Difference between revisions of "Talk:Main Page/Archive index/187"

Revision as of 10:44, February 15, 2020

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

Which inevitable loser of the 2020 presidential campaign will win the Democrat presidential primary?

See also 2020 presidential election

Bernie/Tulsi

Looking like a pretty powerful ticket as of right now; If Bernie kicks off, Tulsi would be President. Biden already said he expects to die in his first term and asked voters to anoint him to chose the next President. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 20:26, 31 January 2020 (EST)

Trump retweets "whistleblower's" name

Today's outrage-du-jour is that Trump retweeted the name of the person he claims is the "whistleblower", whose complaint triggered Nancy Pelosi's impeachment investigation. This resulted in headlines such as "A Gangster in the White House" (The Atlantic). I must say that I have a hard time seeing what ethical issue there could be in Trump releasing his name. We all know it, after all. Right after his complaint became public, the New York Times published an article that did not give his name, but did give you the information you needed to figure it out. The obvious question is, why is he still employed by the CIA when he is clearly unable to keep a secret? His defenders claim that we need keep his name out of the press because otherwise he might get death threats or be attacked. I don't deny that those things are real risks. But every controversial figure whose name appears in the national news runs the same risk. The reason whistleblowers' names are protected has nothing to do with death threats. The protections are intended to prevent retaliation by his boss and coworkers. In this case, I'm pretty sure his coworkers already know who he is. His name is being protected, not because the Dems worry about death threats, but to avoid discussing information damaging to their case. PeterKa (talk) 10:28, 29 December 2019 (EST)

The ethical issue is that one obeys the law. Even if you think that the law is superfluous in this case, and that this person's coworkers already know who he is, or that the death threats or other retaliation that the law is trying to protect against are unlikely to occur in this case, the law protects him. It is not for you to decide that the law doesn't need to be obeyed in this instance. SamHB (talk) 11:58, 29 December 2019 (EST)

This post came as a shock to me, and I would attribute that to my deep sense of irony. I doubt that there is any such statute or policy that conceals an anonymous whistleblower's name once the complaint they filed becomes the subject of a Congressional impeachment inquiry, especially when that complaintant is found to have professional links to the House member managing that inquiry! "Spy" might be a more accurate name for him than "whistleblower".

Further, Sam, it is a good thing you are not investigating the story, as the disorder of your words represents to me a further unfamiliarity with its essentials. Political opponents were already accused of issuing death threats towards him during the time in which his supporters were claiming that he was quite anonymous, and no one can explain how this possibly could have happened within the small circle who were known to be acquainted with his identity, and why it was not investigated!

I'll refrain from generalizing here, Sam, but you really ought to do better. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 14:42, 29 December 2019 (EST)

Two points. 1) The whistleblower law in question does not guarantee anonymity. It guarantees job security as far as the prevention of the employee being fired for retaliatory reasons. "Neither the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 (ICWPA) nor any related statutes have language guaranteeing anonymity for whistleblowers." - Washington Post.[2] 2) President Trump's call to the Ukraine leader was a perfect call.

I hope this clarifies matters.Conservative (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2019 (EST)

At most, the Whistleblower Protection Act covers the inspector general and the people who work for him. Even the IG is granted discretion if there is a "public interest." The rest of us have First Amendment rights and can give out the name of, I guess I'll call him Voldemort, all we like. There is certainly no rule that prevents the media from using his name. Yet news articles about, uh, Voldemort are written in a contorted style. Here is an example from NPR: "Trump Comes Under Fire After Sharing Name On Twitter Of Alleged Whistleblower." The "alleged" is supposed to make us think that the president is just guessing and spreading gossip. Who speaks for the intelligence community if not the president? PeterKa (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2019 (EST)

Ciaramella would be high on the Trump defense witness list. In January of 2016, Ciaramella prodded Ukrainian officials to reopen an investigation on a political rival, Paul Manafort, while Ciaramella worked in the Obama White House. Simultaneously, the Obama FBI re-opened its Manafort investigation which had been closed in 2014. FISA abuse. At the same meeting with Ukrainian officials, Ciaramella asked them to close the Hunter Biden investigation. 3 months later, Joe Biden threatened to withhold US aid unless the prosecutor was fired (source links available for assertions upon request). RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 12:36, 20 January 2020 (EST)

Your "sourcing" is pretty much a slam-dunk, isn't it Rob: Joe Biden himself said so, and he was televised saying it. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 13:02, 20 January 2020 (EST)

Right. Ciaramella didn't get action right away in January, so Biden made his threats in March. We have White House visitor logs of Ciaramella's meetings (Judicial Watch FOIA). John Solomon reports the substance of the meeting

The January 2016 gathering, confirmed by multiple participants and contemporaneous memos, brought some of Ukraine’s top corruption prosecutors and investigators face to face with members of former President Obama’s National Security Council (NSC), FBI, State Department and Department of Justice (DOJ)....Ukrainian participants said it didn’t take long — during the meetings and afterward — to realize the Americans’ objectives included two politically hot investigations: one that touched Vice President Joe Biden’s family and one that involved a lobbying firm linked closely to then-candidate Trump. [3]

The Horowitz report confirms the Obama administration reopened the Manafort investigation in January 2016 (FISA Abuse Report, p. 66 fn 185, pp. 291, 391-392, 398 and fn 521.) RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 13:46, 20 January 2020 (EST)

