Talk:Main Page/Archive index/177

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is for discussion only of Main Page content and feature items. For discussion of other issues relating to the Conservapedia community please see: Conservapedia:Community Portal

Archive Index

Tax returns

Why won’t he (Trump) release his tax returns. He lied and said he would before he got elected and now he is going to every effort to block the release. Why doesn’t anyone here have anything to say about it? If it were Obama you’d be frothing over it. JohnSelway (talk) 01:42, 18 May 2019 (EDT)

Let's see the tax returns of Nancy Pelosi, Eric Holder, and the other banking bailout profiteers. PeterKa (talk) 02:07, 18 May 2019 (EDT)
Well sure but that doesn't excuse Trump lying about releasing them and now stonewalling. Like I say, if it were Obama Conservapedia would be very focal about it. Why the silence on Trump? JohnSelway (talk) 02:22, 18 May 2019 (EDT)
Trump is under audit. Re: releasing tax returns: "Most tax attorneys would typically advise a client against doing so if they're under audit to avoid further scrutiny. Once the tax returns are out, reporters could find something that the IRS missed." -CNN[1]
““O divine art of subtlety and secrecy! Through you we learn to be invisible, through you inaudible, and hence we can hold the enemy's fate in our hands.” - Sun Tzu Conservative (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2019 (EDT)
Even if the audit excuse is bogus, Trump has the right to tax privacy. He has been keen on keeping his returns private for many years, so the reasons may not have anything to do with politics. The tradition of presidential candidates releasing their returns did not arise in response to anyone's idea of good government. Nixon's return was leaked by an accountant who joined the IRS just to expose him and then quit before anyone could finger him. Subsequent presidents figured they were better off releasing this material themselves. FDR refused to pay the tax increases he approved for everyone else. This would have been hugely scandalous if his returns had been released while he was still alive.[2] PeterKa (talk) 07:13, 18 May 2019 (EDT)
BTW, that reminds me, think you can provide a reference or link to the whole Nixon tax leak thing and how that started the "tradition" of presidential candidates releasing their tax returns? That might be something worth noting on Nixon's article. Pokeria1 (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2019 (EDT)
Sure there’s no law that says presidents have to release their tax returns but he said he would but is now going to extreme lengths to block their release and I have no doubts the if Obama had done the same Conservapedia (among other media outlets) would be crying foul. Trump needs to do what he promised he would. JohnSelway (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2019 (EDT)
I agree with PeterKa on this, and the current push from Democrats to release Trump's tax returns is merely a political action, nothing more. The only people who even care about Trump's tax returns or their contents are leftist hacks on CNN and MSNBC, as well as those gullible enough view those hacks as authoritative. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:46, 20 May 2019 (EDT)
Not at all. Obama had so lowered the bar in not releasing anything about his academic records (among other records), that his tax records were the least of the concerns that conservatives had. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 00:47, 19 May 2019 (EDT)
That's not really the point. Firstly I don't think Obama is bar we should use. Aren't conservatives (at least I think so) supposed to maintain a higher level of integrity than the Obama's of this world? Secondly - you lose all moral authority. You've accepted Trump's lie about releasing his returns and his refusal to now do so. If a Democrat refuses to release his returns, benefits from the presidency the way Trump has in using his own business for presidential business (essentially getting the tax-payer to pay him personally), if a Democrat asks a foreign power to hack his opponents emails the way Trump did then you have to allow the bar to be set there. How can you demand a democrat to have integrity if you let Trump slide? You're either a hypocrite or you've set the bar even lower. JohnSelway (talk) 02:37, 20 May 2019 (EDT)
You're over the cliff on this one, before you even managed to make your point. Uninformed people cry "He's been spending millions of dollars flying to Mar-a-lago every two weeks! Spendthrift!" Within the last week, it was revealed that corrupt U.S. intelligence agencies were spying on Trump. Earlier in his term, Trump was lied to by FBI director James Comey that he wasn't being investigated. It turns out they were wire-tapping his campaign. At the beginning of his Presidency, Trump was warned by a whistle-blower FBI agent that he was being spied on. With this security breach, Trump was forced to make Mar-a-lago his second White House. If you want to blame someone for the cost of traveling there blame the conspirators who planned an "insurance policy" operation to be carried out in the event Trump was elected, where he was spied on in the White House itself. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 02:09, 21 May 2019 (EDT)
Right - but that’s only one small part of it (and do you really believe all that?). He could settle it all by doing what he promised. Released his returns. Now if Biden refuses to release his tax returns and enriches himself through the presidency then conservatives have NO argument. It doesn’t matter what side of the fence you are on - integrity is integrity. Trump has none and now conservatives have lost the argument by refusing to call him out. JohnSelway (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2019 (EDT)
