Talk:Main Page/Archive index/163

Yes, the British economy is struggling, but not because it is socialist. There are no socialists within sniffing distance of national political power in the UK, which has been run by the Conservative Party since 2010. Britain is more conservative than all the other EU countries, each of which is posting higher economic growth and more positive indicators across the board.

The problem with the British economy is a combination of two things. First, the fiscally conservative policies in place since 2010, with their hard curbs on public spending and firm control of public sector debt, with few tax cuts to stimulate spending, have necessarily calmed the economy - as happened when Thatcher and Reagan first introduced their reforms. Second, the Brexit vote - which took £248 billion of QE to calm the financial sector's jitters - and the subsequent lack of vision, and even incompetence, from the Theresa May's government means there is a lack of economic confidence. Inflation and interest rates are up because of the consequent devaluation of the pound - we are net importers and imports have become 20% more expensive - have hamstrung consumer spending; big companies, which are already paying more for raw materials, do not want to invest in big new projects until the financial and regulatory dust settles; banks don't want to lend until things become more certain. Add to that the traditional British problem with productivity - that can certainly be put down to a socialist and secular sense of entitlement - and you have a massive cooling of the British economy.

Had we had austerity without Brexit, or Brexit without austerity, or a government united behind a strong PM with a clear vision, things might have been different.

The solution is clearly strong, Conservative leadership but there are two problems with that. First, there is no clear candidate - at the moment, the leading Tories are either all weak or self serving. Second, the Tory party has been at war with itself for thirty years, something Cameron tried to end with his referendum. Instead of uniting the Conservatives, it has split them even further into two pharisaical camps. Whoever sticks their neck out the next leader will face dissent from the opposite camp. We don't need a Churchill or a Thatcher: a John Major, a PM known for his dullness who nevertheless kept party discipline in the early 90s, will do. But there is nobody of even his calibre.Rafael (talk) 11:32, 26 February 2018 (EST)

Britain has the problems that most developed countries have: too much federal government debt; aging population with people not working long enough; too many unproductive immigrants and below replacement level of births in the native/general population; too many people that the security forces have to monitor and keep track of (Muslims); too many people not studying hard enough in schools that do not spend any time teaching entrepreneurship (In other words, schools that teach people how to be good factory workers and/or employees). All of these problems could be solved by having a high degree of biblical Christianity in the general population (would solve the birth rate problem and would also cause people to have the Protestant work ethic, See: Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism). Conservative (talk)

P.S. I edited the main page right entry based on your input.Conservative (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2018 (EST)

@Rafael: I think you already have a dull prime minister -- Theresa May resembles John Major much more than Churchhill and Thatcher. Also, did John Major really keep the Tories together? He was the one who signed the Maastricht Treaty, which got the UK into the mess it's in today -- both in general and within the Conservative Party.

Boris Johnson should have run for prime minister in 2016 -- he was the only tory who could have defeated May, and unlike her, he has charisma and actually believes in Brexit. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2018 (EST)

And he has a similar barber AlanE (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2018 (EST)

Major did keep the party together. He famously used an swear word to describe the Eurosceptics but, bearing in mind they were of the calibre of Michael Portillo and Peter Lilley - superheavyweights by today's political standards - he kept them in check. You're right about Maastricht, which was largely prepped by Thatcher, but I wasn't commenting on his ideology, merely his leadership.

Johnson, on the other hand, is as self-serving as they come. Believe in Brexit? He was pro-EU, even lobbying for Turkey's entry, until he realised there were more opportunities for advancement on the other side. He has a track record of infidelity. As Mayor of London, he sold off great chunks of real estate to globalist investors, including New Scotland Yard. As Mayor of London, he wasted £1 billion on vanity projects like the Mittal Tower and the Enirates cable car. He still has a lot of questions to answer about his relationship with Uber and the planners of the failed Garden Bridge project. One day, he promises deregulation and cutting red tape. The next, he promises caution. Anything to keep him in the tabloid's good graces as part of his personal campaign to be Prime Minister. Rafael (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2018 (EST)

I used to love watching John Major battle in the British parliament. Here are a few classics: Tony Blair vs. John Major - "Weak, weak, weak!" and Tony Blair vs. John Major 1995/1997.Conservative (talk) 03:29, 27 February 2018 (EST)

It seems that Graham fell afoul of the Obama administration's views on same-sex marriage: "Obama Audited Billy Graham, So Wiretapping Trump Tower Is Not a Stretch." In 2008, candidate Obama told Saddleback church goers that, "I believe that marriage is a union between a man and woman."[1] Obama 2013 would have audited that fundamentalist. PeterKa (talk) 05:59, 27 February 2018 (EST)

There is currently no mention of Graham on MPR. Someone should correct this. PeterKa (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2018 (EST)

Unfavourved Briton Andrew Pozzi beats US favourite Jarret Eaton in the World Indoor Athlectics Championship. First the burning of Washington DC and now this?? Meanwhile Britain copes splendidly with the recent snow storms whilst Buffalo NY struggles to cope with thier own bad weather only days after a Buffalo resident mocks the UK reaction on Conservapedia. Divine intervention?--AslanA (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2018 (EST)

Ps. Congrats of only taking 15 edits to post a headline, you're improving:)--AslanA (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2018 (EST)

User: AslanA, I did an IP check and noticed that you edited from Britain. You misspelled the word "their".

