Talk:Main Page/Archive index/144

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Happy Conservapedia Day! 10 years and counting!

Exactly 10 years ago, this encyclopedia was founded, and we're still going strong. According to Alexa, our popularity is increasing big time. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:54, 21 November 2016 (EST)

As far as factors boosting the popularity of Conservapedia in recent months: the 2016 election; new content; Trump's running causing an increase interest in right wing politics; a potential big loss for Hillary Clinton, Obama the Democratic party; news regarding Phyllis Schlafly and her legacy, and politics shifting rightward in Europe, are all factors which boosted the popularity of Conservapedia in recent months.
It will be interesting to see how long Trumpism and European politics moving to the right will boost interest in Conservapedia.
In addition, the failure of the mainstream media to largely predict the Trump's election victory and their excesses in the 2016 election, is a boon to politically right leaning websites.
Lastly, I think political conflict in the USA creates an increase in interest in U.S. politics. And unfortunately, I see a lot of political conflict happening in America in coming years rather than people amicably working out solutions (racial conflict, class warfare, etc.). U.S. demographic changes combined with identity politics, unresolved issues as far as immigration policy, changes in the global/US economy, the popularity of Bernie Sanders and a large U.S. federal government debt point to and increase in future conflicts in U.S. politics. Conservative (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2016 (EST)
Many religious conservatives backing Trump is probably another reason why interest in Conservapedia rose. The Hillary's/Democrats hostility to religious conservatives and traditional morality, the Republican Party platform, Trump's list of potential Supreme Court judges, Trump's vow to fight religious persecution of Christians in the world and his promise to push for the overturn of the Johnson Amendment, enabled Trump to win the votes of the majority of conservative evangelicals/Catholics even though Trump isn't very religious. Conservative (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2016 (EST)
Can someone add Conservapedia's 10-year anniversary to the newsfeed? This has to be mentioned. Also, speaking of Trump, he won a higher percentage of evangelical Christians than any other presidential nominee in U.S. history [1] (of course, only evangelicals who happen to be white are counted, but I think this fact is true regardless). --1990'sguy (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2016 (EST)
Fabulous suggestion!!! Done.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2016 (EST)
Thank you, Mr. Schalfly! --1990'sguy (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2016 (EST)
  • The Alexa link above suggests that Poe's law is by far the most popular article on the site, followed by RINO, race baiting, and Saul Alinsky. PeterKa (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2016 (EST)
    • Post 2013, there was an increase interest in Poe's law on the internet.[2] During the same time, Google trends indicates that there was no corresponding interest in the topic of fundamentalism.[3] Conservative (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2016 (EST)
      • Our Poe's law article is linked at "Know Your Meme," which is probably why Google is sending readers here. PeterKa (talk) 05:05, 22 November 2016 (EST)
Good insight there, PeterKa!
It's an open question as to what the most influential topics/entries are on people. Shroud of Turin does not have a large number of visitors, but the Shroud is known to convert some hardened atheists to Christianity.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2016 (EST)

In order to better know how much impact various articles have had on people, you would need to know how many page views articles have received in total and on a monthly/yearly basis. In addition, you would need to know how long people stay on article (Free analytics programs can give you this info). Furthermore, you would need to know, the impact on people/societies.

I can tell you that Conservapedia receives about 40% of its traffic overseas now. For example, the popular French website Telerama (which is one of the top 5,300 websites in the world in web traffic and one of France's top 250 websites in popularity) did a recent article on Conservapedia located HERE.

Here is an excerpt from the article (translated via Google translate):

"Onservapedia is fast becoming a benchmark in the ultra-conservative sphere in the United States and today has more than 100,000 records and 581 million page views since its inception. The most read, besides the homepage, the one on the "homosexual agenda", atheism, Barack Obama, Adolf Hitler, and ... Wikipedia. The ascent of Donald Trump has shed new light on the site, which is often cited in the conservative Glenn Beck radio show, and is referenced on many pro-Republican websites, convinced that all mainstream and Internet media In general are leagued against conservative ideas. More worrying, Conservapedia is still used as a working tool at Eagle Forum University, an online education program created by the conservative and creationist lobby of Phyllis Schlafly."[4]

The Atheism and suicide article may have hit an emotional hot button for that Frnechman given its prominence in the Telerama article (picture atop Telerama article, citing of the article).

The world's political pendulum seems to be swinging to the right. Immigration, the global resurgence of religion (particularly evangelical Christianity and fundamentalist Islamic religion) and growing problems with various liberal policies (ObamaCare, governmental debt growing, failing welfare states) seem to be fueling the growth of the political right. Conservative (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2016 (EST)

Archive talk page?

Would someone archive these discussions? There are 107 separate discussions on this talk page right now, including this one. For symbolic value, would someone archive every discussion until the 10-year anniversary discussion? --1990'sguy (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2016 (EST)

Done.Conservative (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2016 (EST)
Thanks! Much appreciated! --1990'sguy (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2016 (EST)

No shrinkage of Antarctic ice in last century

Isn't it time to prosecute those responsible for the global warming hoax? "Antarctic Sea Ice Has Not Shrunk In 100 Years". This story is based on a peer-reviewed reexamination of the Scott and Shackleton logbooks, so it seems to be pretty conclusive. The first step is to get the hoaxers off the dole: "Trump to scrap Nasa climate research in crackdown on ‘politicized science’" PeterKa (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2016 (EST)

Cuba announces the death of Fidel Castro.

No further details have been released. Castro was 90. --WashingtonRepublican (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2016 (EST)

Why the U.S. electoral college system will probably not disappear

To find out why the U.S. electoral college system will probably not disappear, click HERE. Conservative (talk) 06:54, 26 November 2016 (EST)

The problem with abolishing the Electoral College is that it would be an invitation to voter fraud. Every state would be motivated to get out as many votes as possible, legal or otherwise. Under the current system, the states are the final authority on which votes count. You could avoid this outcome if federally-mandated anti-fraud measures were part of the deal. The proposals I've seen in the media are all "sore loser" stuff and don't recognize that the Electoral College has any upside. To Democrats, anti-fraud measures are "voter suppression." So they are on a pretty high horse about this. PeterKa (talk) 11:20, 26 November 2016 (EST)
Your reason is good but there are additional compelling reasons also. A national recount in a close election is unworkable. The outcome could change with every recount, which would take months. A national crisis would result. Also, the Electoral College helps bind a massive, diverse, democratic nation. Without the Electoral College requiring geographic diversity in order to win, the 49 states other than California (with its massive immigration and lax voting system) might not want to have California repeatedly decide their future.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:32, 26 November 2016 (EST)
With California, Clinton wins the popular vote by 1.7 percent. Without it, Trump wins by two points. California has millions of non-citizens and it does not require that voters present ID. Many California Republicans don't bother to vote anymore since the system is so rigged. They are still counting votes in California. So a popular vote election could take weeks to resolve, even without a court case in the mix. PeterKa (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2016 (EST)
After several embarrassing failures, Gallup no longer asks Americans about presidential preferences. But they do ask about the Electoral College: "Americans' Support for Electoral College Rises Sharply." PeterKa (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2016 (EST)

France turns right

If, as expected, "Thatcherite" rebel François Fillon defeats establishment favorite Alain Juppé in Sunday's The Republicans primary, French voters will have two right wing candidates to choose from in next year's general election.[5] Fillon was primier for Sarkozy, Juppé for Chirac. In the general election, the Republican nominee will face "Frexit" supporter Marine Le Pen of the National Front. In American terms, Fillon is France's answer to Ted Cruz while the National Front corresponds to the Alt Right. The party has been prominent in French politics for many years, but shunned by the mainstream as far right and neo-Vichyite. France's problems with Islam and ISIS are more serious than those of other Western nations. Incumbent President Hollande has been unable to adequately address them. As a result, Hollande's Socialist Party has all but dissolved, and the country is experiencing an extreme version of the populist reaction sweeping the globe. PeterKa (talk) 04:56, 27 November 2016 (EST)

The Right wing is ascendant in France. Breitbart is soon coming to France. Brexit and Trump. No wonder that popular French website had an effete, godless liberal feature an article bashing Conservapedia. :) Conservative (talk) 06:45, 27 November 2016 (EST)
Fillon won The Republicans primary with 66.5 percent of the vote.[6] So establishment favorite Alain "I am not Hillary Clinton" Juppé has been eliminated.[7] There is a non-partisan primary on April 23 between Fillon, Le Pen, and several minor left-wing candidates. The run off (if required) is May 7. PeterKa (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2016 (EST)
Of course, France is shifting to the French version of the "right", which is the political center by American standards. Fillon says he opposes abortion, but he also says that he will not vote for abolishing it. Europe makes America look like a very godly nation. Another thing: Fillon does not appear to oppose the socialist, globalist European Union. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2016 (EST)
Abortion is legal in France only for the first twelve weeks. That's way stricter than anything anyone is talking about in the U.S. PeterKa (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2016 (EST)
That's a fair point, and I did not know that. However, in many ways, France and Europe are, at least outwardly, much more secular overall. In several European countries, church attendance is about 2%, and there are very low levels of morality. On other issues, the U.S. doesn't (yet) have to deal with a socialistic supranational union like the EU that is actively trying to politically unite all the nations into one country. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2016 (EST)

