition was a failure and America's war on drugs appears to be an expensive failure.

Drug addiction is largely the result of spiritual emptiness. America's experiment in the pushing of atheistic evolutionism in public schools and lack of sufficient school choice (Belgium has greater school choice and does better on elementary/high school education) has been a failure. See also: Evolutionary indoctrination and Atheist indoctrination.

Perhaps a better educational system combined with a tough penal system against drugs is the best approach. Singapore is tough on drugs and has a good educational system. It appears to be doing better on the drug use front and educational front than America. It also has a high GNP per capita.

Singapore and Germany both do a lot of exporting. Could America learn something from Singapore and Germany? Is Trump's solution to closing America's trade deficit also a partial solution to America's drug problem. Idle hand's are the tool of the devil.Conservative (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

Justin Trudeau

Did Trudeau really said this? --Gentenaar (talk) 13:01, 21 June 2017 (EDT)

Justin Trudeau is an insult to common sense and rational discussion. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 13:51, 21 June 2017 (EDT)

Let's not forget that this is the same idiot who made a glowing eulogy at the death of Fidel Castro, calling the communist dictator a "remarkable leader".[23] --1990'sguy (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2017 (EDT)

If you watch the video on that page, Justin Trudeau actually said that "Evangelical Christianity is the worst part of Canadian society."

The secular left is going to face increasing pressure from religious people who have conservative views when it comes to social conservatism. They are going to lash out. Both Obama and Hillary hated evangelical Christians.

And even though Trump is not particularly religious, he is crafting his policies in order to attract evangelical Christians. Conservative (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2017 (EDT)

Thanks for the explanation, I know Trudeau is an idiot but sometimes he still surprises me.--Gentenaar (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2017 (EDT)

It's unfortunate that he was elected PM. I actually liked his predicessor, Stephen Harper. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2017 (EDT)

GOP carries Georgia special

It was the most expensive house race ever: "Republican Karen Handel defeats Democrat Jon Ossoff in Georgia's 6th Congressional District." The district is heavily Republican, but country club Rubio/Romney Republican rather than Trump Republican. These are the people the Dems will have to win over if they want Trump impeached -- and so far it doesn't look good. PeterKa (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2017 (EDT)

GOP also wins SC05 district. How many wins have Democrats racked up since Trump took office? 0+0+0+0+0+0+0= nothing.--Jpatt 22:54, 20 June 2017 (EDT)

In addition, the liberal media polling was proven wrong again. A poll shortly before the election said the Dem candidate was winning. [24]

So as usual, the fake news liberal media lied. No surprise there (just like they still haven't figured out why their credibility continues to slide further south with every lie of theirs that gets exposed). Northwest (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2017 (EDT)

They lost the VA House special election, too. $50 million for a House seat, wow. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 00:13, 21 June 2017 (EDT)

Hopefully this election win will encourage Republicans in Congress to pass Trump's agenda, instead of acting like Democrat-lites. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2017 (EDT)

Headline: Hollywood CA looses Georg. 06. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 01:36, 21 June 2017 (EDT)

Here's a good article about Hollywood's reaction to the election.[25] I wonder when they will realize how little influence these people have in Real America. Ossoff's campaign barred the Washington Free Beacon, a conservative media group, from attending campaign events, probably because they uncovered lies made by him and his campaign.[26] Another interesting story, CNN cut away from Handel's speech even though it showed Ossoff's entire speech.[27] --1990'sguy (talk) 02:15, 21 June 2017 (EDT)

The Dems think they lost because they were too polite: "Ossoff chose civility and it didn’t work. How do Democrats beat Trump?" If only the stabbing of Trump/Caesar was bloodier and he was hit below the belt a few times! What happened to, "When they go low, we go high?" Civility is supposed to be about creating a liveable society, not a tactic you throw away for a few extra votes. PeterKa (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2017 (EDT)

All Ossoff's money came from Hollywood, but this is how well the parties are doing this year: Democrats raised $4.7 million with $8.8 million on hand. The GOP has raised $61.9 million with $41.8 million on hand. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 13:49, 21 June 2017 (EDT)

Inefficient government, soaring government debt, failing welfare programs, Muslim terrorism and economic pressure from Asia, will continue to be issues that dog leftists and be a boon to right-wing/conservative populists.

Asia will be a tougher and tougher competitor as time goes one due to their rapid Christianization (see: Growth of Christianity in China and Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism and Asian Century). This will force inefficient, leftist governments and SJW converged companies to reform themselves or disappear.

Robotics will continue to chip away at the membership of pro-leftist unions.