Democratic primary pattern

I think I've discovered the pattern over time in the chances the odds-makers assign to the likelihood of the various Democratic candidates winning the nomination: One rises to the top by virtue of the other candidates embarrassing themselves, it gets reported they are leading the pack, and then the reality of the prospect of a Warren/Sanders/Biden/Buttigieg presidency inspires thinking that presents a vivid picture of what it would actually be like—and embarrassed Democratic voters trail off from their support, and the cycle repeats. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 20:05, 30 December 2019 (EST)

Unlike the Republican winner take all system, the Dems use proportional representation. So it's possible that no candidate will come to the convention with a majority of the delegates. Then they would have to pair up. Obama has been pushing the idea of a female candidate lately. I assume that's code for Warren, although I suppose he could be talking about Michelle. The oddsmakers say that Biden, Sanders, and Warren are the top tier candidates. So we may see a Biden-Warren ticket, or perhaps a Warren-Sanders ticket. PeterKa (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2019 (EST)

Pelosi and the congressional Dems threw themselves under the proverbial bus by impeaching Trump. If it was to protect Biden, that seems unnecessary now that Sanders is emerging as a frontrunner. With Warren tanking, the nomination could narrow into a Biden-Sanders race. That won't work out well for Biden. Of course, Warren has tanked before and recovered. Sanders is the latest sequel in a franchise that started with Eugene McCarthy in 1968, continued with George McGovern in 1972, and with Howard Dean in 2004. He's the guy who steals the hearts of young white libs. Meanwhile, the rest of the country looks on and thinks, "What do they see in him, anyway?" They see themselves. Here is Howie Carr: "This is a guy who was thrown out of a hippie commune in Vermont in the early 1970s for being too lazy. In other words, he is one of them. Prattles endlessly on about the working class, but has never actually worked a day in his life — and he’s almost 80 years old."[4] PeterKa (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2020 (EST)

Sanders is a fundraising machine with $73 million in the bank. He now tops the polls in both Iowa and New Hampshire. In South Carolina, Biden still leads, but with the support of only 35 percent of potential Democrat primary voters. The Warren and Buttigieg campaigns are focused exclusively on the early states. If they don't break through in those, one or both candidates are likely to drop out. In short, Sanders could do a lot better in South Carolina than current polling suggests. See "Warren campaign scrambling for survival." PeterKa (talk) 07:27, 9 January 2020 (EST)

In addition to Sanders fundraising list, Sanders also has a ground organizations in all primary states (Justice Democrats, the machine which elected AOC, was born out of the 2016 Sanders campaign organization). The DNC as well as all other primary challengers, covet Sanders organization and fundraising list. He can't live forever. For this reason Sanders remains a big player and the competition is to become heir of the Sanders organization. Liz Warren shot herself in the foot by calling Sanders a sexist. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 12:46, 20 January 2020 (EST)

Buttigieg's Christmas

Mayor Pete Buttigieg's takeaway from the nativity story is that Jesus "came into this world not in riches but in poverty, not as a citizen but as a refugee."[5] Neither Jesus or Joseph have yet released their tax returns, but they are usually thought of builders or carpenters in the Jewish middle class. The Holy Family did flee to Egypt to escape Herod's persecution, but Buttigieg is using the word "refugee" to suggest that it's OK to disregard immigration law. In the time of Jesus, there was of course no law of this type to disregard. The traditional reading is that the story celebrates the Holy Family's scrupulous adherence to the law, both Roman and Jewish. "God sent his Son, born of a woman, subject to the law," according to Paul (Gal. 4:4). The reason the family was in Bethlehem was to enroll in a census, i.e. to follow Roman law. Candlemas celebrates the fact that Mary followed the 40-day confinement period prescribed in Jewish law. Jesus came to Earth to save humanity from sin. To Democrats, he was a refugee and represents a mass of undocumented voters who will save them from the Republican Party. In short, Buttigieg worships at the church of liberalism, not Christianity. PeterKa (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2019 (EST)

Buttigieg is quickly becoming known as America's foremost left-wing historical thinker. His unique perspectives are bringing awareness of our nation's moral progress to a new generation of leaders.

"The people who wrote the Constitution did not understand that slavery was a bad thing."

VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 01:00, 1 January 2020 (EST)

At the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, slavery was already banned in New England and in the Northwest Territory (now the Midwest). You think he'd know something about the history of his own state. Pennsylvania, where the convention was held, banned slavery back in 1780, the first state to do so. This graphic shows who banned it when. Jefferson certainly thought the trans-Atlantic slave trade was a "bad thing" and banned it in 1808. Sadly, the cotton gin later made slavery profitable and inspired pushback. PeterKa (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2020 (EST)

Peter Ka expressed [the opposition to Buttgieg's misrepresentations behind] my seething scorn at Buttigieg in verbal form. I would just add that Buttigieg's simplicity of explanations is beginning to reach Al-Gore-levels of pedanticism: "Buttigieg on Trump killing top Iranian terrorist Qasem Soleimani: “Taking out a bad guy is not necessarily a good idea." Soleimani was responsible for murdering hundreds of U.S. soldiers & wounding thousands more." @MaryMargOlohan (Daily Caller). VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 06:56, 4 January 2020 (EST)

On being a fake Indian

If you make a dubious claim to American Indian status in order to get a federal minority business contract, the Los Angeles Times will be on your case. This story is about nine groups that are recognized as Indian tribes by the state of Alabama, but not by the Feds. State recognition is not supposed to count for anything in federal law, but these groups were somehow able to leverage their Alabama status into $800 million in federal contracts. The report is clearly the product of a significant amount of solid investigation. Where was this investigative energy back when US Senator Elizabeth Warren was claiming to be a Cherokee? If the Cherokee Nation didn't release a statement exposing her as a fraud, the media would still be telling us that anyone who didn't accept her claims is a racist. PeterKa (talk) 05:54, 1 January 2020 (EST)