Liberal Canadian PM calls Castro a "remarkable leader"

See HERE. It's not an exaggeration to say that liberals love Castro. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2016 (EST)

Trump claims voter fraud

The media is freaking out over this Trump tweet: "In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally." Here is a typical example in Politico: "Trump's baseless assertions of voter fraud called 'stunning'." I don't know how many people voted illegally, but I can tell you this: The Dems have been pushing hard to make voter fraud easier for many years. If it was all a "myth," they wouldn't bother. Whenever a Republican tries to crack down on voter fraud, they become hysterical. Investigators in New York City got a group of people to vote illegally as a test. They got away with it 97 percent of the time.[8] The city's Democratic administration responded by asking the attorney general if the investigators could be prosecuted. So the Dems are fine with fraud, and no one is minding the store. Why anyone object to an ID check? The Dems' attitude makes sense only if voter fraud is significant, and benefits them. PeterKa (talk) 03:12, 28 November 2016 (EST)

Obama encouraged illegals aliens to commit voter fraud.[9] But as the Scripture says, "Unless the LORD builds the house, those who build it labor in vain."
Trump will probably erase a very large portion of Obama's legacy. ObamaCare was major legislation slammed through without bipartisan support (it will probably be repealed or drastically altered) and Obama's executive orders will be immediately overturned. Obama's Supreme Court nominees will largely be the only thing left of his legacy if you don't count a much large national debt, fallout from a poor foreign policy and the lost GNP growth potential that was never released during his presidency. Conservative (talk) 09:30, 28 November 2016 (EST)
I sure hope the GOP will be able to erase Obama's destructive legacy. Hopefully they'll also be able to combat voter fraud without liberals getting in the way. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:14, 28 November 2016 (EST)
I certainly hope the GOP does do something about voter fraud--I'm honestly surprised that Trump did win, considering the massive amounts of it going on. Just in this election, a bunch of polling moderators were caught by a low-level assistant filling out a very large pile of absentee ballots. Of course, that never made it to the news, and the assistant was promptly discharged. Now that Republicans have everything, there is, as Rush says, "no excuse." --David B (TALK) 12:09, 28 November 2016 (EST)
Soros pledged $5 million to fight anti-fraud laws back in July.[10] Soros is a guy who expects return on investment. More fraud has got to mean more votes for Democrats. There is no other reason Soros would care about this issue. PeterKa (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2016 (EST)

You couldn't make this stuff up.

Nov. 26: Trump ridicules the idea of holding recounts.

Nov. 27: Trump alleges massive voter fraud.

Aye, you've picked yourselves a good 'un here, chaps. A totally balanced and stable personality - real commander-in-chief material. JohnZ (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2016 (EST)

JohnZ, all I will point out is that California is the state that most likely has voter fraud with illegal immigrants voting, but the Dems and Greens want to recount Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Trump is referring to two completely different situations in different states. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2016 (EST)
What on earth would be the point of using illegal immigrants to run up the score for Hillary in California? It's 55 Electoral College votes regardless of the margin of victory. JohnZ (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2016 (EST)
No point from Hillary's POV. But the state is full "sanctuary cities" that encourage voting by noncitizens. PeterKa (talk) 07:05, 3 December 2016 (EST)
JohnZ, you are not being reasonable or balanced. And I think you are well aware of not being balanced.
Obama publicly encouraged voter fraud and there is a video tape of it which I cited in the above post. James O'Keefe did a sting which caught a high level Democrat operative confess to wanting to engage in voter fraud and Democrats having a tradition of it. it was so embarrassing/scandalous the operative was fired. Conservative (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2016 (EST)
In addition, Trump campaigned as a strong leader and "alpha male". There is nothing inconsistent with him mocking the Dems' desperation. At the most, the recount appears to be based on the Green Party wanting to generate cash and Russian hacking fears (fears but no evidence of hacking in those states). I personally have no problems with a recount given the slim margins and long as the recount is monitored closely.
And "desperate" is not too strong a word. The Dems don't have a strong bench to pull from as far as presidential politics. And in 2014/2016 they received a shellacking. They also seem overly reliant on identity politics and even Sanders admitted this. Check Schumer said in 2012 that the Democrats are not paying enough attention to the middle class. Conservative (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2016 (EST)

"The Obama administration said on Friday that despite Russian attempts to undermine the presidential election, it has concluded that the results 'accurately reflect the will of the American people.'" - New York Times, 3 days ago.[11]

"Michigan election director: No election hack evidence.[12] - Detroit News, 5 days ago.

Hillary is desperate. She sobbed the night of the election and could not pull herself together to appear on election night so Podesta made an appearance instead. This is not strong leadership.

Engineers and system designers typically do stress test to determine how sound a system is. Election night 2016 and Benghazi attack (and the events leading up to the attack} show that the voters who voted for Trump made the right choice. Conservative (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2016 (EST)

Considering Obama and his goons threatened to prosecute anyone reporting voter fraud in this past election, I think its safe to say he believes in voter fraud more than you do, JohnZ. --David B (TALK) 20:43, 28 November 2016 (EST)
Hillary's campaign was largely based on identity politics and also reactive. Trump had a core message and was often proactive. Even many pro-Hillary advocates now admit she had no real message. For example, "I'm with her" is an uninspiring campaign slogan.
Trump had more rapport with the common man. He has been around construction workers, etc. all his life. He connected with crowds. Hillary is a liberal elitist. She certainly is no Joe Biden when it comes to relating to the common man.
Hillary deserved to lose the election. She is a Michael Dukakis/John Kerry liberal elitist type candidate. It was foolish to have her run in a world currently very receptive to populist candidates. Conservative (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2016 (EST)
Cenk Uygur, of Young Turks which is a YouTube political channel, wanted Hillary to win the election. But even he admits that Hillary Clinton was the worst presidential candidate in modern politics. He pointed out that she had the media, Hollywood and others solidly behind her, but still lost the election.Conservative (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2016 (EST)
The famous strategist Sun Tzu stressed the importance of preparation before battles as often the battle can be lost before it has even begun.
Clinton's private email server, her high paid speeches to corporations and the way the Clinton Foundation was run was very bad preparation. She sabotaged her campaign before it even began. Conservative (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2016 (EST)

Gregg Jarrett: Did Hillary Clinton just squander her "get out of jail free" card?[13]

Hillary swinging her stick at the Trump hornet's nest is another demonstration of her incompetence and desperation - especially when the chance of her winning this gamble is exceedingly low. Conservative (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2016 (EST)

  • When Trump says he won the popular vote, he is referring to allegations that non-citizens illegally voted for Hillary. The proposed recounts address allegations of Russian hacking. It's two different issues that JohnZ is mixing together. PeterKa (talk) 05:19, 29 November 2016 (EST)
    • That reminds me, why is an obvious leftist like JohnZ on here? I can understand SamHB being on here since he was vital to Conservapedia's creation, but JohnZ doesn't seem to even remotely benefit Conservapedia at all. Pokeria1 (talk) 09:18, 29 November 2016 (EST)
As long as an editor does constructive edits and does not run afoul of the Conservapedia:90/10 rule, there is no problem with an editor's politics. JohnZ has done maintenance type edits to art articles, etc. Conservative (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2016 (EST)
Cheers. For the record, I believe Stein's recount efforts are sincere, but extremely unlikely to overturn the result. Trump's most presidential move would have been to let them quietly fizzle away to nothing, rather than blowing up on Twitter.
The fact that he's unable to let go of perceived slights should concern you all. Indeed, this is the man who felt the need to reassure the voting public re. the size of his manhood, all because of some dumb Rubio crack about the size of his hands. Hail to the Chief. JohnZ (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2016 (EST)
Conclusions are more effective when the arguments that precede them are true—unlike yours. VargasMilan (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2016 (EST)
Areet, son. For the record, it would amuse me enormously to watch you try and outline the "argument" you reckon I've outlined above. I'd intended a fairly bald assertion of fact, but looking back, I can see the bones of a logically valid syllogism in there. All yours from here. Divvn't spare the horses. JohnZ (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2016 (EST)

Future of liberalism/left

There are a number of articles on the death of liberalism/American liberalism that have been recently published.[14]

Death is probably too strong off a word, but liberalism - particularly neoliberalism/liberal elitism - has suffered a major defeat after Trump's victory and Brexit. And things don't look good for liberal elitism in France/Germany as far as upcoming elections.