Leftist morale, particularly American leftist morale, is sinking to ever lower depths and there are few reasons to believe that they will have excellent morale over the long term (see: Secular leftists and psychogenic illness). On the other hand, Christian, religious conservatives have historically shown themselves to be a very resilient group (See: Christian persecution and Future of Christianity).

The right-wing political beat down of leftism in the West will start to be in full swing when Muslim terrorism/militancy causes Marine Le Pen to become president in 5 to 10 years.Conservative (talk) 09:09, 21 June 2017 (EDT)

I doubt they'll go with a loser. They need fresh blood. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 13:52, 21 June 2017 (EDT)

The post 2020 years in American politics could be very exciting.[28]

In some ways, the die has already been cast. Sometime before 2035, the unsustainable economic system of the USA will coming crashing down. Soaring public debt will choke economic growth. And without economic growth, generous social programs will have to come to an end. Greece had to engage in austerity measures in terms of public policy. So will America. Conservative (talk)

We've had these doom and gloom scenarios before, than what happens? The people elect a George W. Bush or Barack Obama to give them free drugs or free medical coverage. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 14:09, 21 June 2017 (EDT)

Japan and America have gotten away with mammoth debts by kicking the can down the road. But they cannot go against basic economics forever. This is especially true given a more competitive world due to Protestant Christianity rapidly growing in Asia. And Protestant Christianity growing in Latin America and Africa and spurring their economies will be economically felt in a greater degree in coming years as well.

In the short term, American leftists are sweating. They are concerned that if the economy does well up until 2020 Americans will attribute that to Trump and he will be reelected. Except for Biden, the Democrats have no well-known national figure to run for President and their party is deeply divided between the far leftists/socialists and the liberal establishment types.Conservative (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2017 (EDT)

I know it's a well-worn term, but I really do think we are going through a period of realignment. Republicans have lost some economic and foreign policy conservatives to Hillary Clinton, who have not returned to the fold. Democrats lost many traditional redneck voters, blacks, and other minorities to Trump. Some of these changes may be permanent.

We're in the curious position where pacifist/atheists only argument is to bow down to Mecca 5 times daily or use the Pentagon to defeat them. I think if we stay the course, educate people government & the Pentagon cannot insure their safety or survival, only Jesus can, we'll be ok. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!}`

After all is said and done, when it comes to politics on a macro scale, Christianity and Islam will be the dominant forces. The percentage of their most zealous wings of their respect religions are growing. In politics, highly motivated voting blocs outperform more complacent voting blocs.

In addition, as far as intelligence trends, the religious population is seeing net gains in intelligence while the irreligious populations are seeing declines (see: Intelligence trends in religious countries and secular countries). In addition, leftists have been shying away from debate for years.

Meanwhile, irreligious/secular leftists and liberals are: wimpy; divided; demoralized; have higher incidences of mental illness; and have below replacement levels of births.

In politics, factors such as: number of voters, intelligent use of resources and courage matter. We are going to use a continued decline in the influence of the secular left on terms of world and local politics (see: Decline of the secular left). Conservative (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2017 (EDT)

So it's a competition between Christ and Islam. The Pentagon and NATO cannot win this war. What do we do when we hear of a 92 year old Belgian woman, a 15 year old Danish girl, or an Italian priest converting to Islam? Cause these stories are gaining in momentum. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 15:50, 21 June 2017 (EDT)

Ossoff-Handel contest

Democrats spent $30 million - enough to run 6 Congressional races - to loose. Now they are $3 million in the hole. Here is where Democrats really screw up. They think public pays no attention to these numbers. But how recklessly the DNC spends it own money- to achieve no result - is a pretty clear indicator how they are going to handle the public purse. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 02:18, 23 July 2017 (EDT)

Speaking of Trump-Russia...

the Roswell space aliens are back this week. They have a big Macy's parade and everything. It's become quite the tourist event. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 23:04, 21 June 2017 (EDT)

First Darwin was removed from British currency and now this!

First Charles Darwin was removed from British currency and now this!

Turkey, which is a member of NATO, removes all evolutionist material from its secondary school textbooks.[29]

In 2011, the House of Commons, Home Affairs Committee suggested that there are now about 300,000 Turkish Cypriots living in the UK.[30]

Will all evolutionist material be removed from London secondary school textbooks?

Richard Dawkins is quaking in his boots.[31]. Given his doctors' medical expertise, he really should follow the advice of his doctors and stay off Twitter (see: Richard Dawkins and medical science). Conservative (talk) 10:14, 23 June 2017 (EDT)

This calls for a little celebratory music![32][33][34] Conservative (talk)

Do you know how many countries (and which countries) do not accept evolution as "indisputable fact" in their school curriculum? --1990'sguy (talk) 10:31, 23 June 2017 (EDT)

The state and the media is becoming weaker and weaker due to various forces and countries are finding it harder to control the narrative. So I think your question is becoming less and and less relevant. The state/establishment is becoming more and more vulnerable to populist movements.