Of course, this provides further proof that Britain continues its post Charles Darwin decline. Britain, which brought us the King James Bible, Paradise Lost and Pilgrim's Progress, now produces individuals who cannot even spell the word "their" properly. Sad!Conservative (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2018 (EST)

The top two entries in MPR should be fixed. The first one describes the New York Times as "Left leaning", when it should actually be described as "left-wing" (look at its opinion section). The second entry labels the Alternative for Germany party as "Far-Right" when it should actually be labeled "right-wing" or "conservative".

The current labels uncritically accept the anti-conservative terminology used by the Left (where they style themselves as "moderates" and conservatives as "extremists"). This should be fixed. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2018 (EST)

I think your NY Times feedback somewhat engaged in hairsplitting in terms of the political left spectrum issue. The NY Times is left leaning. In terms of the left leaning publications, here is a progression from the least left leaning publications to the most: Christian Science Monitor, New York Times, The Nation, Worker's Daily.

However, on the whole, I think your criticism of the "far right" label was valid. Yet even so, as far as the link to the YouTube video by Dr. Steven Turley on AFD in Germany, he explicitly says the title he picked for his video (which I used on news section of the main page) was somewhat misleading given that the right keeps winning and winning in Europe. Anyways, I don't know any parties that are farther to the right than AFD in Germany. Maybe they exist, but I am not aware of them. Anyways, the labeling of right-wing or far right largely has to do with context. In a European/German context, the AFD may be far right (But again, I really don't know). But again, not using the label far right is generally a good practice on the main page. For example, rather than lazily copy Turley's title for his video, I should have given it a new title.Conservative (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2018 (EST)

Actually, many of the "right-leaning" parties in Europe cannot reasonably be labeled far right. For example, consider this article from the Economist: In Europe, right-wing parties are offering bigger handouts than traditional ones.

The AFD appears to be have a history of having a mix of right leaning members to left leaning members.

But at least in one way, Germany is more to the right than the USA. Germany has a lower public debt to GNP ratio than the USA does.[2]. So maybe, the AFD party is far right in some of its ideas compared to most Western World countries.Conservative (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2018 (EST)

About the NYT, it's true that there are publications even more left-wing than it is, but we should remember that American liberals have shifted sharply toward the Left in the past few decades. Their current positions on guns, abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism, border security, immigration, and much more have shifted dramatically toward the globalist left-wing. In the 1950s, the NYT's positions on most issues probably would have been equated with communism.

About the AfD, its agenda is pretty mainstream conservative by American standards, if not slightly more liberal. Of course, Europe is more socialist and does not value the concepts of natural law and unalienable rights like Americans do, which explains some of the AfD's occasional liberal-leaning positions (more handouts, more govt. involvement, etc.), but overall it is conservative. And considering that the AfD is not calling for unilaterally/instantly leaving the EU nor for completely ending all immigration, it is quite moderate. Claims of the AfD being "far-right" are ridiculous and actually show how far Left "moderates" and liberals have drifted from the center.

There is at least one party that is considered further to the right than the AfD: the National Democratic Party. However, Germany bans all fascist and Nazi parties, which explains why the AfD is one of the most right-wing parties in Germany. But again keep in mind the fact that Europe is much more left-wing/socialist/globalist than the United States, and German society is still traumatized by the Third Reich and Holocaust. Thus, it's hard for any solid right-wing party to gain traction in the country, and the establishment parties only need to compare it to the Nazi Party (though it's a ridiculously inaccurate comparison) to hurt its election chances. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2018 (EST)

It's funny, you'd think the right-wing of Europe would be smart enough to start accusing their left-wing counterparts, including the establishment parties, as fascist and Nazis, and even state that Communism and Nazism are two sides of the same coin. That would be a shocking swerve and have the populace think long and hard about their history, maybe even restore national pride. I mean, if being accused of being fascist and Nazi is enough to harm your chances at elections, then accusing the left of being that should be a pretty good way of devastating them at the election, beat them at their own game. And it would actually be even MORE fitting with the left in Europe. Pokeria1 (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2018 (EST)

It's more a debate of redefining left and right. Not that they've flipped, but each has adopted elements of the other as their traditional adversaries distance themselves from long-held positions. In the US, the left is becoming ardent supporters of domestic spying and the surveillance state, something they've traditionally opposed but in reality in keeping with the left's anti-democratic ideals. Meanwhile the right is becoming the defenders of the social contract, albeit government coerced rather than out of a moral obligation, which has been their traditional position. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 12:50, 16 March 2018 (EDT)