People in the far right - particularly the alt-right and Vox Day - have been predicting a huge defeat and continued major defeats for the left. The left did achieve a victory over the alt-right recently as Trump recently disavowed the alt-right due to a neo-nazi faction (or neo-nazi like faction) of the alt-right getting spotlighted by the media (Richard Spencer's group gave Nazi salute. Spencer appears to be flirting with neo-nazism rather that being a full blown neo-nazi. He strikes me as being a non-serious person and he appears to have a small following). But non-racist alt-righters argue it is just a temporary setback and not the death of alt-rightism.

Newspapers are going out of business which certainly doesn't help the left. There appears to be a college loan crisis pending which could seriously negatively impact another stronghold of the left - namely academia and various liberal arts courses (people are defaulting on their student loans in the USA). And the school choice movement is making progress.

I have been pleasantly surprised about how fast the left has been losing power lately. It almost reminds me of the fall of the Soviet Union. And the pace of the decline of the left appears to be quickening.

So what do you think is the future of the left? Conservative (talk) 12:29, 29 November 2016 (EST)

The causes of the decline/fall of the left have been among other things: the right gaining more prominence on the internet/media (Breitbart, etc.), politics breaking into more factions (which is partly internet fed such as the alt-right) and economics (globalization affecting the working class).
Given the complexity of the internet/factions/economics and the fact that political elections are close in the USA and elsewhere in the Western World, it is hard to predict how fast the left will decline in power or whether they will eventually bounce back (or how long it may take for them to bounce back).
With that being said, Europe is facing an aging population and a declining share of the world population. And Europe is a large share of the secular left (see: Secular Europe). And China is seeing a rapid growth of evangelical Christianity and is expected to have the world's largest Christian population by 2030 (see: Growth of Christianity in China and Asian atheism). And the world is seeing desecularization and a rise of religious fundamentalism/conservatism. And in a world of globalization, this can't be good for secular leftism. So the future of secular leftism on the world stage looks unpromising in the 21st century. Conservative (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2016 (EST)
One thing I find humorous is the left's growing concern about truth/"fake news".[15] For years the left has pushed postmodernism, but now that they are losing power, truth is supposedly important to them. Conservative (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2016 (EST)
Yes, they have no problem pumping it out by the gallon, but when a few drops of genuine truth get through, they go hysterical. "Of course, we are the only sources or real information, fools!" --David B (TALK) 19:04, 29 November 2016 (EST)
It wasn't all that long ago that liberals were all 9/11 Truthers. Van Jones is a CNN commentator these days! These are the people who will decide what's fake news? As far as far I am concerned, global warming scare stories are the epitome of fake news. Trump's early prominence as a presidential candidate is due to coverage in CNN and other mainstream media. The fake news issue is a dodge to evade responsibility. PeterKa (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2016 (EST)
By the way, we have a Fake News article. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2016 (EST)
  • The decision to kill Bin Laden was agonizing for Obama. Like Jeremiah Wright before him, Bin Laden was his people. But in the end, OBL had to be sacrificed to ensure Obama's victory in the 2012 election. As penance, Obama walked away from the war on jihad and made Islamophobia his top priority. The current worldwide collapse of the left is the logical result.
    As far as the future of the left goes, we certainly haven't heard the last of it. Suddenly, the Democratic Party is full of Sanders' supporters saying, "I told you so." A sharp turn to the left, as seems likely, won't help the Dems get back into power. The schedule of what seats are up in 2018 favors Republicans. In addition, Sessons is likely to crack down on voter fraud as attorney general. In short, the midterms are already looking good the GOP. As far as 2020 goes, the feminists want a woman, the Blacks want a Black, and the Sanders supporters want a leftist. It's going be tricky to satisfy any of those groups unless Michelle runs -- and there is no indication that she is planning to do that.[16] PeterKa (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2016 (EST)

History seems to point to situation where the Republicans/Democrats take turns in terms of being complacent/proud. I think the zenith of leftist pride and complacency was achieved under the Obama/Pelosi leadership. And pride comes before the fall. Conservative (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2016 (EST)

Mattis for Defense

As widely predicted, Trump is nominating retired Marine General James Mattis as secretary of defense.[17] He is an outstanding choice, a "can do" general who is already widely admired for his work in Iraq. Some have complained that the nomination violates a 1947 law that bans military officers from the SecDef position until they have been retired for seven years. This law is unconstitutional and it should be repealed. The president needs to assert his constitutional duty to nominate whoever he believes to be best qualified for the position. PeterKa (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2016 (EST)

Instead of denouncing the unconstitutional civilians-only rule, Trump has requested a waiver. Senator Gillibrand has announced that they she will filibuster the waiver. The short version is that Mattis will need 60 votes for confirmation while Trump's other nominees require only 50.[18] (The Senate will have 52 Republicans, 48 Democrats.) PeterKa (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2016 (EST)
A lot of nonsense is being published which claims that appointing Mattis would upend American traditions. Washington's secretary of war was Henry Knox of Fort Knox fame. He was appointed in 1785 under the Articles of Confederation soon after he retired from the army. The prohibition against military officers as SecDef is based on studies of the Japanese system. Japan had a democratic system of government in the 1920s, but the country was militarized in the 1930s. This was blamed on the practice of appointing serving military officers as ministers. A Japanese minister would be assigned to another position in the army after he finished his tour as minister. So it's not at all the same as appointing a retired officer. PeterKa (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2016 (EST)

Clinton aides shout insults at Conway

Another reason Clinton lost: Her aides are rude and stupid. See this Washington Post article: "Shouting match erupts between Clinton and Trump aides." This was at a forum held at Harvard. “I would rather lose than win the way you guys did," Palmieri told Conway. Then the Clinton people started started calling the Trump people racists. What a bunch of jerks. This "racist, racist" stuff was a standard line of attack throughout the campaign. Not only that, but the Democrats have been doing this to Republicans for many years, regardless of who the candidate is or what his views on race might be. The campaign is over, they lost, and their only regret is that they didn't do enough name calling. Oh, and they also blame FBI Director Comey. That's sweet. I'm sure he didn't act on his own. After Comey's cowardly capitulation to Obama in July, it's not plausible to think he developed a backbone in October. The Clinton aides still can't wrap their heads around the fact that sneaky little Obama stabbed them in the back. PeterKa (talk) 14:12, 2 December 2016 (EST)

The 5 stages of grief are: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. The liberal elitists and secular left are still in the anger/bargaining mode. By Trump's inauguration, they should accept Trump's status as the 2016 presidential race winner and the fact that liberal elitists and the secular left have lost a significant amount of power.
The large anti-Muslim immigrant protests in Europe, the gains of right-wing parties in Europe, Brexit, the large amount of people attending the Trump rallies (and Hillary inability to frequently have big rallies) and Trump surging near the end, should have braced them for a Trump victory. Nevertheless, it caught many of them by complete surprise.
Given that in recent decades the left is far more focused at politics than the right, leftists should have been among the first to see Trump's upcoming victory, but pride and cocooning (not reading much material from the right) prevented them seeing a greater possibility that Trump would win the election. Conservative (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2016 (EST)

MPR spelling error


I just noticed that Kellogg's is misspelled on MPR as "Kellogs". Thanks, GregG (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2016 (EST)

Thanks. I fixed it. Conservative (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2016 (EST)

Trump's Taiwan call

Trump will not be a status-quo president, and his call to Taiwan is another example of this. While I am not a fan of the current socially-liberal government of Taiwan, I am glad Trump is breaking the status quo and siding with a country that is more of an ally with us than the PRC is, a country to which we already sell millions and even billions of dollars in weapons. There are many things Reagan did not do that he should have. I hope Trump does those things. Along with his cabinet picks, he already seems to be succeeding. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2016 (EST)