I just know that Islamic countries and the United States have a lot of creationists. In Africa, there are probably a lot of creationists. In Latin America, Brazil is known for having a lot of creationists. An evangelicalism is spreading quickly in Latin America. As far as Asia, Korea and now China has a lot of creationists. Evangelical Christianity is the dominant form of Christianity in China. In Europe, one of the most prosperous countries, Switzerland, has one of the highest rates of creationist belief.

Evangelical Christianity, pentecostalism and Islam are spreading creationism quickly in the world. In the 21st century creationism will get stronger and stronger. Should Jesus tarry, evolutionism will never make it to the 23rd century.

Evolutionists are very worried about the impact of internet creationism (See: Global creationism). Conservative (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2017 (EDT)

True, but I am asking on the governmental level. Do you know? If only creationists had more influence in the government here. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2017 (EDT)

I just know that Turkey/Saudi Arabia are very unfriendly to evolutionism and creationists in the United States target local/state government policy via school boards, etc. See: Fighting Over Darwin, State by State and New wave of anti-evolution bills hit states. Conservative (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2017 (EDT)

One other thing. Wikipedia is helping to prop evolutionism up. The English version of Wikipedia was heavily bleeding editors from 2008 to 2015. I won't go into specifics, but for various reasons, I believe Wikipedia will start bleeding editors again to a significant degree. By 2020/2021 or possibly earlier, I believe the English version of Wikipedia will once again experience a heavy bleeding of editors. Conservative (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2017 (EDT)

Wikipedia's pro-evolution bias (in which editors went out of their way to "show" evolution to be undistputed fact) was the main reason why I decided to join here. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:54, 23 June 2017 (EDT)

The ignorance on this subject on this site is truly phenomenal.User:Pruno.

UserL Pruno, Pierre-Paul Grassé, who served as Chair of evolutionary biology at Sorbonne University for thirty years and was ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences, stated: "Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve....No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." Grassé pointed out that bacteria which are the subject of study of many geneticists and molecular biologists are organisms which produce the most mutants. Grasse then points that bacteria are considered to have "stabilized". Grassé regards the "unceasing mutations" to be "merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect."

I hope this helps to clarify things for you. Conservative (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2017 (EDT)

Ray Comfort: "Professor PZ Myers, in speaking of his interview in “Evolution vs. God,” said, "What actually happened is that I briefly discussed the evidence for evolution — genetics and molecular biology of fish, transitional fossils, known phylogenies relating extant groups, and experimental work done on bacterial evolution in the lab, and Ray Comfort simply denied it all — the bacteria were still bacteria, the fish were still fish. I suspect the other scientists did likewise: we provided the evidence, Ray Comfort simply closed his eyes and denied it all." He provided evidence for adaptation, not for Darwinian evolution (as Richard Dawkins calls it). The reason he avoided giving an answer is because there is no evidence. Darwinian evolution rests on nothing but blind faith. Watch and see: http://www.evolutionvsgod.com/ "[35]

Pierre-Paul Grassé and Ray Comfort are spot on!Conservative (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2017 (EDT)

Should Jesus tarry, history and the social science of demography suggests this is the future of Britain and the teaching of evolutionism of Britain in terms of the three options: 1) A plurality of Abrahamic religionists pushing evolutionism out of public schools and Hindus going along with it to keep the peace 2) Reconquista 2.0 pushing Muslims out of Europe. At a later point, evangelical/fundamentalist Christians getting evolutionism eventually pushed out of public schools and the Hindus going along with it 3) Muslim Islamists banning evolutionism in UK schools and the forbidding of gay parades in the UK.

Secularism has already peaked in the UK and even The Guardian has alluded to this (See: UK and secularism).

Evolutionism is doomed in the UK and Europe as a whole (see: European desecularization in the 21st century). Conservative (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2017 (EDT)

Yale Daily News reported in an article entitled White Europeans: An endangered species? that "Without a major shift in the current fertility trends, industrialized Europe will see its native population decline by about three-fourths over the 21st century."

The British evolutionist Charles Darwin in his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life had a very different prediction for the future of the UK.