Here we go, I've been wondering when this would happen--a newly planned island retreat banning all men. I'm not especially offended, but it's a perfect example of the liberal Double standard--just imagine the uproar if such a retreat banned all women instead.... [3]
Now consider this: What will they do about men who "feel like women today"...? --David B ^(TALK) 13:50, 5 March 2018 (EST)

I found out today about the town of Kennesaw, Georgia, which requires gun ownership.[4][5] It turns out that it only had one murder in six years and a violent crime rate of under two percent -- and we're talking about a municipality with nearly 30,000 people. The real crime zones are the inner cities, where there is a lack of respect for the rule of law. We need to focus on people, not guns (and not take away constitutional rights), when solving the problem.

Also, Nikolas Cruz, the FL school shooter, was actually denied an AR-15 at a gun store because he was under 21.[6] More evidence that gun control doesn't stop these people. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2018 (EST)

I entirely agree! Most of these mass murderers steal the guns they use for their crimes. It's sort of like assuming that an illegal alien, who's first act in the U.S. was to break our laws by sneaking across the boarder, will have the utmost respect for our laws. --David B ^(TALK) 00:28, 8 March 2018 (EST)

A legally owned gun is traceable to the owner. So criminals prefer stolen guns. If liberals ever return to power, Broward County is America's future. Cruz could terrorize his school with impunity because the school administration and the sheriff's department are uninterested in student safety. Their focus is on correcting racial disparities in terms of school discipline and arrests. When Cruz became too big a problem to deny, they blamed the NRA. If the Dems keep moving leftward, we could start seeing racial quotas for the prison population. What will the criminals do after they are released? A play that opened recently has a suggestion: "Kill the Climate Deniers."[7] This is why the American people need guns. PeterKa (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2018 (EST)

The student anti-NRA marches represent a creepy stage of brainwashing, like the ending of Nineteen Eighty-Four. Protesting the failures of either the sheriff or the school administrators is unthinkable. They love big brother. So their anger is directed at legal gun owners who had nothing to do with the massacre. Does anyone think this is an effective political strategy? Clinton's modest gun grabbing campaign led to Waco, Ruby Ridge, and Oklahoma City. No one wants to go down that road again. This is just about lining the pockets of pro- and anti- gun lobbyists. PeterKa (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2018 (EST)

It's almost funny: these kids (along with the rest of the gun control lobby) believe they're too immature to own a gun, yet they're somehow competent enough to vote and determine public policy -- not to mention driving.

These kids are openly advocating for a nanny state -- one that views citizens as incapable of self-reliance and who must depend on the government for their very lives. It's scary that so many young people actually want to give up their rights and freedoms to the government and become fully dependent on the government for their survival. It's also scary that it's clear now that these massacres were caused by government incompetence, rather than adherence to the Constitution, yet these kids (and other leftists) are still calling for gun control and are still labeling the NRA a "terrorist organization". --1990'sguy (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2018 (EDT)

Here's an interesting op-ed that I read on this: [8] Also, Florida's prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for Nikolas Cruz: [9] This is ironic, because according to the Left and the FL government which just banned guns for adults under 21, people under 21 are too immature to have any Second Amendment rights -- however, they're somehow not immature enough to face the death penalty. Apparently, Cruz is not the only one who's messed up. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2018 (EDT)

As usual, Anne Coulter sums it up. The Obamunists have made quite a mess of our schools, according to Anne. Black students in St. Paul are beating the cr*p out their white female teachers. Administrators and school board members don't even notice. They are too busy chanting, "School-to-prison pipeline! School-to-prison pipeline!" PeterKa (talk) 03:02, 15 March 2018 (EDT)

Apparently, the White House is blocking high-ranking Polish leaders from meeting both Trump and Pence, and it is considering other actions against the country: [10] Their reasoning? Poland's Holocaust law violates freedom of expression. This is a ridiculous reason, since European countries have been passing bills restricting freedom of expression for decades -- and what's more, the concept of unalienable constitutional rights, such as the freedom of expression, doesn't even exist in Europe. In that continent (as with much of the rest of the world), government, not natural law, is supreme, and utilitarianism is the preferred method of solving problems.