In fact - just block me please. I have no time for fake conservatives like the people here. Selling out their principles for power. Trump is liar and a crook and I’m disgusted by what used to be the party of R. Reagan. Trump is the used car salesman of politics. Please remove me from CP. JohnSelway (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2019 (EDT)
Of all politicians in the U.S. and the world with genuine political power, Trump adheres very closely to conservative principles. Look at the facts, rather than repeating the MSM's left-wing/establishment criticisms. In his first year, Trump implemented 64% of the Heritage Foundation's recommendations, versus only 49% for Reagan. His policies are even more conservative than Reagan's: [3] The American Conservative Union has rated his cabinet as even more conservative than Reagan's. The judges he's appointing are more consistently conservative than the ones Reagan appointed: [4] And he's going right at our migration and trade problems (among others), things other politicians overlooked for years. Trump is even more pro-life than Reagan was, based on his policies (Donald Trump achievements: Abortion). An establishment person like Bush, Kasich, or Romney wouldn't have governed so conservatively, and they would have likely caved to the Left on multiple issues.
If anyone is a fake conservative, who claims to be conservative while advancing left-wing policies, it's you, JohnSelway. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:13, 21 May 2019 (EDT)
I haven’t advanced any policies - left wing or otherwise. And yes, POLICY wise Trumps agenda is fine but he is a liar, a cheat and a narcissist. He fails at displaying any type of integrity whatsoever. So yes, the conservative principles have been forgotten in the pursuit of power. I don’t care what his policies are when he fails to even have any association with the truth. Please remove from CP is you have blocking rights. No one here seems to care about having a demigod of a president as long as he advances their brand of conservatism. You’re a sellout. JohnSelway (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2019 (EDT)
I (and most other editors on CP, I suspect) am a pragmatist who is not going to sell myself to the Left by opposing an effective conservative leader just because his personal life isn't great (but few high-profile people have great personal lives). That said, I'll repeat that the only people who even care about his tax returns are hacks at the MSM. Since 1789, we've been electing politicians, not pastors, and presidents as early as Jefferson and Cleveland (both being strong limited-government presidents highly regarded by modern conservatives) have been caught in sex scandals during their presidential campaigns.
You continue to downplay Trump's success at advancing conservative policies ("as long as he advances their brand of conservatism") -- if you look at Reagan's policies and public statements, Trump is doing and saying the exact same things as him, except that he's even more consistent on policy than Reagan. For example, Trump has reinstated and even expanded several government abortion spending restrictions first enacted by Reagan, and he's tough on trade similar to Reagan (remember the Japanese car restrictions). This is about conservative public policy, not anyone's personal agenda.
Your block request is denied. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2019 (EDT)
Trump is a breath of fresh air. He opposes China's state funded mercantilist system and has pared back the job killing administrative state in the USA. One of the biggest problems of the USA is that its populace adopted a consumer based outlook instead of a producer outlook and used debt to finance it. Under Trump the civilian labor participation rate has gone up, and wages have gone up.[5]
While some find Trump's right-wing ideology mixed with New Yorker bluntness/brashness offensive, many delight in it because it has put a big dent in political correctness.
Most of Trump's scandals have to do with his past womanizing related behavior that appears to have occurred about 10-15 years ago (Hollywood Access tape, Stormy Daniels, etc.). And of course, his past divorces hurt him being a role model which is one of the duties of a leader. But there have been great leaders whose personal lives were not the very best they could be (Winston Churchill drank too much but he was not an alcoholic[6][7], Samson was a womanizer, King David committed adultery, etc.).Conservative (talk) 06:08, 21 May 2019 (EDT)
I agree with Conservative. Also, there are two different things here -- Trump's personal life and his "style" as president (as opposed to his policies). His style is refreshing, his lifestyle isn't great though also not unusual in the current culture. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2019 (EDT)
I don't mean Reagan's or Trumps policies. I was referring to Reagan's character. You support a man who lies with every breath and turned a discussion about God into a discussion about himself and how wonderful he was. A vainglorious huckster. Lying is lying, vanity is vanity. You have utterly lost any moral high-ground in support of a blatantly unchristian president in exchange for political expediency. If this is the conservative movement then it is as corrupt as the corrupt president. JohnSelway (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2019 (EDT)