Empirically, is Darwin's vision of Britain coming to pass? Judging by the growth of mosques and immigrant evangelical churches in London, it appears as if Darwin was shortsighted!Conservative (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2017 (EDT)

!990sguy, Wikipedia's article on evolution will be deleted and and their evolutionism article will be rewritten. The head of the Wikimedia Foundation will eventually be a creationist.Conservative (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2017 (EDT)

Olé! JohnZ (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2017 (EDT)

It would be more safe to predict that the head of the Wikimedia Foundation will always be a women (with blonde hair most of the time), and that as long as Jimbo Wales is alive, competence will not be the basis of her selection. User:Conservative's comment is an insult to creationism. JDano (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2017 (EDT)

JDano, what is it about the word "eventually" that you do not understand? Conservative (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2017 (EDT)

JDano, there are a few other failings of your commentary.

First, Jimbo Wales is an atheist/liberal and he picked admins who were more sympathetic to his worldview. But atheists have a history of believing false things that they later had to acknowledge as being wrong. See: Atheism and the suppression of science and Atheism and science and List of atheist and agnostic pseudosciences

Second, one of the reasons why Wikipedia is increasingly providing poorer and poorer information is because institutions or sectors of institutions are increasingly failing. For example, scientific journals are increasing having problems with replication/fraud. Although the right-wing media is rising, the mainstream media has experienced more and more deterioration partly due to ideological reasons and partly due their profitability and having to cut back staff. And there is a worldwide trend of trusting the press less and less. Institutions/sectors of institutions/societies can fail for long periods of time, but like all failing things, eventually there is a tendency for those things to eventually disappear/be replaced or reform themselves. For example, Rome did not fall in a day. So it could be argued that should Jesus tarry, eventually Wikipedia's "reliable sources" could improve. For example, media outlets which the public no longer supports could disappear. Also, the history of science is littered with examples of the scientific establishment having stubborn, older scientists, but as they die off, their ideas die off (see: Paradigm shift). Since Wikipedia is dependent on what is fashionable among the consensus of experts, if the consensus of experts changes, then there will be increasing pressure for Wikipedia to change.

The example of Fox News gobbling up the market share of more liberal outlets and forcing them to acknowledge various matters, could certainly happen to Wikipedia. And Wikipedia is more vulnerable than say an organization like CNN. This is because it is dependent on retaining editors. If society shifts rightward, then it becomes increasingly difficult for Wikipedia to retain editors. In addition, the size of Wikipedia's article base is increasing faster than its funding base. So as time goes on, Wikipedia could become more and more reliant on the public's financial support. And if society moves to the right, then Wikipedia cuold face more and more pressure to move right. But perhaps I am wrong about this funding matter over the long term. Perhaps the cost of hosting could see big drops due to technological advances causing website hosting to become dramatically cheaper.

Lastly, the 21st century is a century of desecularization and a greater and greater percentage of these religious people will have conservative views due to more religious/conservative people having more children (see: Atheism and fertility rates). So as as the West is filled with more and more religious/conservative/fundamentalist people, there will be more and more pressure for Wikipedia's various articles to change. For example, Richard Dawkins is a new atheist and evolutionist. And we can already see pressure on Wikipedia's Richard Dawkins page via its talk page. As Dawkins' fans die off, the Richard Dawkins article could easily become more and more negative toward Dawkins as time goes on. Conservative (talk) 07:17, 25 June 2017 (EDT)

I will elaborate a bit more. We can see right leaning wiki material affecting Wikipedia or the internet as a whole.

For example, Wikipedia never had an article on Gay bowel syndrome until Conservapedia created pressure on Wikipedia to do so.

The article Why I put PZ Myers in a hot air balloon which is currently atop Google's third page of search results says: "Myers is.. best known for not believing in God, for refusing to condemn bestiality, and for a 2008 stunt in which he desecrated a Communion host along with some pages from the Qu’ran."[36] Why is Myers known for refusing to condemn bestiality? Perhaps, it is partly due to Conservapedia mentioning this matter about Myers. For example, I know the atheist Michael Nugent is highly critical of Myers and he is familiar with Conservapedia. Nugent has mentioned Myers commentary about bestiality and Conservapedia could have easily made Nugent aware of this matter. Conservative (talk) 08:10, 25 June 2017 (EDT)

Wikipedia's first entry on Gay Bowel Syndrome [37] 22 June 2009. Conservapedia's first entry on Gay Bowel Syndrome[38] 1 November 2009.--Tory1 (talk) 09:01, 25 June 2017 (EDT)

Tory1, you are mistaken, but it was an easy mistake to make. Actually, The Conservapedia gay bowel syndrome was launched in 2007 but the article was deleted and recreated at various points due to click bots trying to artificially make the article appear vastly more popular than the article actually is. Here is a copy and paste obtained from the deletion log: "(change visibility) (diff) 21:09, 3 October 2007 . . Conservative (Talk | contribs | block) (309 bytes) (New page: Gay Bowel Syndrome was named as an illness in 1976 by a group of New York City physicians in a private proctologic practice and it describes a number of male homosexual anorectal...)"