In addition to the well-known laws against Holocaust denial (though those laws actually ban all but one viewpoint, since they also deny any view that appears to downplay the Holocaust), here are some other anti-free speech laws recently enacted in Europe:

• France banned pro-life speech on the internet in early 2017[11]
• In Germany, social media companies are now required to delete all posts that they consider "hate speech"[12][13] (however, this has been happening even before the bill:[14][15][16])
• As I showed in the Christian persecution article, Christians who voice theologically orthodox views on homosexuality and Islam in public can expect legal punishment
• Right-wing French political figure Marine Le Pen could face prison time because she shared an image of ISIS on Twitter: [17]
• Two right-wing "fringe" British political figures were recently convicted and jailed (36 and 18 weeks, respectively), for committing "hate crimes" (simply posting offensive things about Islam)[18][19]
• Belgium has banned "sexism" in public places[20]

Some of these "hateful" expressions (such as outright Holocaust denial, etc.) are nasty and terrible, but the solution should not be to ban them. As I showed, the majority of these laws targeted reasonable (and even loving) speech (pro-life, biblical Christian, etc.) that happens to be unpopular. When will the U.S. State Department take action against Europe for these laws?

Also, here's an interesting article I found about anti-Semitism in Europe: [21] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2018 (EST)

Now, the UK just banned three foreign right-wing activists, apparently just because they criticized Islam: [22][23][24][25] Leadership in that country is messed up, that's for sure. If they banned Muslims, for sure there would be an uproar. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:22, 14 March 2018 (EDT)

And this is why we have our first amendment. It's too bad that we as begging for it to be taken away in the name of stopping "hate speech." --David B ^(TALK) 00:31, 8 March 2018 (EST)

The two ultras in Britain were jailed for harassment. Not hate speech but full on aggressive behaviour aimed at people who couldn't physically defend themselves - the kind of stuff not covered by the first amendment They and their motley crew of football hooligans have a colourful history of crossing the line between showboating and bullying. In spite of claiming to stand for Christianity, every denomination publicly disowned them years ago. Rafael (talk) 01:48, 8 March 2018 (EST)

The BBC article says they "were arrested over the distribution of leaflets and posting of online videos during a gang-rape trial." This doesn't sound like a punishable offense, at least in the U.S. No comment on whether they are actually Christian (I don't live in the UK, so I don't know enough about their beliefs/actions to determine that), but the vast majority of Christian denominations in Europe are politically and theologically liberal, so the fact that they reject "Britain First" does not say much. Conservatives (I'm not talking about Theresa May and Boris Johnson) and theologically conservative Christians are regularly demonized in Europe. As I mentioned above, even true Christians, simply voicing biblical Christian principles in public are being prosecuted in the UK (see the Christian persecution article). --1990'sguy (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2018 (EST)

From the article you cited: "Both Fransen and Golding were convicted on a joint charge of religiously aggravated harassment after an incident last May at 555 Pizza takeaway in Ramsgate, when Fransen banged on the windows and doors of the shop and screamed "paedophile" and "foreigner"."

Re the demonization of theologically conservative Christians. The interfaith group I work with includes everyone from tepid Anglicans to YEC evangelicals, progressive Muslims to Orthodox Jews. There will always be someone who will attack people for their beliefs but most Brits shrug and "don't do God", as Alastair Campbell famously said; we don't even appear on their radar, even if we do get a daily slot on the main morning news show to present a religious opinion on the news.

At a tangent, there are state schools - Christian, Jewish and Muslim - who teach creationism as part of the core curriculum, and an even greater number of state funded and supervised faith schools with a broader version of religion at the heart of their day to day activity - 7000 or so I think.

All of which is irrelevant because Britain First's theology begins and ends with photos of them carrying large crosses.Rafael (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2018 (EST)

@Rafael: Thanks for showing me the actual crime, but I still believe that is permissible under the First Amendment -- I'm not sure about the banging on windows (though nobody would be punished so severely, at least -- it would probably be considered disruptive), but the words are definitely protected. Hate speech is free speech in the U.S. (and there's the question of what's even considered "hate speech").

About creationism in state schools, in 2014, the UK government banned the teaching of creationism in all schools that receive state funding: [26] Also, maybe you heard about this recent incident where the UK government punished a Christian primary school that had a teacher teaching creationism: [27][28] Of course nobody in the West is going around and persecuting Christians like they did during the Roman Empire, or in Iran -- they do it in a uniquely Western ("refined," bloodless, etc.) manner. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2018 (EST)

Yes, teaching creationism is banned in science lessons because it clashes with the legal requirements of the National Curriculum. It is not banned in the rest of the school's life and activities. No, I don't feel persecuted. Frustrated, often, but never persecuted.Rafael (talk) 12:03, 10 March 2018 (EST)

About creationism, the fact that it cannot be taught in science class is what's key -- sure you can teach it in religion class, or mythology class, where it will be equivalent to the Greek gods and Hinduism. In that setting, nobody will see it as factually and scientifically valid. There's a major scientific aspect to biblical creation (creation science), and the UK government (from a secular standpoint) is smart in denying it scientific and factual legitimacy without banning it entirely in schools. It's legal in many cases, but only where it will be taught as a myth and only in situations where the fictional "science vs. religion" divide can be emphasized. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2018 (EDT)

Should Jesus tarry long enough, there will be a day where most Brits will be religious.[29]. 40% of Polish people now go weekly to church.[30] The religious have higher than replacement levels of birth. The nonreligious and irreligious have below replacement levels of birth (see: Atheism and fertility rates). And the liberal secular worldview no longer has the recruiting/indoctrination power it once did. Recently, The Guardian reported that Britain may have hit peak secular as its secularization rate is zero now.[31]. By 2030, the religious are expected to pick up significant steam in the USA.[32] And by at least 2050, this will happen in Europe as a whole (see: Desecularization).