Trump didn't make the call to Taiwan, he received a call. Consider this: in 1979 Carter made a call to Taiwan, and in 2016 Trump received the first call back 37 years later. It's little wonder the mainland Chinese–or any impartial followers of world events–are driven to ask themselves concerning the progress of diplomacy between the free nations of Taiwan and the United States: Is this too much, too soon? VargasMilan (talk) 23:49, 3 December 2016 (EST)
It's not like Trump didn't know the call was coming. Taipei Times published a story on the scheduled call before the call itself took place.[19] The call was apparently the idea of pro-Taiwan Trump adviser Peter Navarro. The ChiCom response has been pretty low key so far: "No need to over-interpret Tsai-Trump phone call." China and Taiwan signed a NAFTA-style trade pact in 2010. China spends two percent of GDP on the military, but it probably spends more than that on internal security.[20] What the Communists fear most is the Chinese people. The Cold War is over on the Taiwan Strait.
Navarro is the author of Death by China. This sort of rhetoric misunderstands the problem. The last thing China wants is an international confrontation. That would result in ordinary Chinese acquiring political opinions. Public opinion of any kind would undermine one party rule. Today's big unresolved U.S.-China issue is China's support for North Korea. The U.S. keeps 30,000 troops in South Korea -- and more in Okinawa as backup. So there are lives and big money in the balance. NK has no economy of its own and eeks along as a puppet state of China. If China knows Trump is ready to sell Taiwan the F-35, as Navarro proposes, it could be more conciliatory in this matter. PeterKa (talk) 04:54, 4 December 2016 (EST)
Bolton has advocated using Taiwan to get Chinese concessions on North Korea and other issues. Bolton visited Trump Tower on Friday.[21] PeterKa (talk) 05:12, 4 December 2016 (EST)
Sounds like Bolton may have advised Trump to call Tsai: "Bolton on Trump's Taiwan Call: China Doesn't Tell Us Who We Can Talk To." He cites the South China Sea issue as a rationale. While Bolton gets all he-man, Pence and Conway downplay the call as a courtesy.[22] They weren't part of the decision making, so they are minimizing the call's importance. PeterKa (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2016 (EST)
Now we find out that the Chinese were already fomenting a traditional test-the-new-president crisis before Trump's call: "China flew nuclear-capable bombers around Taiwan before Trump call with Taiwanese president." I guess Trump passed the test. PeterKa (talk) 13:27, 5 December 2016 (EST)

Indonesia and Islam

This is a somewhat interesting story going on in Indonesia. The governor of Jakarta, Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, who is a Christian, is being investigated by the Indonesian police for alleged blasphemy against the Quran (which is illegal in the country). Over 200,000 Muslims are protesting Purnama because of this. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2016 (EST)

A mixed bag in Europe today

Interesting day today in Europe with good news and bad news. On the one hand, a far-left candidate narrowly won the Austrian presidential election against a right-wing conservative who strongly opposes the EU, Norbert Hofer of the Austrian Freedom Party. The winner, Alexander Van der Bellen, is a member of the Green Party and is very left-wing, possibly even by European standards, I dare to say. He strongly supports unrestricted immigration and refugee entry, and he wants a politically united Europe, among other beliefs.

On the other hand, Italians decisively rejected a constitutional referendum proposed by the liberal, pro-EU PM Matteo Renzi, which would have increased the power of the PM. After the results came in, Renzi announced he would resign, per a promise he had made before the referendum. National elections may be held early, and the populist Five Star Movement party, which opposes the EU, could win.

I wish Hofer won the Austrian presidential election, as he and his party are very conservative and could do a lot of good for Austria and even Europe, but God didn't want it to be so. God is in control, and He is working all these events for His glory. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2016 (EST)

These trends insure the political right will grow in Europe: Lower than replacement fertility rates in Europe by secular leftists; higher than average rates of fertility by adherents of fundamentalist religions; immigration due to replacing older workers combined with increasing problems associated with fundamentalist Muslims and the increasing failure of the welfare state (aging population in Europe among other things will put increasing strain on the system).
In short, the rise of the right-wing politics in Europe is only starting. Conservative (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2016 (EST)

Trump reminds Boeing who the next president is

Twenty two minutes after a Trump-bashing interview with Boeing CEO Muilenburg was published in the Chicago Tribune, Trump went on Twitter and threatened to cancel Boeing's Air Force One contract.[23] With any luck, this interview could turn into the New Yorker cartoon of 2016.[24] For those who have forgotten, the magazine published a cartoon of Barack and Michelle on its cover in July 2008. Obama got the executives of the entertainment and news industries together and read them the riot act. For the next eight years, they were his obedient lap dogs. Presidential humor had been a great American tradition, but suddenly it was no more. Jon Stewart was on the phone with the White House each and every day to get his political jokes approved. The Foreign Correspondents' Dinner, until then an annual presidential roast, became a Trump-bashing festival. PeterKa (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2016 (EST)

To what extent do you feel that the media was particularly sensitive to the fact that President Obama was the first African-American to hold that office? Making fun of George W. Bush's Texas origins was not considered to be in poor taste, nor was making fun of Gerald Ford's past as a football player. I believe that everyone should feel free to tell political jokes regardless of whether the President is a Republican or Democrat. JDano (talk) 06:15, 7 December 2016 (EST)
There were plenty of jokes about Bill Clinton when he was president. Jay Leno was famous for them. Certainly race is a factor, but I notice that doesn't stop the Carson jokes. Obama never respected American traditions like freedom of the press, so he felt entitled to issue edicts concerning press coverage. When Wanda Sykes made a disgusting joke about waterboarding Rush Limbaugh, Obama sat next to her, clapped, and laughed politely. It's the same mentality that led to the executive actions on immigration. PeterKa (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2016 (EST)
To be fair regarding Obama not respecting Freedom of the Press (even though I utterly hate the guy for his policies and am frankly angered that he isn't being impeached at all), I'm not sure what value there is with Freedom of the Press. Had I been president, I'd do away with the press entirely, not even have a propaganda arm, because I view the press simply as being lying crooks who would actively try to lie to its populace for its own gain, even orchestrate riots. I if anything would get rid of the press entirely precisely BECAUSE I hate liars, even those that act on my behalf. I've read up in Demonic how Freedom of the Press led to King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinet being slaughtered and how that led to the chaos that was the Reign of Terror. They had lots of liberties there, and in fact, they followed Voltaire's model, who actively encouraged lying about the Church specifically to tear it down. And the bit about Walter Cronkite getting away with lying on the air about the Tet Offensive due to freedom of the press makes me see how meaningless said freedom truly is. I'll respect it if I must, but I honestly don't see the meaning in it, just see it as the freedom for people to publish lies towards others and start riots. Heck, ABC and other network news fanning the flames of the Trayvon Martin incident among others just reinforces to me how freedom of the press, heck, freedom of speech seems meaningless and probably something we're better without. Pokeria1 (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2016 (EST)
One of the biggest big lies reported is Hitler's quote on the Big Lie. Hitler spoke of the 'Big Lie' in Mein Kampf as the 'lie', in his words, that Germany lost the First World War. And that if the lie was repeated often enough in the press millions of people would believe it. So he dedicated a whole chapter on propaganda and using the 'Jewish press' (his words) own tactics to defeat it. The Big Lie is Hitler didn't invent the Big Lie, Hitler stole the tactic from his enemies and the newspaper editors of his day to use it to elevate himself and his movement. RobS#NeverHillary 15:05, 7 December 2016 (EST)
In other words, Hitler never created the Big Lie, but just exploited it. Fair enough, though I'm not sure how that addresses my point on how freedom of the press was meaningless and that the press itself should not even be allowed to exist, either as a free identity or as a state-run institution. Besides, if ANYONE invented the Big Lie, it was Voltaire and Diderot, since they were the first to exploit that kind of aspect and did a six step plan to accomplish demonizing Christianity, which ultimately bore fruit during the French Revolution and arguably during the various Communist Revolutions. Pokeria1 (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2016 (EST)
People believe what they want to believe, and when facts are inconvenient, they dismiss it. That's why the 'Big Lie' has to be repeated over and over again. For example, that Watergate was about a third-rate burglary. Sure, Nixon had Washington enemies going back 25 years, but the actual events that led to a determined effort to get rid of Nixon occurred after the burglary.
When Nixon was reelected in 1972 with the largest mandate since George Washington, Nixon determined to "drain the swamp" of New Deal & Great Society Washington establishment bureaucrats by asking for all 3 million administration employees resignations so he could reappoint them with his own cronies and machine. Nixon could argue he had the vote and the will of the people behind him. But the establishment bureaucrats, backed up by a Democratic Congress, were more determined to see him go before they would ever go. So they had to trump up some bogus garbage, coupled with a relentless PR campaign savaging the man. The motives for driving Nixon out of Washington had little to do with the break-in. RobS#NeverHillary 17:10, 7 December 2016 (EST)

The public criticism of Boeing is directly related to rethinking the Iranian nuke deal. The only reason Hillary & Obama went ahead with it was to make Boeing competitive with Airbus who was seeking an Iranian contract. It's interesting, while Trump seeks to encourage US manufacturing for the domestic market, who other than the Clinton Foundation and Boeing workers benefits from the Iranian deal? RobS#NeverHillary 14:13, 7 December 2016 (EST)