Soleimani is dead

Trump shows us how to deal with people who attack U.S. embassies: "US missile strike kills powerful leader of Iran's elite Quds Force military unit." Since "Supreme" Leader Ali Khamenei is a dottering fool, it is often assumed Soleimani has been the real boss of Iran for some time. In short, this drone strike is a game changer, a bigger deal than either the Bin Laden or the Baghdadi killings. We need a drone strike on this guy too: "Leader of U.S. Embassy siege in Iraq was guest of Obama at White House". PeterKa (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2020 (EST)

The crowds in Iraq may be cheering, but it turns out that American liberals are not happy campers when it comes to the Soleimani killing. The US designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the group Soleimani headed, a terrorist group back in April.[6] That Soleimani recently directed an attack on a U.S. embassy is plenty of justification to retaliate right there. If you were on board with Obama's kill list and with taking out Bin Laden, why would you think that this is going too far? Iran has been doing everything it can to destroy us for a long time. Now that Trump has pushed back, Biden, the liberal media, and Tucker Carlson warn us that the ayatollahs might get angry. PeterKa (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2020 (EST)

The Encyclopedia of War declares about the military/political strategy of decapitation:

The strategy of disrupting or defeating an enemy by eliminating its military and political leadership, “decapitating” the army or society, has long been practiced in conflicts and advocated by strategists as diverse as Sun Tzu and Machiavelli. The principal benefit of decapitation is that much can be gained, immediately, from a limited operation. Removing leaders can bring victory in battle, decisively turn a campaign, or cause an entire country to fall. There are weaknesses inherent in this strategy, however; its success seems dependent on the specific context in which it is employed.[7]

After Richard Dawkins was severely wounded after his Elevatorgate controversy, the atheist movement began withering and within 6 years it was quite dead (see: Decline of the atheist movement).Conservative (talk) 08:43, 3 January 2020 (EST)

The Iranians neglected to take into account that Donald Trump is an alpha male who goes by the principle WWJWD (What would John Wayne Do?). The Iranians kept instigating for 3 years. Sooner or later they should have expected that Trump would go beyond sanctions, but something short of all out war. And they knew that America has satellites, spies and cruise missiles. Trump taking out Soleimani, who was responsible for 100s of American's deaths, was a masterful display of machismo! Olé! Olé! Olé! If Trump hadn't taken this action which went beyond sanctions, the Iranians would have gotten more and more aggressive.Conservative (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2020 (EST)

A masterful display of machismo? Hitting someone with a drone from a mile high, real brave indeed. WWJKWD? He does that alright as both have/had a record of dodging the draft. What your president did was declare war on another nation. Olé! Olé! Olé!--Chewy Suarez (talk) 13:46, 3 January 2020 (EST)

If the Iranians didn't know that Donald Trump was an alpha male, could be hard nosed and that he was a risk taker, then they aren't very bright. He was a billionaire who made a lot of his money in the tough NYC real estate development game. They were playing with fire and got burnt. I don't feel sorry for the Iranian, terrorist thugs. Not in the least. And no serious people believe Donald Trump declared war on Iran. It is not in the interest of the USA to get into a full scale war with Iran. The USA is using tough sanctions instead in order to make it hard for the Iranians to financially support terror activities. And the USA took out a terrorist thug. And if the USA declared war against Iran, everyone would know it given the immense firepower of the USA. The Iranians killed hundreds of Americans. They shouldn't be surprised when there is blowback/consequences.Conservative (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2020 (EST)

In addition, given that Trump has enabled America to be more energy independent, the Iranians should have been more cautious given that it is easier now for the USA to impose consequences on Iran. Conservative (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2020 (EST)

Also, in the Middle East/Islamic world they respect strength and not weakness. To be a wimpy, Obama-like president or a Neville Chamberlain politician is definitely not the way to go and would just embolden the Iranians.Conservative (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2020 (EST)

Pompeo: Strike on Soleimani disrupted an 'imminent attack' and 'saved American lives'.[8]

Time will tell if Trump's gamble payed off. It seems as if Trump would have been taking a gamble either way perhaps.Conservative (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2020 (EST)

Soleimani should have been offed a long time ago: "Report: Obama Administration Stopped Israel From Assassinating Soleimani in 2015." He supplied various Iraqi militia with the IEDs they used to kill over 600 U.S. soldiers. PeterKa (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2020 (EST)

Trump is facing fanatical, Sunni terrorist with the Iran regime. Maybe User:Chewy Suarez thinks things can be resolved over tea and crumpets with these fanatics, but I have my doubts. Some regimes like the Soviets, Nazis and Muslim terrorists are expansionists so unfortunately violence is sometimes the only remedy.Conservative (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2020 (EST)

Shia. Fanatical Sunnis are cheering Soliemani's death almost as lustily as you and Pete. JohnZ (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2020 (EST)

On the other hand, the USA now had energy independence so maybe messing around in the Middle East is totally unnecessary. The Chinese are certainly not getting involved in military conflicts in the Middle East and they are probably better off not doing it. A lot of time and USA treasure has been wasted in the Middle East.Conservative (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2020 (EST)

The underlying issue is not oil. It is Iran's nuclear bomb project. If the regime feels free to attack U.S. embassies when it doesn't have a bomb, just think how what it could do if it had one. President Ahmadinejad used to talk about nuking Israel in order to bring about the end times. He's no longer president, but I suspect he's not the only Iranian leader who thinks that way.
The assassination was not, as I had assumed, retaliation for the attack on the U.S. embassy. Trump authorized it in response to a rocket attack that killed a U.S. contractor near Kirkuk on December 28. The U.S. military was just waiting for an opportunity to strike. According to this article, Soliemani has travel openly for several years now. “It’s been one of his talking points: The Americans can find me any time, they just don’t dare hit me.” I guess Iran is now on notice that it can no longer follow a strategy that depends on the U.S. president acting like a sap. PeterKa (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2020 (EST)

The classic 2004 hockey movie Miracle about the USA Olympic Hockey team that beat the Soviets has the line, "It's a tough draw, Herb. Tough draw." This unfortunately is where the USA sits in relation to the Iranians. Hopefully, there is regime change and a reformist administration takes its place.