The state has less and less power to restrict ideas. The internet and other digital mediums makes it very hard to restrict information. In addition, people can communicate privately such as house churches in China. On top of this, the state has less and less power overall (failing welfare states, distrusts of government friendly media, fourth generation warfare, growth of religion and political populism, etc. etc.)Conservative (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2018 (EST)

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks declared: "...the 17th century was the beginning of an age of secularization which has lasted four centuries until now; the 21st century is exactly the opposite, it's the beginning of an age of desecularization. Religion is seizing power; they're not yielding power." [33]Conservative (talk) 10:48, 10 March 2018 (EST)

Obama could have been prosecuted under this law. In fact, when a US Presidential candidate displayed such ignorance, probably gave impetus for passage. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 12:57, 16 March 2018 (EDT)

Don't go to Pyongyang, Mr. President. It's a trap. See "Plumes Seen at Plutonium Plant May Belie Kim's Disarmament Talk" (NYT) and "North Korea’s Yongbyon Nuclear Complex: 5 MWe Reactor is Likely Operating, New Military Encampment Established" (38 North). North Korea was inspired to break free of Clinton-era restraints and restart its nuclear program by the vision of U.S. skyscrapers crashing on September 11. Koreans were hugely excited and happy in the days after 9/11. That's a feeling Kim Jong-un yearns to recreate. In short, North Korea is a country with a death wish. PeterKa (talk) 03:31, 11 March 2018 (EDT)

Its tough to tell. Poor economic performance caused the Soviet Union to fall. Maybe Trump's biting economic sanctions on North Korea and his tariff talk are causing the North Koreans and their ally China to rethink things.

In addition, Trump needs to win PA again as far as his reelection (PA made a lot of steel and PA steel plants are now expanding).

Trump will take the Reagan approach of "trust, but verify" so he has nothing to lose and he will get good press out of North Korea talks as well.

Furthermore, Trump has a bit of a history of making political overtures that makes him look good and be willing to negotiate/compromise, yet at the same time he knows the opposition will not accept or be able to capitalize on those overtures. For example, he must have known that his DACA proposal of giving amnesty to DACA immigrants in exchange for the wall, etc. would be rejected by the Democrats.Conservative (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2018 (EDT)

The Korean press says the meeting is likely to be at Panmunjom in the Joint Security Area.[34] That's a whole lot better than Trump going to Pyongyang like a supplicant. PeterKa (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2018 (EDT)

Immediately after Trump announced the summit, the Trump-hating press claimed it was a victory for the North Koreans. If that was true, the North Korean press would be crowing about it. KCNA certainly is boasting about the upcoming North-South summit. But it has published not a word on Kim-Trump.[35] NK expects South Korea to pay them money under the "sunshine policy." They know Trump will be harder to roll, so they may be having second thoughts. PeterKa (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2018 (EDT)

Sanctions are only as good as enforcement. It appears as if Trump is having stricter sanctions and stricter enforcement against cheaters in terms of penalties. Trump may be bringing North Korea to its economic knees. The Soviet Union largely collapsed due to economic reasons. Marxism/communism doesn't work in terms of its economics and that is why China opened up its economy.Conservative (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2018 (EDT)

I'd rather wait until they officially renounce Communism, and go so far as to carry out purges against any Communist elements before we celebrate. Don't forget, technically, the USSR also "embraced capitalism" in 1921, when Lenin announced War Communism. I'd rather that Communism is dead and destroyed before I can ever recognize China, North Korea, and, heck, even Russia as having truly renounced it. Still, it is worth a shot imposing stricter enforcement of sanctions. Pokeria1 (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2018 (EDT)

When China opened up its economy and opened up to the world such as sending college students to the USA, it sowed the seeds of Chinese coming into contact with American Christians. Now Chinese Christianity is growing by 10% every year and has been doing so for quite some time.