There was a certain general in World War II who had moral problems, but he was effective, and we couldn't put someone else in his place because the stakes were too high.
If Trump is effective, future generations will thank us for voting for someone who defended our country's borders. If not, maybe they'll thank us for trying. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 06:52, 22 May 2019 (EDT)
Yeah, and besides, at least Trump largely cleaned up and owned up to his bad elements, which is far more than can be said of Hillary Clinton, who doesn't own up to her actions, or her husband's actions (and make no mistake, their actions make even the worst of Trumps' behavior seem like an outright piker by comparison). Is Trump my preferred choice? Quite honestly, no. If anything, my personal choice was Ben Carson. And I also was exceedingly reluctant to vote for Trump when he implied that he wasn't going to overturn Roe v. Wade. In fact, I only ended up deciding to vote for him days before the election when he nominated Mike Pence as his VP, who actually is strongly pro-life, which sealed the deal for me. And as it is, it's a darn good thing Trump is actually making measures to ensure Roe v. Wade is overturned, and restoring America's greatness. And make no mistake, Trump's still closer to actually BEING moral than the Clintons and the Obamas were. Heck, he's closer to moral than George Lucas was (especially when Lucas thinks the Vietcong were the good guys and we Americans were the bad guys). Pokeria1 (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2019 (EDT)
Also, let's remember that JFK and Clinton both had affairs while they were in the White House. Trump (like Reagan, the first divorced president) didn't have a moral life before election, but his personal life as president hasn't had any problems -- and if JohnSelway thinks we shouldn't vote for Trump because of his personal life, we also shouldn't have elected Reagan for the exact same reason.
Also, to echo VargasMilan, Christians and conservatives in the U.S. are under attack by an increasingly radical left-wing. Thus, we need a fighter, not "Mr. Nice Guy." Trump is a fighter, and an effective one too. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:50, 22 May 2019 (EDT)
Heck, in the case of Clinton, there's actually a lot of evidence to suggest that he actually raped women, not just had affairs with them. Pokeria1 (talk) 10:17, 23 May 2019 (EDT)
Yeah, and besides, at least Trump largely cleaned up and owned up to his bad elements What poppycock. He said, on camera, he didn't believe he needed to repent because he never made any mistakes. He also continues to lie, daily, about almost anything and everything - shameless and without contrition even when pointed out that it isn't true. He asked a foreign power to hack an opponents emails - if Obama had asked China to hack Romney's emails would you have been OK with it? Trump may be a fighter but he a sorry casefor a conservative. Morals count and he has none. I would much rather throw my lot in with a man like Huckabee rather than a liar and crook. But you have sold out for political expediency which a proper conservative, who cares about honesty and values, wouldn't. JohnSelway (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2019 (EDT)
At least Trump didn't rape any women or defend child molestors with unabashed pride, or leave US soldiers to die and blame a terror attack on a youtube video. And just as an FYI, the mainstream media has lied quite a bit, like with George Zimmermann/Trayvon Martin, or Vietnam, or all of that stuff. They also didn't even expose Obama's crooked elements. And your description of Trump matches Obama more, being utterly shameless and an unrepentant liar. Heck, it matches Clinton a lot more, even. And just as an FYI, Trump NEVER asked Russia to hack into Clinton's emails. That was a joke. Even if Putin was to interfere with the election, he'd be more likely to back Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump (why would Putin want to back a guy who wants to restore America, when Putin wants to restore the USSR?). That statement proves you're falling uncritically for the media's lies, and thus not likely to be an actual conservative. Also, I voted for Romney and McCain, preferring them over Obama (and with Romney, similar to Trump, he wasn't even my first choice, Rick Santorum was. Also like Trump, I ultimately was motivated to vote for Romney due to his VP pick of Paul Ryan, who is pro-Life [if he had picked Condolezza Rice, I would have sat out on the election since I refuse to vote for anyone who would back abortion.].). Pokeria1 (talk) 10:16, 23 May 2019 (EDT)
And just as an FYI, Trump NEVER asked Russia to hack into Clinton's emails. That was a joke. A joke which was then carried out. He asked a foreign adversary to muddy themselves in the election. THat's a fact, joke or no joke. Media aside, former presidents actions aside (I don't support their behaviour either) Trump is an unrepentant liar, his administration have been exposed in multiple ethics breaches (Zinke, Pruitt and Carson have all dipped their hands into the public purse) while Trump himself is earning money as a private citizen from the presidency. He is even so weak he attacks Fox News for hosting his opponents. No matter which way you cut Trump is a liar and a crook, if Obama committed these acts you'd be calling for impeachment but with Trump....silence. Because of political power. You are no conservative - conservatism is about integrity. Trump has none and you are an enabler. Block me - I do not wish to be associated with such spineless, dishonest and ethically corrupt people such as yourselves. JohnSelway (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2019 (EDT)