The current leader/leaders unfortunately may be similar to the fanatical Adolf Hitler (or fanatical Japanese) and drag things out to the bitter end. So there may not be a lot of good options.Conservative (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2020 (EST)

Trump gives the Deep State what it wants. Again. As I've said before, we're supporting the wrong side, and fighting the wrong enemy.--Geopolitician (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2020 (EST)

Why did Soleimani think he could get away with an attack on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad? Because he got away with a similar attack in Benghazi in 2012. See this story about how Iran financed the Benghazi attack. Iran hired and trained 1,000 fighters to wreck havoc in Libya while Obama obstructed one Benghazi inquiry after another. As the article shows, Soleimani had no problem working with "Sunni fanatics." After all, ISIS was financed by Qatar, an Iranian ally.
Biden is out of the gate with an ad attacking Trump's decision to assassinate Soliemani. I gotta say, huh? Does this sound like a winning strategy: "If the Iranians attack an embassy while I'm president, I'll get tough and send them some pallets of cash." PeterKa (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2020 (EST)

It's easy to comment on complex current events without doing one's due diligence on the possible ramifications. International politics is similar to chess and you always have to think ahead many moves. Because the enemy nearly always has a vote and can fight back. That is why I like to hear a few sides on important very important world events. Below is something I just read on the killing of Soleimani.

"The United States has nearly two million Iranian residents living inside its borders. I tend to doubt most of them are more loyal to President Trump and the U.S. military than the Iranian people, which is why I am concerned that the next stage of the USA's Syracuse Expedition may have just begun.

It's particularly disappointing because the president had been doing such a good job of refusing to expand the needless imperial wars up until now. Perhaps the strike was legitimately justified, but given the last 18 years of costly, pointless, and mostly unsuccessful war, that also appears less than likely."

The more I think about it, the more I think that perhaps Trump shouldn't have killed Soleimani.

Setting aside the issue of the percentage of Iranian immigrants/residents who are loyal to the USA, it is too bad Trump inherited 2 million Iranian immigrants/residents. Given the history Islam and Islamic terrorism, it was crazy to have a ton of Iranian immigrants in the past. And there is no denying that the recent years of USA involvement in the Middle East hasn't yielded great results.Conservative (talk) 04:31, 4 January 2020 (EST)

The first wave of Iranians were real refugees who wanted Western values as their primary identity (once the revolutionary zealots in Iran didn't look like they would be overthrown) not cash cows for Open Borders Inc., a name with which Michelle Malkin covers refugee resettlers and willing state governors, among others, in her new book of the same title. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 07:39, 4 January 2020 (EST)

PeterKa, I refuse to believe that Soleimani had anything to do with Benghazi. Such a narrative makes no sense when one takes into account the fact that Iran and al-Qaeda were on opposing sides in Syria. Benghazi was the result of Obama and Hillary's gun-running scheme getting out of control, with some of the very militants that they armed turning against the US for one reason or another.--Geopolitician (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2020 (EST)

2020: Election that could be a huge blow to the American left and may cause a significant political realignment

The website Marketwatch reported concerning the aftermath of the 2016 presidential race: Donald Trump’s win is causing a surge in demand for mental health services.[1] See: Secular leftists and psychogenic illness

"American Thinker had a piece a couple days ago that it is Donald J. Trump's election to lose in November at this point.

The hysteria of the past three years is almost indescribable. The meltdown by liberals, leftists, progressives, and cultural Marxists has been been both irritating and entertaining. Their inability to deal with reality has been sobering to watch. I have had a few friendships that ended since 2016 due to my inability to think progressive in our now bifurcated society.

A thought did come to me. In the likely event that DJT is reelected, will this shock some left of center to reality? People by nature back the strong horse. This is how Islam and later socialism and communism have spread....

You have the end of eight years of the Obama centrally-directed economy with growth close to zero. At some point, jobs and hopefully general prosperity will sink into most except the most muddle headed millennial skull. As the dissonance between indoctrination vs. reality becomes more apparent, will we see a cultural shift?

Holding steadfast to beliefs, acting on them, punctuated with intermittent acts of boldness rolling back Obama's legacy and cultural Marxism in general over eight years should cause a fair portion to jump ship and move back into the ranks of Western Civilization. All it takes is courage."[9]Conservative (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2020 (EST)

Check this out: "My 2020 existential dread." This article is of course a liberal author musing on the possibility that Trump will be reelected. The author keeps us in suspense for a few paragraphs as to what his existential dread might be. I find it amusing that he considers and rejects "climate change" as his dread. Planetary heat death? Meh. A Supreme Court that allows state legislatures to enact abortion law, that's an existential crisis. PeterKa (talk) 08:12, 3 January 2020 (EST)

Abortion is somewhat like the slavery issue in the latter part of the 1800s as far as being an incendiary issue, but it is far less incendiary because right-wing activists have been like a python that has been consistently restricting abortionists options. The sexual revolution and its revolutionaries may progressively lose more and more power because the liberal/leftists have less children than the religious (namely sub-replacement levels of births) and this will ultimately cost them at the ballot box in the future.