North Korea's hermit kingdom strategy and beggar nation strategy is a losing strategy. When very tough times come (like Great Depression 2.0 or possibly a worse economic recession than 2007/2008), being a charity case is not going to work. It's not a matter of when North Korea will collapse - but when. Conservative (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2018 (EDT)

Don't get me wrong, I am looking forward to North Korea's inevitable collapse, but I think we should do a more quick way of getting rid of Communism. Communism needs to die for what it's done, and I'm doubtful Russia has truly renounced Communism (if it did, they would have smashed their Karl Marx statue to bits instead of keeping it up, not to mention destroy Lenin's "preserved body". Pokeria1 (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2018 (EDT)

Conditions were pretty desperate in North Korea during the "Arduous March" of the 1990s. I wouldn't count on a popular uprising saving the day. The Soviet Union collapsed when East Germans charged across the Berlin Wall to freedom. Perhaps something similar can be organized along the DMZ. China has never cared much as to whether or not Chinese go overseas. But for NK, each North Korean male of military age represents a precious hostage. PeterKa (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2018 (EDT)

Trump broke free of John Kelly's discipline about a week ago and is now having the time of his life, according to Axios. This reminds me of the time Trump destroyed his teleprompter during the campaign. Does a president really need a staff? I guess we are going to find out. Bismarck ran the German government almost by himself. Kaiser Wilhelm II was less successful when he dismissed his chancellor in 1909 tried to do the same. PeterKa (talk) 01:51, 12 March 2018 (EDT)

FBI whistle-blowers have finally broken their silence about the Las Vegas shooting that claimed fifty-eight lives in October 2017. Up to now the official story on Paddock was that he acted alone. There's no other way to say it, but it needs to be said: the FBI went to ridiculous lengths to support this narrative, leaving observers to wonder what in the world was going on. I'm not going to draw conclusions as to motive as some have but only suggest some in the process of pointing to where information is lacking, by asking questions:

• Did Paddock's terrorist accomplices cross the United States' badly defended border illegally and in so doing finally and incontrovertibly establish that the Department of Homeland Security and related agencies put Americans in harm's way so businesses could cash in on cheap labor and Democrats could replenish their vanishing pool of voters?
• Why did the FBI try to carry on the support of this policy—or rather, the failure to act it involved—even well into Trump Administration, an administration, with the support of the public, which had little use for illegal aliens?
• Why do Americans go through the Kabuki ritual of airline security administered by Homeland Security on every commercial airline flight when all the while they allow terrorists to just walk across the border from Mexico to the United States where they carry out, and even feel free to plan, their atrocities on U.S. soil? VargasMilan (talk) 05:08, 16 March 2018 (EDT)

Why did Paddock have two airplanes? Where were they based? RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 12:55, 16 March 2018 (EDT)

Randi Weingarten, head of the American Federation of Teachers, was a frequent visitor to the Obama White House. Now it seems clear why. Obama liked to talk about the "citizen army" he was organizing. Post-Parkland, U.S. students have starting marching like those in Beijing in the spring of 1966. See "Obama's 'civilian army': It was the students all along." People forget that Mao was not China'a leader when the Red Guard protests began. Like Obama today, he was a former leader lingering around to undermine his successor (Liu Shaoqi). PeterKa (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2018 (EDT)

As if authorizing surveillance on the Trump campaign wasn't reason enough to impeach him, it now appears that FISA Judge Rudolph Contreras was in cahoots with FBI election manipulator Peter Strzok: "Bombshell: New Text Messages Suggest FBI Agents Colluded To “Cover” Secret Meeting." How is it possible that over a year into the Trump administration, Strzok is still the No. 2 administrator at the FBI's Counterintelligence Division? PeterKa (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2018 (EDT)

Strzok was demoted to Human Resources, where he selects and hires new brainwashed recruits. There's much of the Strzok story yet to be told. For instance, he originally reported Flynn did not lie, and McCabe altered his interview report (FBI form 302) to say Flynn did lie (Sessions couldn't use that to fire McCabe because of Sessions recusal); Strzok likewise texted one week after Mueller's appointment that there was nothing there. Indications are Strzok's former boss, Bill Priestap head of Counterintelligence, is cooperating with the secret prosecutor that Sessions has appointed. Strzok likely will be charged with some crimes, and may cooperate in a plea deal after the IG report becomes public. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 17:19, 23 March 2018 (EDT)

The FBI, once a paragon of law enforcement, was politicized into a "secret society" under Director Comey and President Obama. Right after Trump fired Comey in May, Acting Director Andrew McCabe told Congress that "Director Comey enjoyed broad support within the FBI and still does to this day". Since the FBI has 36,000 employees located all over the United States, it is safe to assume that McCabe was projecting. It was an act of defiance, and he should have been fired at that time.
Comey was everything an FBI director shouldn't be. He dramatically intervened twice in the 2016 Presidential election, both times to exonerate Hillary of negligently handling her classified email, something she was clearly guilty of. While Comey examined Trump's Russia connections in quest of who knows what, Hillary's involvement in the Uranium One affair received no scrutiny. The FBI leaked the results of its investigation, including the now forgotten "pinging" story, just before the election. Even worse, Comey promoted sleazeballs like Peter Stzrok to positions of responsibility.
Civil service rules have protected McCabe until now, creating a "deep state" beyond the control of our either the President or Congress. Now he has been fired for leaking classified material based on the inspector general's investigation.
I certainly hope Robert Mueller is next. The man has been the headlines day after day for the last year. That suggests that he has one or more people on his staff who strategically leak to the press as their full time job. When he was FBI director, Mueller directly managed the anthrax case and pursued Steven Hatfill, an innocent man, for five years. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof told the FBI to pursue that dangerous right-winger Hatfill, and Mueller obeyed. That's the kind of FBI agent the media appreciates. Mueller has never apologized or even bothered to explain his behavior, so there is no reason to trust his judgement. So far, Mueller's special counsel investigation has been a fishing expedition with little regard for the rules of proper investigation outlined in the DOJ's U.S. Attorney's Manual. See Andrew McCarthy's "Mueller’s Investigation Flouts Justice Department Standards." PeterKa (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2018 (EDT)