Further proof that Conservapedia was putting pressure on Wikipedia in terms of its content can be obtained from Wikipedia itself and I offer this copy and paste from Wikipedia: "23:19, 23 June 2009‎ Hans Adler (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,323 bytes) (+16)‎ . . (the lead shouldn't be a Conservapedia-style POV-fork of the article; in particular it should be verifiable and, ideally, true)"[39] Notice how Hans Adler says the Wikipedia article should ideally be true and that it is not a necessity for their article to be true!

Next, the Wikipedia gay bowel syndrome article is still a train wreck of an article. The whole purpose of a encyclopedia article is to inform and Wikipedia's article clearly fails on this point. A Wikipedia editor wrote: "This article seems to be about how the term is obsolete and those health care people are bad for using it. There is just one sentence about what it is! This needs to be expanded. User F203 (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)"[40] In addition, the various maladies that are the causes of gay bowel syndrome are still prevalent and that is why Medscape and the Johns Hopkins Hospital helped keep the term active. And as Conservapedia's gay bowel syndrome notes, the term was still used as late as 2016 by a physician test preparation coaching firm.

The User:Conservative account edits (namely the accuracy/relevancy and popularity of the content), press coverage of the account via quotes of its Conservapedia content (LA Times, Chicago Trubune, etc.) and subsequent actions of atheists/liberals/leftists show that the User: Conservative account is able to create factual/accurate content that is a bee under leftists/secularists bonnets. At least one (and possibly two) websites were launched on response to User: Conservative content. And one of the those websites was obsessing about Conservapedia for years. Conservative (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2017 (EDT)

With all the conservative content you've created, it's a shame you're not prepared to reveal your identity. I'm sure one of the major evangelical lobby groups would have snapped you up by now if they'd've had straightforward access to your bona fides. JohnZ (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2017 (EDT)

Canada high

Canada plans to legalize recreational marijuana on July 1, the first major economy to do so. But there isn't enough to go around: "Canada Ponders an Unusual Drug Problem: a Shortage of Marijuana." PeterKa (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2017 (EDT)

Liberal election buying attempts brought low leaving DNC with empty pockets and no GA 6th district seat

GA06
Runoff
election

┓┏┓┏┓┃
┛┗┛┗┛┃＼🤑／
┓┏┓┏┓┃ / $30,000,000
┛┗┛┗┛┃ノ)
┓┏┓┏┓┃
┛┗┛┗┛┃
┓┏┓┏┓┃
┛┗┛┗┛┃
┓DNC┏┓┃
┃┃┃┃┃┃
┻┻┻┻┻┻

This is what happens when Democrats loose elections. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 18:00, 24 June 2017 (EDT)

FBI, Dems gave us the Russia hotel smear

At the time, the media insisted that Never Trump Republicans paid for the infamous "dossier" that accused Trump of frolicking with hookers at a Russian hotel. Now The New York Post reports that it was a shadowy Democratic "opposition research" firm called Fusion GPS: "Sketchy firm behind Trump dossier is stalling investigators". "Fusion GPS was on the payroll of an unidentified Democratic ally of Clinton when it hired a long-retired British spy to dig up dirt on Trump." Andrew McCabe, now acting FBI director, was in on the scam as well: "Senate investigators have singled out McCabe as the FBI official who negotiated with Steele." This issue became a favorite of liberal comedians almost immediately. That wouldn't have happened if the source was in fact Republican. PeterKa (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2017 (EDT)

Not to debate a moot point, but as a historical curiosity, the entire Trump-Russia conspiracy theory is pretty well encapsulated on the Seth Abramson (Mega Thred) - google the term - its pretty much the popular version in circulation. The Twitter version has images and is pretty entertaining. Reads like a spy novel, but you have to scroll past a lot of useless user comments. Here's a pretty succinct text version. Interesting, while I was following this Louise Mensch was inspired to help clarify more loose ends. Those two, Mensch and Abramson, outside of James Comey, led the pack on interpreting the latest leak/scoop, but the two have since had a big falling out, leaving their readers divided into two camps. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 20:32, 25 June 2017 (EDT)

Trump and Muslim holiday: Correction

On Template:Mainpageright, there may be an error. I tried, but I could not find any sources confirming what it said. On the entry on President Trump not holding the Ramadan dinner, it states that "Trump had a scheduling conflict." I could not find a source confirming this. If anyone can show me a source, I would appreciate that, but if not, please remove the line. Thanks.