The Birkbeck College, University of London professor Eric Kaufmann wrote in his 2010 book Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth? concerning America:

"High evangelical fertility rates more than compensated for losses to liberal Protestant sects during the twentieth century. In recent decades, white secularism has surged, but Latino and Asian religious immigration has taken up the slack, keeping secularism at bay. Across denominations, the fertility advantage of religious fundamentalists of all colours is significant and growing. After 2020, their demographic weight will begin to tip the balance in the culture wars towards the conservative side, ramping up pressure on hot-button issues such as abortion. By the end of the century, three quarters of America may be pro-life. Their activism will leap over the borders of the 'Redeemer Nation' to evangelize the world. Already, the rise of the World Congress of Families has launched a global religious right, its arms stretching across the bloody lines of the War on Terror to embrace the entire Abrahamic family."[10]Conservative (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2020 (EST)

The Democrats respond to the Soleimani killing

Judging from their responses to the killing of Soleimani, the left no longer cares if they are seen as allies of the jihadists. Warren started off by calling Soleimani a "murderer." Faced with an angry Twitter mob, she backed down the next day. Sanders called the US attack a "dangerous escalation" and didn't condemn Soleimani or the Iranian regime in any way.[11] Next they'll go full Obama and tell us that the embassy attack was in no way Iran's fault, but should instead be blamed on an obscure Youtube video. The Dems have already lost the next presidential election as a result of the impeachment fiasco. They might as well nominate Sanders and let it all hang out. Someone needs to pay Biden's son enough money to get the old man to drop out. The only person who would miss Electable Joe is Hillary, who sees him as a way to get revenge on Sanders. PeterKa (talk) 10:06, 4 January 2020 (EST)

The Dems think they have hit paydirt with this 2011 video of Trump claiming that Obama would start a war with Iran to help him get reelected. If there is anything liberals hate more than being outflanked on the left, it's someone being even more cynical than they are. It took Obama nine months to decide to kill Bin Laden and he changed his mind three times. After the attack, the White House made sure that we all knew what a "gutsy call" it was. What made that call so gutsy? Obama never saw a terrorist he didn't want to pardon. What prompted him to greenlight the operation was the fear that Wikileaks might reveal it. Then Republicans would accuse him of letting Bin Laden escape. In other words, Obama sacrificed his principles, such as the are, for reelection politics. PeterKa (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2020 (EST)

Are the Dems paid stooges of the ayatollahs?

This article makes the case that Obama and friends have been paid off by the Iranians. The article quotes this tweet: "H.J. Ansari Zarif’s senior advisor: ‘If Europeans stop trading with Iran and don’t put pressure on US then we will reveal which western politicians and how much money they had received during nuclear negotiations to make #IranDeal happen.’ That would be interesting."
The sanctions policy that the U.S. followed up until 2015 had unanimous approval in Washington and among the allies. It was backed with Saudi money, which at that time was believed to have a stranglehold on Washington. So why did Obama want to change it? As an Obamaologist, I would say that his number one motive was to stick to the Republicans in Congress. But the fact that Obama hit the jackpot shortly after leaving office does raise suspicions: "The Obamas' Book Deals Spark $65 Million Mystery." As this article explains, the domestic rights for the Obamas' books are not worth anything like the money he got. But the deal represents a small percentage of the the famous $1.6 billion planeload of cash that Obama sent to Iran. PeterKa (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2020 (EST)

Michael Moore doesn't need any money. In a publicity stunt in response to being asked about the radical Iran regime, Moore made a point of showing he's perfectly willing to sell out his country to Iran for free. Whichever liberal is "first-born" to eagerly renounce their commander-in-chief while that commander is defending their country in that role, and while the dust is yet settling on the military response, is sure to get their double portion of liberal applause, esteem and protestations of political subservience, especially by the liberal news axis. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 01:47, 7 January 2020 (EST)

And wasn't that a 70s Kas Corporation hit record?

Our love is like a plane on the o-ceuh-uhn—

We've been flying with a cargo filled with, love and devotion!

You don't know whether to laugh or cry.

VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 02:04, 7 January 2020 (EST)

If the media was interested in investigating the origin and financing of Ilhan Omar and "the Squad," I suspect they would find that the answer is "Qatar."[12] PeterKa (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2020 (EST)

It sure as hell wasn't Regnery Publishing. Pardon my French. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 02:16, 7 January 2020 (EST)

I don't think the mainstream media wants to be liberal

Obviously, they are. What I think is that they love to make money and they'd sacrifice just about anything to that end. CNN, MSNBC et al. have figured out that Fox News pretty much has the market cornered when it comes to actually telling the truth, so they have to lean liberal and fight amongst each other for the sake of ratings. I'm actually a little impressed at how committed people like Anderson Cooper and Stephen Colbert are at portraying their personas- by all accounts they're intelligent people, doesn't it hurt them inside to twist the truth so radically for a living?--LawfulLibertarian (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2020 (EST)

Anderson Cooper is an elitist and a cosmopolitan. What does that tell you? VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 04:04, 7 January 2020 (EST)

Journalists often go on to work for lobbyist groups. So partisan writing makes a better resume builder. CNN was Trump's biggest fan during the primaries, but later made a decision to be the Trump bashing network. So there is marketing at work too. I've read articles in which journalists complain that the readers drive the partisanship. If the NYT runs a headline about Trump that doesn't bash him, leftist readers are quick to complain.
The media became more intensely partisan at the time of Katrina in 2005. With previous hurricanes, you never thought of them as fodder for partisan politics. I guess journalists prefer writing leftist lies and insulting Republicans since the media has remained on a war footing ever since. PeterKa (talk) 09:37, 7 January 2020 (EST)

They thought Trump would be easiest to beat. Coulter stated repeatedly in plain language she believed immigration would get Trump elected, but the liberals with bad consciences couldn't bear to read Coulter directly, but always got her opinions second-hand through funny quotes that they were at least able to deflect while keeping them at distance by their comparisons being "not analogous enough". So no funny quote, no message received.