Yes, it's true. Republicans eat their own children

Imagine that. Now, the same people who brought you the Benghazi video lie, documented as fake news in Hillary's emails, would have you believe the outrageous, scandalous notion that Trump wanted a security clearance for this purveyor of fake news who was busted red handed. RobS#NeverHillary 14:54, 7 December 2016 (EST)

"Fake news" turns out to be a liberal conspiracy

That's right. Fake news sites were created by liberals in the hope of discrediting the right wing blogosphere. Check it out: "We Tracked Down A Fake-News Creator In The Suburbs. Here's What We Learned" Here is the money quote: "The whole idea from the start was to build a site that could kind of infiltrate the echo chambers of the alt-right, publish blatantly or fictional stories and then be able to publicly denounce those stories and point out the fact that they were fiction." Once that job is done, the next step is to create a "Fake News list" to ban all right wing sites from the social media. Melissa Zimdars has already created such a list, and New York magazine is using it.[25] PeterKa (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2016 (EST)

This should be added to the Fake News article, if it hasn't already. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2016 (EST)
I'm just in shock that this was published by NPR. You're right, though, this should go in Fake News.--David B (TALK) 23:36, 7 December 2016 (EST)
I found a WaPo article about another fake news writer who also opposed Trump but still wrote to discredit the Right. I added it to the Fake News article. Someone should add this to the newsfeed. This is huge. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:00, 8 December 2016 (EST)

The real money quote:We've tried to do similar things to liberals. It just has never worked, it never takes off. You'll get debunked within the first two comments and then the whole thing just kind of fizzles out. --Unsigned comment by User:Pruno, December 9, 2016.

It just means this crew wasn't good at writing it. There are two liberal sites on Zimdars' list: Addicting Info and Being Liberal. Buzzfeed surveyed some liberal Facebook sites and found that 19 percent of the "news" was fake. Despite the fact that the major media companies cater to liberal readers, there is still an unmet demand for material that is even more partisan. PeterKa (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2016 (EST)

Trump cabinet nominations: HS, EPA, SBA

Another great batch of appointments today. retired general John Kelly is a strong opponent of illegal immigration. Trump's pick for EPA director, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, is one of the strongest critics of the EPA and Obama's environmental regulations. Trump's choice of Linda McMahon as Small Business administrator also seems like a good move, as she is a businesswoman, not part of the swamp, and she supports deregulation of business. [26] Trump could be an even more conservative and effective president than Reagan. It's a real possibility. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2016 (EST)

Many people who are not of Reagan's generation miss the point how much Reagan loved and was inspired by FDR. And how representative he was of the attitudes, thinking, and values of the generation who voted for FDR. Reagan and other Reagan Democrats felt the Democratic Party had gone off the rails with the New Left and Great Society. Let me be the first to go on record how much Trump's style is like FDR and Reagan, and no other president in between them. The myth of Obama being a transformational president has been exploded. Ultimately Obama will be remembered like Carter and the Bushes- wasted time and wasted opportunities. Trump, as a real estate developer, very much fits the mold of a Visionary president whose vision will be emulated by presidents for decades to come. RobS#NeverHillary 00:42, 8 December 2016 (EST)

Wilders convicted

A Dutch court convicted Wilders of ‘inciting discrimination’ against Moroccans.[27] He asked the crowd if they wanted more or fewer Moroccans in The Netherlands. It's all politics. He's an AlwaysTrumper. He wants to “Make the Netherlands Great Again.” It's been a long time since the Dutch were great. Maybe the VOC can be rechartered. PeterKa (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2016 (EST)

Without a Christian renewal, the Netherlands will never be great again. The Nertherlands, like most irreligious countries, has a sub-replacement level of births (1.72 births per woman in 2012 as far as the Netherlands). This is ultimately why Muslim immigrants are coming into their country. If only Europe decided to bring in more Bible believing Christians from Africa/Latin America and China instead of bringing in troublesome Muslims. All these Muslim problems could be avoided! Conservative (talk) 06:35, 10 December 2016 (EST)
It just amazes me how strict and expansive "hate speech" laws are in Western Europe. People should obviously speak in a respectful, godly manner, but these laws are ridiculous. In the UK, a pastor was almost found guilty for criticizing Islam, even though his criticism was based on theological grounds. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2016 (EST)
"Almost found guilty" is an interesting concept. Gotta think about that. AlanE (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2016 (EST)
What I meant to say is that he was tried for something that I don't think anyone should have even considered trying for in the first place (and there were many people, I'm sure, who wanted him convicted). In that sense, he was "almost found guilty." In a more sane world, this would have never happened. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2016 (EST)

Political realignment

An example of the political realignment in the U.S., Trump broke a 144-year Democrat winning streak in Elliott County, KY, the first time the county every voted Republican in its history. The shift away from the Dems in Coal Country started probably in the late 1990s, but it is now complete, as this was the last rural Southern county outside the Black Belt to have voted Democrat. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2016 (EST)

Personally, I think there's more of an ideological realignment going on than a party realignment. Both parties will emerge in time with new and different principles, and this isn't just switching between parties. The voters themselves are questioning and reassessing their fundamental beliefs. I don't know what you'd call such an ideological realignment, because the parties are not simply trading beliefs. RobS#NeverHillary 17:22, 10 December 2016 (EST)
I honestly don't see how that is the case. Many people in the South or Coal Country have had socially conservative views (pro-gun, pro-life, pro-religious liberty) before and after the rise of the Republican Party. Also, from what I've seen and heard, it doesn't seem like the disaffected Democrats-turned-Republicans in Coal Country specifically really agree with the Republicans on economic issues, but they agree much less with the Democrats overall. They seem to be old-fashioned New Deal Democrats, and they really don't want to switch parties. That's why many of them voted for liberals like McGovern and Mondale, and that's why a very large amount of them regularly voted Democrat until after Obama became president. They are only switching to the GOP because they have to if they want to keep any of their lifestyle and any of their values. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2016 (EST)
Yes, that's what I'm saying. The Republican party itself disagrees with itself on economic issues now. I agree with some assessments that say Trump didn't really win, Hillary lost. IMO, some traditional church going Democrats which Kentucky is known for were disgusted with Clinton corruption, and Trump had a clean record by comparison. RobS#NeverHillary 23:08, 10 December 2016 (EST)
OK, got it. I thought at first that you were saying the voters themselves were changing their beliefs, which doesn't seem to be the case. The GOP should watch itself in the coming years, because these voters could switch back to the Democrats if a candidate that appeals to them comes along (and that doesn't seem likely at all, considering their social policies). --1990'sguy (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2016 (EST)
Well actually I am saying that. Everyday that passes, it's seems pretty clear we've reached a milestone, the passing of an era, not just the change of a presidency. And both parties are ideologically shifting to something neither party is familiar with. The GOP has the jump on the Democrats right now, who will be forced to abandon old beliefs and forge new views, whether they like it or not. Even many voters don't know or are confused about what they believe.
Underlying it all is the issue of leadership. It's been many, many years, if not decades, since America had any leadership. This is Trump's challenge, To articulate a vision in the mold of FDR, JFK, or Reagan. I believe he understands that. Obama built his legacy on sand, choosing Executive Orders over legislation, bipartisanship, and compromise, which will swept away with the stroke of a pen on January 20th, 2017. RobS#NeverHillary 00:05, 11 December 2016 (EST)

Abortion and religious liberty in France

The French Senate and National Assembly passed a bill that makes it a crime to post pro-life information on the internet. The NA and the Senate now will reconcile their versions of the bill, and it is very likely to become law. The pro-life movement has basically been criminalized, at least on the internet, and people with pro-life views do not have any freedom of speech on this issue, even though it does nothing against pro-abortion sites. There have also been fears that the wording could be used to extend the ban to churches. Another example of what's going on in Europe. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2016 (EST)

Russian hacking and the election

The latest in fake news from the Washington Post: "Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House." It's possible there are people at the CIA who think this, and no doubt they have produced a report of some kind. But to attribute this view to "the CIA" is bogus since it does not represent the views of senior people. See "DNI Clapper: We ‘don’t have good insight’ into alleged Russian hacking." The emphasis on Russian hacking is straining at the gnat and ignoring the elephant in the room: Obama manipulated the election far more than the Russians. Hillary could never have been nominated if Comey didn't vouch for her. PeterKa (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2016 (EST)