One unrelated request: would an admin take a look at Conservapedia:Community Portal? I made a request there that has not been answered yet. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2017 (EDT)

He attended a Cabinet member's wedding.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2017 (EDT)

Minor quibble with the headline: Ramadan is the holy month; Eid al-Fitr is the holiday to celebrate the end of fasting. The Daily Mail headline makes this mistake, too, but I don't imagine many DM or Conservapedia readers will care one way or the other.

Some of my Muslim neighbours had hired a bouncy castle for their kids as part of their Eid celebrations. A splendid time was being had by all as I wandered past this lunchtime. JohnZ (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2017 (EDT)

I fixed it.

In light of 9/11, Muslim terrorist attacks on the West and Muslims targeting native populations for rape like in Sweden, why should a US president celebrate this holiday? Islam is a repressive religion that leads people to hell.

G.W. Bush dropped the ball and let 9/11 happen despite insistent warnings by the intelligence community and a previous attack on the World Trade Center. Bush's "Islam is religion of peace" rhetoric rang hollow to anyone familiar with history. And Barack Hussein Obama's and G.W. Bush's Middle East policy were disasters. Their crazy tradition should be ignored and the much longer tradition of American presidents not celebrating the holiday is a finer tradition.

Christmas tops all the world's holidays. Christmas has: the songs/caroling, the wonderful manger scenes, the beautiful lighting, eggnog, etc. Militant atheists like to be scrooges at Christmas time and its is really not surprising that atheism has no holidays.Conservative (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2017 (EDT)

• G.W. Bush dropped the ball and let 9/11 happen despite insistent warnings by the intelligence community

That's a false liberal left narrative. Richard C. Clarke was demoted within the Bush White House because he had sabotaged Sec. Madelaine Albright, who arranged for bin Laden's arrest or execution in Sudan in 1998, was bitter about his demotion and loosing access to the President. He kept handing up memos to Condoleeza Rice saying Bin Laden Determined to Attack. The memos were handed back to him and he was told, 'Fine, thanks. Now tell us where and when'. This was the same guy who spared bin Laden in 1998 but by 2001 finally realized what a threat bin Laden really was. These are called CYA memos (Susan Rice was in on undermining Sec. Albright and sparing bin Laden, too). It's just another example of a liberal/commie narrative intended to attack a Republican president that became mainstream. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 11:26, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

Liberals still complain that Bush ignored the "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US" Presidential Daily Briefing of August 6, 2001. But it was just a restatement of well-known facts and didn't recommend doing anything in particular. National security was still being run by Clinton holdovers at the time of 9/11. But I don't get the sense Bush thought of this as a problem. The Defense Intelligence Agency had a project called Able Danger that unraveled much of the 9/11 plot, but the Gorlick Wall prevented this type of intelligence from being shared with law enforcement. PeterKa (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

The August 6 memo is a case study in fake news. Clarke didn't even write it. It was a CIA assessment lacking specifics as to where and when. Clarke took the assessment, placed it into a three ring binder, and handed it to Condoleeza Rice. Clarke had been demoted after the the two World Trade Center bombings, the USS Cole bombing, and the Embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya. Sudan had offered to Madelaine Albright to turn over bin Laden to improve relations (bin Laden could have been arrested or assassinated. The Saudi's definitely wanted to assassinate bin Laden, but Clarke and Susan Rice nixed the idea and protected bin Laden). Since when do low-level NSC staffers have the power to overrule a Secretary of State? only in the Clinton White House. Clarke was kept on by Bush cause he supposedly was the NSC "bin Laden expert." Handing up the memo had nothing to do whatsoever with national security - had everything to do with covering Richard's Clarke's hide cause he knew a big attack was coming after he let bin Laden slip away. Did the media report the facts? No. They lied that he authored the memo. They did not report Clarke's earlier abuse of office and power in overruling Albright. They did not report the circumstances of his demotion. Richard Clarke peddled the fake news story that he warned Bush only to serve Richard Clarke's bureaucratic career and reputation. Period. Bush likely never saw the memo cause it's what bureaucrsts call a cover-your-ass memo. The fake news media used it to bash Bush. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 15:03, 1 July 2017 (EDT)

@Cons: Thanks for the fix. Your analysis of Islam would be greatly improved by actually living alongside / working with some real life Muslims, though. Fear of the "other" nearly always fails the test of practical experience. JohnZ (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

When are you paying less then $100 million in ransom?