I'm glad you pointed out noticing a difference in kind (as opposed to degree) before and after Katrina. If you are too near-sighted about observing the media, you can miss these differences in kind and receive it just as a difference in degree, like I did. [As a ray of hope,] Someone compared CNN TV's ratings (which dropped another 1/4th after the "no collusion debacle") with shadow-banned conservative Twitter and noted that many conservatives get better "ratings" than CNN. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 18:08, 7 January 2020 (EST)

I suspect the media's outrage over Katrina was engineered to benefit Hillary, who at that point assumed she would be the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee. CNN is run by Jeff Zucker, who was producer for The Apprentice. Somewhere along the line, he learned the formula "more Trump, higher ratings." He couldn't be bothered to cover Cruz, not even after Cruz won the Iowa caucus. Network coverage of presidential campaigns was once driven by the FCC's "Fairness doctrine" (1949-1987). Even after the FCC rescinded this doctrine, most broadcasters assumed that public opinion would demand that they follow it. Until Zucker, no one dared to treat presidential candidates like they were Malaysian airliners. PeterKa (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2020 (EST)

I believe Zucker said something to the effect of "Donald Trump is terrible for America, but great for CNN" after the election, thus exposing his bias and greed in one stroke.--LawfulLibertarian (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2020 (EST)

Soleimani funeral crowds

Why did so many Iranians march for Soleimani? They are hungry: "Ignored by Liberal Mainstream Media: Iranian Regime Bribed Funeral Attendees with Free Meals." PeterKa (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2020 (EST)

Iranian revolutionary guard: "Come to the funeral and get warm food!"; Lazy Iranian: "What are the specials?"; Iranian revolutionary guard: "You will have an especially good chance of not getting shot! [Lazy Iranian gets on the bus]. Come to the funeral and get warm food!"; Second Iranian "Just provide us with fuel so we can warm our own food! We're tired and cold and need new coats—it's January!"; Iranian revolutionary guard: "And if you don't start using the mainstream Farsi revolutionary calendar like we told you to, we'll take both of those away from you too! [pushes second Iranian onto bus]. Come to the funeral and get warm food!"; Older Iranian: "I was at Khomeini's funeral—very bland—no way does this underling rate any better—I'm taking my jar." Iranian revolutionary guard: Ha-ha-ha [breaks spice jar]! In this time of depressed mourning for this terror-martyr, variety is the spice of life, and if you don't vary your pace and get on this bus, you'll be too bland for us to rescue you with enough spice to keep you alive at all! [Older Iranian is escorted onto bus.] Come to the funeral and get warm food!..." VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 04:46, 7 January 2020 (EST)

Jerusalem Post on Trump's big win

It seems that Iran's "harsh revenge" for the Soleimani killing was limited to firing some ballistic missiles at two Iraqi bases. Not only that, but Iran gave the Iraqis several hours advance notice so that everyone could be evacuated. This suggests that the moderates are now in charge in Tehran and that Trump's gamble has paid off, according to the Jerusalem Post. For Israelis, Iran watching is a life-or-death issue. The article portrays the Iranian leadership as divided between the hard line generals of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and moderates led by President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Zarif. Trump's decision to tighten sanctions in May was traumatic for Tehran. The ayatollah responded by giving Soleimani full control of policy, at least for a few months. This may be the first international crisis that was resolved in public negotiations on Twitter, with Zarif offering to "conclude" Iran's retaliation in this tweet and Trump responding 13 minutes later. That Zarif had the authority to make such an offer supports the theory that the influence of the IRGC is waning. PeterKa (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2020 (EST)

Soleimani is the protege of Jafari, who was IRGC commander from 2007 until last year. Jafari was considered a "hardliner's hardliner."[13] He gained control of Iranian policymaking in 2009 when he successfully demanded that the "Green Movement" be crushed. The ayatollah dismissed Jafari in April 2019, apparently in response to the intensification of U.S. sanctions at that time. Perhaps he thought that Salami, the new IRCG commander, would be more open to compromise. But instead we saw Iranian policy take a hardline turn. Jafari's supporters rallied to Soleimani, theoretically a subordinate commander, and he emerged as the country's most influential leader. Oddly enough, Jafari is not retired, but still kicking around as head of the Hazrat-e Baqiatollah Social and Cultural Base. PeterKa (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2020 (EST)

New York to automatically register illegals to vote

We need this on MPR: "New York Democrats Move to Register Illegal Aliens, Non-Citizens to Vote." The Dems are now all-in when it comes to promoting voter fraud. How can any Republican support abolishing the Electoral College? PeterKa (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2020 (EST)

I share your outrage, Peter. To me this looks very unconstitutional. Article IV, Section 4 states:

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

And I think those Republicans who support abolishing the electoral college these days are trying to change the subject from the pressing issue of the day, namely building the wall. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 03:00, 11 January 2020 (EST)

Another debunking of climate alarmism

Ever since Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (1962), left-wing politics has been based on the claim that human activity will cause the world to end in ten to twenty years. A quick review of a few past predictions is enough to show that this way of thinking is ridiculous. Here is a debunking that's short and sweet -- and I hope gets on MPR: "The telling tale of Glacier National Park’s ‘gone by 2020’ signs." The prediction that the glaciers will melt by 2020 can now be checked, much to the embarrassment of the staff at Glacier National Park. PeterKa (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2020 (EST)

The coming GOP civil war

Perhaps one of the unintended consequences of President Trump's strike against Qasem Soleimani was that the strike set the stage for a civil war among the lower ranks of the GOP.