So if it's not about Putin anointing Trump as his U.S. puppet, why did the Russians show so much interest in the U.S. election? They assumed the fix was in and that after all the shouting Hillary would win, just like Putin wins every time in a Russian election. It was all about getting back at the U.S. for various grudges. As secretary of state, Hillary said some things about the 2011 Russian parliamentary election that Putin didn't appreciate, among other beefs. Ironically, the WP itself explained it back in September: "Putin wants revenge and respect, and hacking the U.S. is his way of getting it." PeterKa (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2016 (EST)
Russia (and others) are well atuned to the US election cycle. For example, in August of 2008, Putin intervened in Georgia, a Nato ally, and carved out the new state of Abkhazia. This occured late in the tired Bush administration when, even if Bush wanted to honor Nato commitments, a war weary Congress and publuc would never go along. The new Obama administration would be forced to accept it as a fait accompli. And this was only the first salvo in the new Russian adventurism.
Again now, the seige of Allepo is being replayed with the same effect in the waning days of the Obama administration.
It's no coincidence China took stern anti-democratic measures against Hong Kong legislators at virtually the same instant Americans were preoccupied with voting. This may be a harbinger of further deve!opments. In all three of these examples, Russia and China know full well the same actions at other times during a president's term of office could draw a more risky response rather than a yawn. American poliymakers are aware of these defects in our electoral system, but the public and media are oblivious. RobS#NeverHillary 23:01, 10 December 2016 (EST)
  • BUSTED: The anonymous sources that the Washington Post treats as CIA spokesmen are actually under Pentagon IG investigation for "manipulation of intelligence."[28] This might be relevant as well: "CIA Director John Brennan Proudly Acknowledges That He Once Voted for a Communist." PeterKa (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2016 (EST)
    • The Russian hacking revelations originate with Brennan, the commie CIA director. They aren't based on new evidence; He's just "concluding" whatever Obama tells him to conclude. Or so says Comey: "Comey to Trump: The Russians Didn’t Influence the Election." Clapper leads the U.S. intelligence community, not Brennan. (I linked to his testimony above.)
      What a sad story Comey is. What he wanted most was the approval of liberals. But they wouldn't have him. Now that all else has failed, he's stuck playing it straight. I hope he gets the Romney treatment. PeterKa (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2016 (EST)


With Tillerson as Secretary of State, it appears Trump is seeking improved relations with Russis. Tillerson negotiated the first Exxon deal with Putin in 1995; [29] he's managed Russian operations for 20 years. Exxon has joint ownership in some of these projects with people who are on the sanctions list. So it appears there will be efforts to review the sanctions imposed over the Crimean annexation. The first hurdle to overcome is the recently passed 2017 Defense Authorization Act forbidding military cooperation with Russia; if Trump is to hold to his promise to destroy ISIS, he cannot do it without Russian cooperation. RobS#NeverHillary 22:04, 11 December 2016 (EST)

I doubt the Russians will be much help against ISIS. This story makes them sound pathetic, or at least not interested in fighting ISIS: "ISIS recaptures Palmyra in Syria despite Russian bombs." They have their own priorities in Aleppo, on the other side of Syria. Regardless of the ISIS/Syria issue, we will need Russia's help in any showdown with Iran. The people at Forbes know Tillerson well. They make a good case for his appointment. The liberal media is reacting as if he will be Putin's puppet because of ExxonMobil's business ties. If you hear him speak, he's clearly an American first.
In the primaries, Trump took every position and the opposite. Who knew if he was liberal or a conservative? Now he is picking a cabinet that is more straight-arrow conservative than Reagan's was. PeterKa (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2016 (EST)
Last August, Trump, jr. explained Trump's political positions to Chris Christe and concluded, “Well, I guess that means we’re conservatives!”[30] The family had freshly chosen an ideology at that time. Liberals and Bushites were so strongly opposed to Trump that conservatives are what he's left with. Just think: If liberals hadn't gone bananas over the birth certificate issue, Trump might still be a liberal. PeterKa (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2016 (EST)
Russian help in a showdown with Iran? Don't bet on it. The Russia-Iran-China-North Korea alliance (known as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) aims today to never allow NATO to have the power it once had just 15 years ago. The rise of ISIS, and the disinterest and unwillingness of NATO to do anything about it, demonstrates NATO's impotence and inability to dictate international borders that it once had in the last half of the 20th century. Each of these major SCO members have their own territorial designs, and won't ask NATO's permission for changes.
Read the link I posted above about Tillerson; he is not a "friend" of Putin as is being reported now. Tillerson and Putin were chief negotiators between government and business in an adversarisl role with each other.
Now it's pretty obvious why Trump had Romney in for discussion. He wanted to clear his plans with Romney first. When Romney comes out in support of Tillerson in the coming confirmation fight, that will confirm Romney's onboard with Trump hitting the Russian reset button.
Putin has been begging for cooperation and assistance from NATO since ISIS shot down the Russian Metrojet in October 2015. The sanctions have been the main impediement.
It looks like Bolton will basically be running the State Department from an Undersecretary position, while Tillerson is called in to serve as a personal emissary between Trump and Putin. This task should take about 18 months; beyond that the job may be open again, and Bolton finally graduate to No.1.
Oh, and we should not talk about the Russian/Uranium One Deal as a scandal (other than the Clinton Foundation payoffs and conflicts of interest). The reason being, Russian control of US uranium mines is just the shoe on the other foot of Exxon part-ownership in Russian oil wells. RobS#NeverHillary 21:35, 12 December 2016 (EST)

Labor and bikinis

Trump will nominate Carl Jr. executive Andy Puzder for Labor secretary. “I like beautiful women eating burgers in bikinis. I think it’s very American.” No kidding. It's what his TV ads are full of. You can see his work here. PeterKa (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2016 (EST)

A mentor of mine once co-authored a book entitled, Motivation in Advertising. If he were only alive to see this. RobS#NeverHillary 08:42, 11 December 2016 (EST)
Reminds me of an old Bill Hicks gag. Had a look for the clip and it appears someone was way ahead of me. JohnZ (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2016 (EST)

Beautiful renditions of Christmas songs

It would be nice to hear these "renditions". Strangely, the powers that be at Tea Party have decided I am some sort of danger to them and have blocked me from accessing their site.
Why? The only times I have accessed that site is through CP as a result of something on Main Page Right.
I emailed but did not have the courtesy of a reply.
Perhaps one of the overlords at CP can enlighten me on my wrongdoing.
AlanE (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2016 (EST)
Try it again. Maybe the website was down. I went to the website recently and the website was down which is extremely rare for the website. Conservative (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2016 (EST)

Hillary continues to contest the election

Who was that woman who thought that not accepting the election result in advance was "horrifying"? That's what Hillary said in the last debate -- and it was probably her most memorable campaign promise.[31] Let's get up to date on that: "The Incredible, Spineless Hillary Clinton." Earlier, she denounced Comey for intervening in the election. Now she calls on the intelligence agencies to brief the electors. That would be a more direct intervention than anything Comey did. PeterKa (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2016 (EST)

If Russian government hackers got inside Hillary's emails, the DNC and Podesta's emails, they have nobody but themselves to blame. Sound computer security is not that hard to implement.
This proves once again that American liberals hate science - including computer science! Conservative (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2016 (EST)
There is a proposal to put a famous cyber-security expert like Hillary Clinton in charge of the investigation into Russian hackers. RobS#NeverHillary 05:51, 13 December 2016 (EST)

Green Party recount failure

A federal judge effectively ended any recount of the votes in Pennsylvania today. Also, Donald Trump actually increased his vote margin in Wisconsin, the only state that actually recounted their votes (and the recounting ended today). The only state the Greens were actually able to succeed in recounting actually widened Trump's lead. Wow. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2016 (EST)

Obama's worst mistake

So what was Obama's worst mistake? The Iran deal? Blaming an innocent video maker for the Benghazi attack? Politicizing the IRS? Enacting a health insurance program that appears to be in the process of destroying itself? Not releasing his birth certificate in a timely manner? Inciting anti-police riots in Ferguson? Not investigating Clinton's email usage while she was still secretary of state? With so much bumbling incompetence, its not easy to pick just one example. But that's not the way Obama looks at it. "Probably failing to plan for the day after what I think was the right thing to do in intervening in Libya,” is what Obama told Chris Wallace.[32] He thinks of himself as a grandmaster-level Chess player who occasionally neglects to think three or four moves ahead. PeterKa (talk) 05:55, 13 December 2016 (EST)