In January 2016, the Obama regime authorized a series of $99,999,999.99 payments from an obscure Treasury Department slush account called the "Judgement Fund" to an undisclosed recipient.[41] In total, $1.7 billion was paid for the release of four hostages held by Iran. Why did North Korea arrest Otto Warmbier? Wonder no more. This article overlooks the money motive. But it does a good job of debunking the claim that it was either frat boy antics or the fault of his alcoholic tour company. (If there is anyone who understands alcoholism, it's Koreans.) PeterKa (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2017 (EDT)

In the Warmbier case, what goes on unnoticed is, it was a hotel cleaning maid that ratted his theft out. What they failed to report is the maid had no choice, she herself would face what happen to Warmbier if she didn't. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 11:41, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

The North Korean version of events is that a surveillance tape caught him taking a poster down. It was in a hotel hallway, not his room. The tape is on Youtube. Warmbier's roommate doesn't think it happened -- and I found him convincing. Check out the link I gave above. Warmbier's "confession" that he did it to impress the Z-Society is ridiculous, reminiscent of a Stalinist show trial. If anyone thinks there might actually be something to it, here's a little history of NK prisoner confessions: "The strange ways North Korea makes detainees confess on camera." The North Koreans had more than two months to fabricate the video, which is not even time stamped. PeterKa (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

Here's a theory: As to what happened to him medically, it probably was the result of 'Nazi doctors' in North Korea, a technique they have developed over decades on people in the North Korean gulag. Trump likely got an agreement from Chinese President Xi at their Mar-e-Lago meeting a few months ago (something Obama never attempted) to intervene for his release "alive" on behalf of the family. North Korea complied with this request through the informal diplomatic back channel. The message from North Korea is clear: don't let any American fall into their hands (similiar to the message ISIS beheaders sent). Latest reports are that Navy Seal Team 6, the guys who got bin Laden, are training in South Korea. If North Korea gets ahold of one of them, you can expect a similar scenario. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 15:09, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

Bonifield headlines

Referring to him as the supervising editor of CNN is disingenuous. In fact, he's merely a supervising editor (one of many), and more specifically, a supervising editor for the CNN Medical Unit. JohnZ (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

John, I realized that the CNN employee in question is "a supervising producer" and not "the supervising supervisor". I was a bit sleepy after helping my friend last night and it taking longer than I expected. I copied a portion of the previous post and did not recognize the error. I fixed it in both instances. So no disingenuousness on my part.

Secondly, it is a rather moot point since the CNN employee admitted: the bogus nature of the emphasis on the Trump/Russia coverage and its witch hunt nature; that him and most of his fellow employees are cynical about the integrity of the CNN news organization and that the corruption flows from the top in terms of over emphasis on Trump/Russia. Furthermore, he has worked at CNN for a long time in a supervisory role so he is very familiar with its corporate culture. See: American Pravda: CNN Producer Says Russia Narrative is garbage.

I realize that being a secular leftists you may be sympathetic to fake narratives/news (such as fake news of the mainstream news media) and are quick to cry "disengenuous", but you really had no proof in terms of motives of these recent errors on the main page - especially in particular to my error. Conservative (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

By the way JohnZ, the video now has over 1,000,000 views and I updated the main page post in relating to the increased views thanks to your feedback. :) Conservative (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

Thanks for the fix, and apologies for impugning your motives. You'll agree it's striking, though, that at no point does O'Keefe acknowledge Bonifield's actual role at CNN, or the fact that, in that role, Bonifield has zero editorial influence over CNN's Trump / Russia coverage. Deliberate omission of relevant information is just as dishonest as outright lies. JohnZ (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

In the video, O'Keefe could have mentioned in the video and on his website that Bonifield is longstanding employee of CNN and that he is a supervising producer for the CNN Medical Unit. I will grant you that.

Zero influence? I don't agree. He could have exposed them earlier and done it purposefully instead of by accident. There must be some reason why he is "very cynical" of CNN's integrity. Is there not?

JohnZ, there must be some reason why you don't want to admit that CNN is the Fake News Network (FNN). What is it? Conservative (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

We need to be fair with Bonifield. He seemed to be rather flustered over the position CNN put him in, and now has his own neck on the block for giving us insight. But he is not one of the major conspirators. As a professional, he recognizes the damage CNN has done to the field of journalism. We need to see how he reacts to this unwanted publicity and see how it all plays out. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 22:46, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

On the back of CNN: firing Reza Aslan (who engaged in cannibalism before being fired for some idiotic statements about Republicans, including Trump); the Kathy Griffin firing after she held a mock bloody severed head of Trump; the firing of the 3 employees engaging in poor journalism related to a Trump team member's alleged nefarious ties to Russia, the John Bonifield testimony revealed by O'Keefe could't have come at a worse time.

The rabid hate of various CNN staff/management towards Trump and their willingness to engage in ethically poor behavior is causing them and the mainstream media to have even a worse reputation than they had before.