Because he's still in his first term, Trump will almost certainly engage in some kind of damage control to prevent the strike from causing people like Mike Lee, Matt Gaetz, Rand Paul, and their supporters from becoming NeverTrumpers. He'll probably try to do the same before the 2022 mid-terms as well. But after that, all bets are off.

The Soleimani strike has exposed fault lines within the GOP which will be on full display in 2024. These fault lines are not just ideological. They are also generational and perhaps even religious in nature. This could not have been made more clear by Matt Gaetz's tweet defending his vote for the Democrats' War Powers resolution, where he basically called George W. Bush a war criminal for invading Iraq. While such statements would absolutely infuriate older Republican voters, especially those who are evangelicals; they would earn applause from younger Republican voters, especially those who were too young to vote during the Bush era. Statements by Mike Lee and Rand Paul where they essentially called the CIA a liar would likely be received in a similar way along those fault lines.

What do you make of this? Discuss below.--Geopolitician (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2020 (EST)

It should also be noted that Lee and Paul are both Generation X-ers, and Gaetz is a Millennial. As for the main figures on the other side of this issue, McConnell is a Silent; Trump, Pence, Haspel, and Graham are Baby Boomers; and Pompeo, Esper, and McCarthy are Generation X-ers. This also demonstrates a generational divide, with Silents and Baby Boomers supporting the strike, Millennials opposing it, and Generation X-ers being divided.

It should be further noted that in 2003, the US government was dominated by Silents and Baby Boomers, while in 2020 it is dominated by Generation X-ers. This is worthy of discussion because it could determine the outcome of the upcoming GOP civil war.--Geopolitician (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2020 (EST)

The premise of these dubious ruminations makes me LOL with disgust. The GOP is more united than ever! Behind Trump! You need to get your story straight, mister, when you come around mouthing off about divisions.

People of all ages support Trump, and meanwhile Bernie Sanders is becoming disheveled from having always adhered to socialism and now having to defend its contradictions! He recently accused his staff of "lying".

James O'Keefe is dropping a bombshell at noon today, so stay tuned. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 07:17, 14 January 2020 (EST)

Trump's net approval didn't shift significantly as a result of the Soleimani strike. (It went from minus 7 percent to minus 8.5 percent[14]). So I doubt it will be a problem for him going forward. If there had been no retaliation for the attack on the embassy in Baghdad, I suspect that would have led to more serious problems.
I have to concur with VargasMilan that the splits in the Republican Party hardly seem worth mentioning when you consider the problems of the Democrats. If the establishment wing is willing to use superdelegates and similar tactics, it may still be able to stop Bernie. Then a block of Bernie bros could stay home or vote for a third party candidate. If Bernie is the nominee, black voters and moderates are likely to be unenthusiastic on election day. PeterKa (talk) 09:03, 14 January 2020 (EST)

VargasMilan, I made it very clear that inter-party tensions would come to a head in 2024, not 2020. In 2024, there won't be a Donald Trump for the GOP to unite behind. When that happens, it's war. And may the neocons be defeated and thrown in the dustbin of history for their treasonous behavior. Many young patriots, including myself, won't vote for a neocon. Ever. --Geopolitician (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2020 (EST)

Geopolitician, I am getting the distinct impression that when you say "it's war", what you mean is "I'm going to attack!". You seem to have forgotten that when people speak of neoconservatives, their characteristic quality is being anti-Trump!

You can't tie Trump's hands and say he can't use certain tactics. He inherited foreign engagements all over the world.

You think I'm making a threat to attack somebody, then that's on you. I'm not going to attack anybody. I'm a pretty non-violent person myself. Can't say the same thing about the neocons, however.

That being said, not all neocons are anti-Trump. Many are loyal to their ideology first. In their opinion, if Trump goes along with them, then he's the greatest thing since sliced bread. They are smart enough to understand that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, and will do whatever they can to get Trump on their side.

Meanwhile, I agree with you that Trump inherited foreign engagements. That's not an excuse for him to make the situation worse on behalf of the same people who were ultimately responsible for 9/11. He has the opportunity to succeed where Bush and Obama failed, and he's not seizing that opportunity.--Geopolitician (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2020 (EST)

Remember how withdrawing all troops from Iraq caused parts of Iraq to become a Petri dish for ISIS? VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 15:43, 16 January 2020 (EST)

What are the odds Bernie won't be asked during tonight's debate about one of his organizers calling for gulags, "re-education" and violent riots? -Paul Joseph Watson VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 10:05, 14 January 2020 (EST)

My basic requirement is that a candidate be pro-American. Sanders is a man of principle with a hardcore anti-American agenda. The Biden agenda is for sale to the highest bidder, even if that's China. PeterKa (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2020 (EST)

I don't get that. Bernie was supposed to be fighting for workers of every kind, but when affirmative action came to Brooklyn, he moved his campaign office to all-white Vermont.