McCabe has issued a statement on his firing. I find it rather dishonest. He blames the IG, but fails to mention the current IG is an Obama appointee. McCabe also fails to mention that the FBI's own Office of Professional Responsibility recommended that he be fired. OPR is currently run by a Mueller appointee.
McCabe describes the FBI as being "at war" with the administration, as if this is a mitigating circumstance. Does he realize that he works for Trump, who was elected by the American people? If the FBI thinks of itself as being at war with him, Trump is more than justified in taking action to bring the organization under his control. This reminds me of the 2016 debate in which Hillary claimed that Trump could not prosecute her because she's a "political opponent." There is quite a list of Clinton scandals that the FBI needs to address at this point. Hopefully, Director Wray can now find a deputy who is willing to take action. PeterKa (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2018 (EDT)

The Mueller probe is likely to continue. Strzok, Priestap, Lisa Page and few other remain in the DOJ. Brennan is next on the hot seat for lying to Congress about his knowledge of the origins of the Steele dossier, which he then used in Obama's daily briefing. Comey likewise faces perjury charges for lying to Congress on several matters. McCabe, Strzok and others all can be used as useful pawns to rat out their bosses. Flynn's conviction will likely be reversed (McCabe altered Strzok interview report to say Flynn lied, whereas Strzok originally reported Flynn did not lie). As Acting Director, McCabe illegally obtained evidence for Mueller by seizing a transcript of Manafort's confidential Congressional testimony given under an immunity deal. These are the basic elements that will undermine the Mueller witch-hunt in coming months.

Susan Rice & Samantha Powers also have legal problems in the making. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 04:00, 18 March 2018 (EDT)

It should further be noted that Pompeao's replacement at CIA, Hastrap, worked under Brennan's torture program. Evidently a bipartisan consensus has been reached to bury the Torture program. The question becomes solely Brennan's involvement in the Deep state coup, which all fingers point to him as the Mastermind, overshadowing any criminal allegations against Brennan and Hastrap for human rights violations. Trump evidently has reached a compromise with CIA, seeing that the agency no longer has any direct oversight by a Trump appointee.

Pompeao's job now is to clean up the corruption and coup plotters at State as he did at CIA, and as Sessions is doing in the DOJ. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 12:21, 18 March 2018 (EDT)

And to finally connect the dots, hundreds of unmasking requests where made in the name of Samantha Powers throughout 2016. However Powers has testified to Congress she did not make the requests, people in the State Dept. did in her name. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 12:36, 18 March 2018 (EDT)

While the MSM pulls out the handkerchiefs for McCabe, he is getting a substantial pension after being fired...at age 50. See "No, Andrew McCabe Isn't "Losing His Pension"" in Forbes. PeterKa (talk) 02:56, 19 March 2018 (EDT)

His full pension is worth $1.8 million, as I understand it - enough to hire a lawyer and fight for. It's just as well, because one of the two is lying - either James Comey or Andrew McCabe. Comey faces perjury charges for saying he did not authorize leaks and McCabe claims he leaked with Comey's knowledge. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 21:04, 19 March 2018 (EDT)

Remember when the Dems used to lecture us on the need to respect the FBI? Now they are playing politics with McCabe's pension, stepping over each other in their eagerness to help him evade the OPR's discipline: "Ousted FBI official McCabe offered jobs by Dem lawmakers so he can get full pension." PeterKa (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2018 (EDT)

While Sessions was in the process of being confirmed by the Senate, McCabe was investigating him as a criminal suspect: "EXCLUSIVE: Fired FBI official authorized criminal probe of Sessions, sources say." By investigating his future boss, McCabe can now claim that anything that Sessions did was a conflict of interest. With this guy, it's one layer of scam on top of another. PeterKa (talk) 03:47, 22 March 2018 (EDT)

Rasmussen Polls reported that Trump had reached 50% approval rating. Then it dropped down to 45%. But soon it climbed back up to 50%. This repeated itself several times. I don't want to encourage the type of "emotional gambling" Andy refers to when he uses the NFL as an example, but I think Rasmussen is deliberately letting Trump's numbers slide so everybody can enjoy Trump's approval rating reaching 50%!