Across the globe the mainstream press is being less and less trusted. The 2017 Edelman Trust Barometer, published in January this year, reveals a “crisis in trust” around the world when it comes to the press.[42] JohnZ, there must be some reason for this loss of trust? What is it? Is it the numerous lies and misrepresentations? Conservative (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

JohnZ, I have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to have a dialogue with you. It is largely like talking to a brick wall. Therefore, I will stop trying to do this. Conservative (talk)

I reckon you'd get horribly bored without the occasional liberal voice to argue against. Credit where it's due: good work on the limited concession re. O'Keefe. I'm always amazed how many people refuse to concede a narrow (and obvious) point, and then proceed to tie themselves in knots by doubling down on the indefensible, when they could've simply conceded and moved on to stronger aspects of their argument.

As far as influence goes, I think it's clear that, in his specific role, Bonifield is extremely unlikely to have made any significant editorial contributions to CNN 's Trump / Russia coverage. After that, we're left with a heavily-edited presentation of one man's thoughts and opinions on how a particular cable news channel is covering a particular political story.

He's bang on the money when he says Trump / Russia is good for ratings. CNN, NYT, WaPo, etc. are all enjoying significant gains in their average viewers / readers. Indeed, I've read some industry accounts of the past few months which pretty much paint Trump as the saviour of US print journalism. (Jobs! #MAGA!)

At the same time, his comments about the lack of conclusive evidence to date are essentially a statement of the bleeding obvious. There is no smoking gun so far, nor would any sane person expect one to be readily found given the nature of the allegations. There is more than enough circumstantial evidence, however, to warrant multiple federal and congressional investigations, and they have only begun to interview the key players and subpoena the relevant documentation.

It's beyond question that Putin was batting for Trump in this election, and it's not unreasonable to suppose Trump was aware of this and - through proxies or otherwise - encouraged such assistance.

Time will tell. JohnZ (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

JohnZ, Jesus' apostles changed the world in a big way. They were followed by Christians who changed the world in a big/significant way. These people were very focused and disciplined. The positive impact they had on humanity was tremendous. The freest, least corrupt and most economically developed nations in the world all have Protestant cultural legacies and this can be empirically demonstrated (see: Protestant cultural legacies).

If Jesus' apostles were alive today, would they repeatedly spend time in extended political debates on a talk page of a wiki with someone who has repeatedly shown a very strong attachment to secular leftism? They most certainly would not. And neither am I.

JohnZ, it is nothing personal. I can assure you of that. Best wishes and I hope that someday that you become a Christian. Conservative (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

There is absolutely no news in the past several months. Manafort, Kushner, and Page have investigations. These investigations have absolutely nothing to do with election hacking. Trump is not involved in any of Manafort's problems. The Page connection is so peripheral and tenuous, no can even prove the two have ever met. Kushner, on the other hand, is on the NSC. Page and Kushners problems relate to real estate transactions and Russian money laundering to circumvent sanctions. Even if a specific property were identified that the title was transferred to or from some front company for Russian money laundering, it is doubtful that Page or Kushner were witting in any involvement. All of this has been known for months, and Kushner has not had his security clearance revoked. So it is doubtful anything will surface directly tying either of them to Russian money laundering (the Russians favor real estate transactions for money laundering cause the transaction amount are so large, and particularly Manhattan real estate cause it's the most expensive in the country. It really is just a coincidence that both Trump and Kushner are involved in the Manhattan real estate market. I think Trump had been pretty forthright in speaking on the sanctions, cause there are probably several deals he'd like to do with the Russians if the sanctions weren't in place. But Trump, for all his faults, is not a Clinton, who would say 'to hell with the law' and go ahead and do it anyway. He's not that brazen, stupid, or corrupt). RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 03:43, 29 June 2017 (EDT)

We should not demonize Bonifield

Bonifield is an inside whistleblower. He actually is one of the good guys. We should remove his name and focus on CNN, Zuckerman, et al. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 22:52, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

Bonifield is not a whistle blower. The video was an undercover video. Bonifield didn't know he was being videotaped. I wasn't trying to demonize him anyways. He is worth mentioning as a credible source given his longstanding position at CNN and his supervisorial position.Conservative (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

Yes, but it's easily misinterpreted. Bonifield fingers Zuckerman. Zuckerman should be the focus, and Bonifield's name only invoked as the accuser. If I remember, he cites the name of another exec, too. And the names of the three reporters too should be used. But we should treat Bonifield as a credible voice within CNN, not as willing participant. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 00:44, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

It's a minor point, but the president of CNN is Jeff Zucker. I think that is who you were referring to when you referred to Zuckerman.Conservative (talk)

I watched the tape. Bonifield thinks liberals are idiots. That's modern conservative doctrine in a nutshell. PeterKa (talk) 09:16, 29 June 2017 (EDT)