I'll list off 3 of them here, but they all ultimately represent a chain of disasterous, irreparable events for world.
  • Complete disengagement from Iraq. Led to the rise of ISIS and the demonstrable impotency of NATO and the West. Obama did this allegedly cause he's a pacifist, but that didn't stop him from going on the senseless war-mongering path in Syria & Libya.
  • "Asssad must go." Again, demonstrated the abso!ute futility of America's influence in the world, the short-sightednes of Obama/Hillary foreign policy, and strengthened Putin, Assad, and Iran.
  • Libya. The murder of Khaddaffi demonstrated, not only the backstabbing nature of how the US treats its allies (Khaddafi was an ally), but North Korea now can never be talked out of giving up its nukes.
The net result of this sequence of events is the Syrian and European refugee and humanitarian crisis'. 11 million Syrians are homeless and dispossessed, and half of those have flooded Europe, destroying Europe's social systems. These actions were either infinitesimally stupid, or were premeditated to weaken NATO and cause a permanent upheaval in Europe's Christian and Social Democratic heritages. The Syrian & Libyan disasters (and both actions are illegal under US law), were attempted, as best I can figure, in the hopes they'd be successful and portray Hillary Clinton as a great world leader, and for no other reason. RobS#NeverHillary 01:42, 14 December 2016 (EST)
  • No. 1 is the Iran Deal, which allowed the Iranians to buy the S-300.[33] No. 2 is the fall of Mosul in 2014, which could have been prevented if a special forces team had been in Iraq at the time. We were told the U.S. couldn't send forces to Iraq because the Iraqi parliament wouldn't agree to a SOFA. There is still no US-Iraq SOFA, but the special forces are again active in Iraq. So that reason was always bogus. No. 3 is the mess in Syria. All of Obama's national security advisers favored sending more aid, sooner to the Syrian opposition. He vetoed the lot of them, apparently based on Valerie Jarrett's advise. Doesn't a former Chicago slumlord know everything there is to know about Syria? PeterKa (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2016 (EST)
Yes. We're talking about individual decisions, but they are all inter-related which cummulatively have made Iraq and the entire region surrounding Iraq a worse place than Bush & Cheney made it, with millions of more victims and hundreds of thousands more dead, and have strained relations more with what once were loyal allies, and has multiplied jihadis exponentially, globally. Clearly, the world is worse off, a more dangerous place, America's ability to manage events, and confidence globally in the United States is far worse today than when Bush left office. And adversaries have become emboldened. And none of this is because he was a coward or pacifist, as is commonly believed. We just don't have a common phrase for his worst mistake yet, other than, "Obana foreign policy". And it should not be forgotten either this was the eork equally of Hillary Clinton, Joseph, Biden, and John Kerry, as well. RobS#NeverHillary 20:56, 14 December 2016 (EST)
His ego doomed himself from day one.--Jpatt 23:47, 14 December 2016 (EST)
Running for an office he was not prepared for. Of course, one could argue he isn't even qualified to hold public office. Stirlitz (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2016 (EST)Stirlitz
He governed like a city councilman. He could never get beyond the issue of commumity/police relations. Forget being president of all the people, or leader of the free world. RobS#NeverHillary 14:32, 17 December 2016 (EST)

"Trump has liberals fearing ... big government!"

[34] That's why it's always good to watch what you wish for. It seems like politicians (or most people) only look at the short term when wishing for a political change and forget about the long term consequences. Based on what I've seen so far, Trump is going to be a great president, and I don't buy any of the leftist hysteria, but the leftist hypocrisy still shows that when you increase government power, it can allow destructive politicians to be just as effective and powerful as beneficial leaders. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:22, 17 December 2016 (EST)

A world without hope

That's the world Michelle lives in: "Anti-Science Michelle Obama: This Is 'What Not Having Hope Feels Like'." This is both narcissistic and a confession that the Obama presidency was a failure. As Obama's legacy is written in blood in Aleppo, it's getting harder to claim it was success. Michelle hates Hillary, so this is strictly about herself. The first time she felt proud of America was when Barack clinched the Democratic nomination in 2008. That is to say, when he shlonged that non-transformative whitey Hillary. PeterKa (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2016 (EST)

Ambassador to Israel

Another great pick by Trump. One of the most pro-Israel people in this country [35][36]. Earlier in this election, there were fears that Trump leaned towards the Palestinians in the conflict, but once again, his choices show he plans to govern like a conservative. Would McCain or Romney have made such a pick? --1990'sguy (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2016 (EST)

It's hard for a Republican to pick an ambassador that is even slightly pro-Palestine. For the liberal democrats it's no problem, but honest conservatives it really makes them look terrible. McCain and Romney would have picked a pro-Israeli ambassador, but they would have likely been more "moderate", but still on the Israeli side of the fence. Stirlitz (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2016 (EST)
I'd have preferred to see Steve Bannon in that job. That's one way to get him out of the White House. RobS#NeverHillary 08:23, 18 December 2016 (EST)
I doubt Bannon is anywhere near as influential as he is presented. The éminence grise pulls the strings behind the scenes. To announce with fanfare that so-and-so is your éminence grise suggests that he isn't. It's more likely that Jared Kushner is pulling the strings while Bannon serves as his lightning rod. PeterKa (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2016 (EST)

China steals unmanned U.S. sub

The Chinese military is doing its traditional testing of the incoming U.S. commander in chief. Trump was on the ball and showed that you really can rule the world from a Twitter account. Obama, meanwhile, was woefully outpresidented: "HERE WE GO! Trump Found Out What China Did – Takes Matters Into His OWN Hands!" Trump must be getting his news from Drudge. They give this news a huge red headline. Chinese complained that the U.S. "hyped up" the issue. That sounds like Trump and Drudge put the squeeze on them. Obama certainly didn't interrupt his vacation. Here is a picture of the sub. It's apparently not sophisticated technology. It just measures ocean conditions. PeterKa (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2016 (EST)

What are you saying? I measures ocean temperatures in support of the Chinese global warming hoax? RobS#NeverHillary 08:21, 18 December 2016 (EST)
I mean, they are calling it a "sub" as if it was a high-tech piece of machinery. But it looks more like a canister with a thermometer inside. At any rate, it gives the U.S. Navy a pretext to patrol the area. Shortly after Obama was inaugurated in 2008, there was a series of Chinese attacks on U.S. oceanographic vessels. A trawler tried to steal an array cable from one. They must have concluded that Obama was a wimp. This is presumably more of the same. If Trump wants to say "New sheriff in town," he can send a destroyer passed Mischief Reef, where China is building an island in Philippine waters.[37] It's something Obama never dared to do. PeterKa (talk) 10:20, 18 December 2016 (EST)
What's more likely is we'll re-arm Japan for the first time since 1945, rebuild their navy, and let Japan patrol the straits. The Japanese are our secret weapon we've been sitting on all these years. RobS#NeverHillary 13:37, 18 December 2016 (EST)
The reason that the U.S. has never done anything like that is because Chinese and Korean public opinion are likely respond quite strongly. A China-North Korea-South Korea alliance against Japan is a big fantasy in popular culture. The pundits often tell us how explosive the Taiwan issue is, but that's small beer compared to feeling about Japan. China cynically turns outrage over Taiwan on and off, like "two minutes hate" in 1984. Confrontation with Japan would be harder to control. Ask a Chinese about war and the answer is almost always Japan, not Taiwan. PeterKa (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2016 (EST)
It's a new era now. This isn't just a change of administrations. It's time for Japan to give us a hand dealing with China and North Korea, and help patrol the Indian Ocean and Persisn Gulf. We don't buy Saudi oil, but we spend an awful lot to gaurd oil shipments from the Persian Gulf to Japan. China now likewise has become a beneficiary of our defense spending in the Persisn Gulf. Japan can guard the Spratly's, and give a hand in the Global jihad. They too have had some of their own beheaded by ISIS. RobS#NeverHillary 02:04, 20 December 2016 (EST)
Wow, China has already handed over the drone/glider/Maltese Falcon thingee despite Trump daring them to keep it.[38] Trump really does know how to negotiate. What China cares about these days is business and money -- although that could change if Japanese warships start patrolling the nine-dash area. PeterKa (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2016 (EST)
It's Flynn & Mathis making these decisions. Don't fool yourself thinking that was Trump. RobS#NeverHillary 01:03, 21 December 2016 (EST)
HuffPost says the Chinese privately agreed to return the drone before Trump started tweeting. If that's true, why did the Chinese continue to make belligerent statements about this issue even after Trump tweeted? Losing your cool over some Trump tweets certainly doesn't sound very professional. PeterKa (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2016 (EST)
I think there is a lesson to draw from all this: Unlike Mexico, China has sent us their best people. The dimmer bulbs have stayed in Beijing to run the foreign ministry. PeterKa (talk) 08:02, 21 December 2016 (EST)
What's interesting about this incident is, it was done to see how Trump would react at a time Trump was powerless to do anything. IOW, the Chinese probably do not know what to make of Trump. They probably never studied him c!ose!y (as they would with others) anticipating him being President someday. What they know of Trump they've read in US media, which they are smart enough to know is totally distorted and wrong. RobS#NeverHillary 20:05, 25 December 2016 (EST)