And lately, he said in response to a passing question (no follow-up) that his campaign staff were lying about him, when the evidence suggested they may have just been mistaken. It was almost as if he were embittered at them for trying to unionize. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 07:58, 17 January 2020 (EST)

And to state the obvious ([just] for the record), a campaign office is essentially a PR firm on steroids, so what could be more incompetent or sabotaging than lying about the candidate whose job it is for you to promote, as Bernie claimed? And if you're with the campaign, what can you say to defend yourself without seeming to be either argumentative or as disloyal as Bernie is suggesting? VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 03:03, 20 January 2020 (EST)

Joker

Why does CP keep bashing the Joker movie? It is a great film,[15][16] that has been unfairly smeared by social justice warriors.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] --BernieandTrumpFan (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2020 (EST)

All true conservatives are not wasting their time with Hollywood entertainment. They are working hard and filling up the campaign coffers of Donald Trump so he can utterly crush the eventual Democratic presidential nominee. "The President's war chest and grassroots army make his re-election campaign an unstoppable juggernaut." - Trump 2020 campaign manager Brad Parscale. Ruth Bader Ginsberg - replaced! EPA - pared back! Public schools - shut down and replaced with vouchers! Welfare turned to Workfare! I can hardly wait until I hear the lamentations of their wicked, pro-abortion, feminist women!Conservative (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2020 (EST)

Could we please have Trump Steaks like we did in Trump2016? I had some in Florida, and Trump's steaks were unusually thick and juicy. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 09:22, 14 January 2020 (EST)

"The best taco bowls are made in Trump Tower Grill. I love Hispanics!" - Donald Trump.[25]Conservative (talk) 09:50, 14 January 2020 (EST)

For those who don't remember that, Trump put that remark in a tweet, with a picture of him smiling behind a taco bowl on his desk, during a wave of accusations of racism toward hispanics against him (related to some [proposed] Trump Administration policy action). One man noted on Twitter: "This is either idiocy or world-class trolling". VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 10:59, 20 January 2020 (EST)

UN climate delegate ghostwrites schoolgirl's Facebook page

"The edit history for Greta Thunberg's page shows that the content has actually been written by her father, Svante Thunberg, and Adarsh Prathap, a climate activist in India who serves as a delegate at the UN's Climate Change organization." VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 08:10, 16 January 2020 (EST)

What I saw

Elizabeth Warren said Bernie Sanders said a woman couldn't win, and then Bernie Sanders said he didn't say a woman couldn't win, and then there was a hot mic after and Elizabeth Warren said Bernie Sanders was calling her a liar, and Bernie Sanders said he wasn't calling her a liar and not to have it out there.

I wasn't interested before, but I looked up video of the fight, and they said it all right! On the way to finding the video I got more used to seeing them and got to hear a lot of Democratic talking points too! So now I'm more used to them, I think I'll watch more news about the Democrats and their debates, because the suspense is killing me about the fight, and maybe I'll see even more talking points and generally get more involved and see more talking points. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 18:21, 16 January 2020 (EST)

Sanders privately telling Warren that a woman cannot beat Trump is entirely different than Warren telling CNN that Sanders said a woman cannot win the presidency. Those are two entirely different statements with two entirely different meanings. And voters are not stupid, as Warren presupposes. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 19:26, 18 January 2020 (EST)

At the debate, a CNN moderator asked Warren how she felt when she supposedly heard Sanders say that a woman couldn't win a presidential election. Although this strikingly odd question must have been intended as a favor to Warren, she somehow managed to stumble over the answer. It was a classic tell, just like the time she lied about being a woman of color, or when she lied about being fired as a teacher for being pregnant. The race for the nomination is narrowing to Biden and Sanders. Even Hillary is telling Democrats to pick a winner rather than a woman.[26] Do I detect the establishment shifting its support from Warren to Biden? PeterKa (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2020 (EST)
Another day, another Warren lie: "Let me remind you, I think, I'm the only one running for president whose actually been on the executive side." Bloomberg, Sanders, and Buttigieg were all mayors. If she meant to say "executive side of the federal government," Biden was vice president. She is just blubbering now. PeterKa (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2020 (EST)

RobS, don't you think Warren staged it in order to dominate over Biden for a news cycle or two and got Bernie to play along in exchange for sharing the news cycle? Or she even got CNN involved in exchange for higher ratings by pulling in those who are normally NON-voters, together with some voters, who both tune in if there's a soap opera aspect to the Democratic nomination race? VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 02:42, 20 January 2020 (EST)

Peter, maybe Warren means she was a business executive? VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 02:49, 20 January 2020 (EST)

Warren is talking about when she was Obama's special adviser for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. She was also a U.S. senator at this time. It's not really an executive position, although I suppose it's on the "executive side" of the federal government. PeterKa (talk) 07:12, 20 January 2020 (EST)

Warren obviously leaked the substance of a private two-party conversation. Sanders saying "A woman cannot beat Trump in 2020" is an entirely different statement than "A woman cannot ever win the presidency". Warren is just appealing to the hate and bigotry of feminists. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 11:19, 20 January 2020 (EST)

Let me ask you a broader question, if I may: when will the last Democrat admit that the Steele dossier has been disproven? VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 12:43, 20 January 2020 (EST)

Good question. (I got to know Mr. Christopher Steele very well over the past two months by immersing myself in the FISA abuse report. The man is nothing like the way the FBI, Democrats, and the MSM have presented him. He's simply a British partisan hack. Additionally, I learned a lot about UK politics, where evidently bold face lies and smears are taken at face value with no reflection on veracity, and is much more rabid and partisan than the US). My guess is Dems will just forget about it and dismiss it all as "old news" in the traditional Clintonian fashion.

Trump evidently has come to terms with Mitch McConnell, the US Chamber of Commerce, and the Deep State. This likely will effect the China trade war to some degree if McConnell is now willing to help save Trump. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 12:56, 20 January 2020 (EST)