I also think Trump, with his enthusiastic team of expert leaders (it's written on their faces!), will make his mark in delivering national security to the United States in his signature style, the likes of which have not been seen for a long time. VargasMilan (talk) 03:25, 18 March 2018 (EDT)

There is no reason to focus on the fifty percent number. Trump's net approval was at negative 21 percent when he won the 2016 election, according to RCP.[36] Now it's at negative 17 percent. The numbers have been pretty stable since Trump's post-Charlottesville recovery in September.
Judging from the recent special elections, the Dems do better when they focus on the economy. An economy-based election strategy won't be easy to pull off as long the the base remains fixated on Mueller, impeachment, and Trump bashing. Republican weakness in this area may be because they have sold the tax cut by citing the bonuses various companies have paid out to their employees. These bonuses represent a tiny portion of the money involved. It insults the intelligence of the voters to focus on this rationale. A bigger portion of the money will go to stock buybacks. Such buybacks lift the market, which is the engine of the economy. PeterKa (talk) 07:10, 18 March 2018 (EDT)

Yes, but among likely voters, Rasmussen has "The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 47% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Fifty-two percent (52%) disapprove." And what may be a useful trend to incorporate as the indictments come in is the "gloom factor": @JBurtonXP: "Nothing shattered the mystique of the 'intelligence community' for me like watching Comey, Brennan, McMullin, et al. get on here and start tweeting like a bunch of overwrought teenage girls. Embarrassing stuff." VargasMilan (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2018 (EDT)

The tax cuts and federal deregulation could cause U.S. GNP to grow at 3% or more in 2018. In addition, the step up in sanctions on North Korea and Trump's use of Sun Tzu's strategy of being unpredictable to the North Koreans may cause the North Koreans to surrender or greatly temper their nuclear ambitions. “The whole secret lies in confusing the enemy, so that he cannot fathom our real intent.” - Sun Tzu

The combined effect of the above could cause Trump's popularity to rise further. Conservative (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2018 (EDT)

We may be experiencing the dawning of a new age of Puritanism in which it is no longer OK to use sex workers to entrap politicians: "Cambridge Analytica CEO Caught on Tape Bragging About Entrapping Politicians With Sex Workers." Whatever the new rules are, somebody needs to explain them to Robert Mueller, who has so far escaped scrutiny for his role in entrapping New York Governor Elliot Spitzer. See "Eliot Spitzer ruined by leaks and FBI director has nothing to say" (LAT, 2008). PeterKa (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2018 (EDT)

Cambridge Analytica is also being attacked for using private data from Facebook for political data mining. This was never a problem when Obama's campaign did it: "Ex-Obama Campaign Director: It's 'Unfair' Facebook Let Us 'Ingest Entire Social Network of US'" PeterKa (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2018 (EDthe

Neither was Google criticized for foreign election interference in May 2016 when it boasted it could swing elections anywhere in the world by as much as 25% by manipulating algorithms and search results. They also claimed they gave Hillary a dream team and "all the tools she needs". We have links in the Hillary article and 2016 election article to original sources. The Google article may have it, too. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 01:04, 20 March 2018 (EDT)

Two high school students were suspended by their school because they went to a gun range -- it turns out that the school banned the possession of weapons.[37] This is yet another incident of public schools displaying their left-wing values. One school district (also in NJ, I think) Photoshopped away pro-Trump attire from students' school pictures, and at my former high school, a student was suspended for wearing the Confederate flag while a gigantic homosexual rainbow flag hangs proudly in the school. These incidents also illustrate that leftists are the real intolerant ones -- they can't stand interacting with Conservative/Christian viewpoints. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2018 (EDT)

Trump gets a lot of flack for not nominating more people. But there isn't much point in nominating more people as long as the Senate confirmation process is so slow. At the current rate, it would take eleven years for Trump's nominees to be confirmed. What's holding things up? Democratic leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is demanding numerous cloture votes. There was an unprecedented 79 such votes in the first fourteen months of the Trump administration. In the first fourteen months of the previous four administrations, there was a combined total of 17 cloture votes of this type.[38] PeterKa (talk) 09:05, 20 March 2018 (EDT)

When Republicans tried this strategy with Obama's judicial nominees, Harry Reid responded with the "nuclear option." Doing this with executive branch nominees strikes me as harder to justify. They are supposed to be the President's men. Up until 1975, filibustering meant that a senator had to speak continuously for a long period. It was an exhausting and uncommon procedure. Most senators who voted for the 1975 "reform" thought they were voting to reduce the scope of the filibuster. For many years, Senator Robert Byrd wielded enormous influence as one of the few people who understood the new rules. In the last twenty years, use of the filibuster has expanded dramatically. I watched Schumer in an interview after Gorsuch was nominated. Schumer said, "He'll need 60 votes" and no one challenged him -- as if filibustering a Supreme Court nominee was perfectly routine. PeterKa (talk) 11:29, 20 March 2018 (EDT)