304 electors vote for Trump

Despite the best efforts of the Dems and the media to undermine American democracy, only two Republicans voted against Trump.[39] One voted for Kasich and the other for libertarian quack Ron Paul. (You read that right -- not Rand.) Michael Moore was offering money in public: "Michael Moore Appeals to GOP Electors: Go Rogue and I Will Pay Your State Fine." What do you suppose these people would say in private? PeterKa (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2016 (EST)

They would say in private whatever works. The words mean nothing--only the results. Sometimes they go public with it under that same mentality. Ick! --David B (TALK) 11:13, 20 December 2016 (EST)
I'm just glad the vast majority of Trump electors didn't fall for the Democrats plan (the Trump elector who voted for Kasich and posted an op-ed in the NYT collaborated with Clinton's campaign). But I still have to wonder about why a Republican elector would not vote for Trump, considering he is not less conservative in any way compared to Romney or McCain, and considering he picked a cabinet much more conservative than the other two would ever consider picking? --1990'sguy (talk) 12:17, 20 December 2016 (EST)
Now why would Republican Electors go along witb Democrat plans? What the Democrats wanted to do is illegal. Oh yea, I forgot, that is a primary difference between Republicans and Democrats. RobS#NeverHillary 00:59, 21 December 2016 (EST)

By the way, would someone please update the electoral map on the 2016 presidential election article to show the faithless electors? --1990'sguy (talk) 12:18, 20 December 2016 (EST)

Tea Party Crusaders

Every time I check this site from whatever device, cellphone, laptop, desktop, work, public library etc access is denied. Is it for US eyes only? Thanks. PS, Muslism?--AaronC1 (talk) 09:50, 20 December 2016 (EST)

Berlin Attack

The Daily Mail article linked after the line that describes the driver as a Muslim does not mention the race/religion of the attacker. In fact, the article states that the Berlin police admitted the Pakistani asylum-seeker they initially arrested and questioned was not the perpetrator. MatthewT (talk) 12:32, 20 December 2016 (EST)

Here is a source that states that the attacker was an asylum-seeker from Pakistan (even though there are doubts if he is the actual person). Either way, this other article from the leftist The Guardian states that "the similarities are striking" between Nice and Berlin. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2016 (EST)
Looks like Angela Merkel's out of a job. Maybe she can get hired at Carl' Jr. to run a store with all the executive management experience she's got. RobS#NeverHillary 00:56, 21 December 2016 (EST)
It turns out the German authorities were wrong. The likely suspect (and the MSM is still calling the suspect a "suspect" for now) was actually an asylum-seeker from Tunisia, who was supposed to have been deported earlier this year [40]. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:41, 21 December 2016 (EST)

NeverTrump "conservatives" are liberals

In case nobody's realized it yet, "conservatives" who strongly oppose Trump, like Evan McMullin or Chris Suprun are proving that they are in the wrong party. I have nothing against a conservative who doesn't fully trust Trump and thus won't vote for or fully support him, but will still give him a fair chance (I am close to a few of them, by the way, so I mean it). However, if someone calls themselves a conservative and is now plotting a way to impeach Trump as soon as he takes office, or someone who borrows directly from the Democrat Party's attack book (as McMullin did, shown in the article above) to criticize Trump, is showing that, ideologically speaking, they are more in line with the Dems. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2016 (EST)

Republicans and Democrats ars very different today from what they were 6 weeks ago, and are permanently changed. RobS#NeverHillary 00:54, 21 December 2016 (EST)
I disagree. I do think this election will be remembered as a defining or realigning election, but Republicans and Democrats are still pretty much the same as they were before the election (with the exception of, possibly, infrastructure spending and trade agreements). The parties positions on Obamacare, illegal immigration, school choice, abortion, homosexual "marriage," and defense spending are still the same. The only difference, for now at least, is that Republican leadership is actually more representative of the party base. Trump's movement has rooted out the liberal do-nothing Republicans like McMullin. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:34, 21 December 2016 (EST)
According to the New York Times, for the first time in the history of either party, the GOP did better among the less affluent than it did among the rich, The Dems, it appears, are now the party of the country club set, and the GOP is the party of common people. RobS#NeverHillary 20:34, 25 December 2016 (EST)
This appears to be the trend throughout much of the world. It is definitely the case in Europe, where the affluent tend to be more pro-EU and the blue-collar workers vote more for right-wing Eurosceptic parties rather than socialists. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:28, 25 December 2016 (EST)
Seriously, do you think the EU can survive another 30 years? Reports we see in the US do not look very good. RobS#NeverHillary 21:40, 25 December 2016 (EST)
The EU is in serious danger, and right-wing parties that once were considered extreme fringe parties are now mainstream and the largest parties in their countries. They could win in elections in France and the Netherlands and do very well in Germany next year.
However, I still have a feeling that the liberal elite will find some way to overcome this and still manage to create the United States of Europe. Immediately after Brexit, they proposed even further integration. They are ruthless fanatics and will not stop until they have achieved total political unification under their socialist government. Their massive immigration schemes are completely upheaving the traditional demographics of Europe. I don't think the right-wing gains will destroy the EU. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:54, 25 December 2016 (EST)
A big shift that may be taking place is the right wing populist movements are becoming the parties of women's rights. This appears to be the case in Germany and Sweden, I think. I don't know about France and England or other places. Traditional leftist parties evidently have not responded to the rape crisis. RobS#NeverHillary 22:36, 25 December 2016 (EST)
And a brief observstion: German domestic political trends have for many decades moreless lagged behind America by about 1-3 years. The upcoming German elections appear to be a replay of the US elections, with the establishment candidate and establishment media cock-sure of themse!ves, the name-calling, and a thoroughly fed up electorate tired of political correctness and being ignored. RobS#NeverHillary 03:09, 26 December 2016 (EST)
As for the women's rights, that may be the case as the right-wing populists are the only ones who truly seem to care about this issue, which is oftentimes the fault of refugees. However, the mainstream parties couldn't care less. In their eyes, right-wing populists are the equivalent of Nazis because they oppose the holy and sacred ideas of open borders, unrestricted immigration, and eventual political unification.
As for the German elections, I think you're right. I predict big gains for the AfD in Germany, as well as the National Front in France and the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands. However, we should remember that the political system in Germany is much different than the United States. First off, the German parliament uses proportional representation. Also, in recent years all throughout Europe, the "center-right" and "center-left" parties (which do have basically the same liberal views) have been forming governing coalitions in order to keep right-wing populists out of the government. Thus, the AfD could become the largest party in Germany, but the "mainstream" parties will still find away to keep them powerless.
However, we'll see what actually happens. I could be wrong (and I hope I am). --1990'sguy (talk) 12:19, 26 December 2016 (EST)
The mainstream German media is being manipulated in virtually the same fashion as we saw in the United States the past 15 monthes, false narratives, attacks, etc. Forget the merits of any issue, this sort of press manipulation outrages people. Why the vendors of such garbage can't see and understand that, I have no idea. RobS#NeverHillary 23:20, 26 December 2016 (EST)

What liberals mean by "consensus"

They mean you're fired if you don't agree: "Congress: Obama Admin Fired Top Scientist to Advance Climate Change Plans." PeterKa (talk) 10:26, 21 December 2016 (EST)

This fact is obvious. If you don't agree with the liberal agenda, you're called "racist," "sexist," "homophobic," "bigoted," etc. Everyone who disagrees is chased away and marginalized, and the remaining people, who all happen to agree with the liberals create a "consensus" among themselves, as if everyone had a say in the first place. This has been going on for a while, unfortunately. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2016 (EST)

Democrats in 2020

The party's in sad shape. The grassroots wants Michelle Obama or "someone entirely new."[41] As far as a candidate a Democrat might actually be able to vote for goes, Biden tops the list. He'll be 78 in 2021. PeterKa (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2016 (EST)

True, I don't see Biden running again at that age, and no other candidate (with the exception of Jim Webb, who probably can never win a Dem primary) can win a presidential election, it seems. However, we should be cautious: many people probably thought the same of the GOP in 2009, but look what happened. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2016 (EST)
Elizabeth Warren. She can recite all the communist mantras and talking points by heart but also, more importantly, appears to want the job of top dog. RobS#NeverHillary 09:12, 24 December 2016 (EST)

General Relativity

Why is Conservapedia against General Relativity? Not only is it said to be one of the best proven theories, but it was also proven by the recent detection of gravitational waves. Besides that, it's necessary for Dr. Russell Humphreys time dilation cosmological model. --Ambassador (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2016 (EST)

Electoral College Map needs to be updated to show faithless electors

Would someone update File:ElectoralCollege2016.jpg to show the faithless electors? Nobody has done that yet. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2016 (EST)