"conservatism is about integrity. Trump has none and you are an enabler" -- Trump has tried very hard, much harder than any other recent president including Reagan, to keep his campaign promises. That's integrity, and since his promises/policies are very conservative, I and other consistent conservatives support him. Not only are your accusations nothing more than rehashed CNN/MSNBC leftist propaganda, but reducing the political philosophy of conservatism merely to the single character trait of "integrity" (whatever that even means) allows you to prefer socialist leftists like Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg, who have zero respect for the Constitution, natural law, and Christian values, over a president whose policies are, without a doubt, conservative. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2019 (EDT)
If you're going to claim Trump is an unrepentant liar, I strongly suggest you actually post evidence to back your claims up. Otherwise, I suggest you can it. And just as an FYI, I need you to cite stuff that isn't from the mainstream media outlets, since they are rather notorious for lying to viewers since the Tet Offensive when Walter Cronkite lied through his teeth about that battle's outcome. I also personally would suggest citing ethics breaches and how exactly they are ethics breaches. And just as an FYI, Obama DID lie to his constituents, repeatedly, like spying on the Trump campaign in an illegal manner, or how about "You like your doctor? You can keep your doctor" when promoting Obamacare. And there's nothing to suggest Russia even carried out the hacking on Trump's request. And use your head, do you REALLY think they'd back Trump when Putin's rather notorious for wanting to restore the USSR, and has spoken in Communist activities? If anything, they'd be more likely to back Clinton, especially when she pretty much gave them everything they wanted. If I were Putin, I wouldn't dare try to back a guy who most likely would cripple Russia just to restore America, period. Pokeria1 (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2019 (EDT)
Hey, wait a minute. Come back. As a democratically elected president, I think you owe it Trump to support him, and not faint-heartedly either, seeing he was framed for a crime he didn't commit. Don't get mad at us, we're just his supporters. And I think that little story about appealing to foreign adversaries wasn't true but part of the wishful thinking the media broadcast during the investigation to keep their viewers on the hook—Google it! VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 20:13, 25 May 2019 (EDT)
"In fact - just block me please." - User:JohnSelway
He is a concern troll and drama queen.Conservative (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2019 (EDT)
Speaking of "jokes," Obama liked to threaten the Koch brothers and others with IRS audits. Some people assumed Obama was joking, but the audits turned out to be real. PeterKa (talk) 10:24, 23 May 2019 (EDT)
Point of fact: John Selway: "He said, on camera, he didn't believe he needed to repent because he never made any mistakes." I think what would be more consonant with the facts, is that a reporter asked Trump if he had ever asked for forgiveness, and Trump sidestepped the captious question to avoid giving his enemies any ammunition, by saying "I try not to do bad things to begin with," thus salvaging at least some encouragement to others from the elevated-seeming question.
But John, go for it and go on trusting today's typical [non-]journalists' biased generalizations and then following up with precisely-worded moral conclusions, while the rest of us roll our eyes. I'm sure future generations will find the discussion of "the presidential tax return custom" a much more important legal event in Trump's presidential term than the attempted coup d'état at its beginning, and whose investigation has been carried in motion from that point to this present day as RobS has so aptly recorded. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 00:28, 24 May 2019 (EDT)
Roe v. Wade guaranteed a right to privacy. It doesn't matter if it's between a woman and her doctor or a taxpayer and the tax man. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:26, 25 May 2019 (EDT)

In answer to Selway

You claim Trump is a liar, fine. Show us and the American public the empirical evidence that he did cause an alteration of the 2016 election in partnership with the Russians and we'll believe you. But at the same time, you prove to us and the American public as well that you're a much better investigator in these matters than Robert Mueller and his staff; if they had the training and the money, you JohnSelway, with your absolute knowledge, should do a whole lot better with diddly squat. After all, you have stated here that you know this for a fact.

As to his tax returns, why don't you demand the individual returns of every Democrat in Congress? I want to know why these clowns can become multimillionaires on a $175,000 base salary...or are you just another liberal troll who has to look the other way because it's people you love and support? Karajou (talk) 04:35, 26 May 2019 (EDT)

To answer that question, insider trading rules only apply to Wall Street types. They do not apply to members of Congress and staff. After some regulatory agency gives the go-ahead on some new product or idea, Washington types invest $5000 in an IPO (initial public offering) that, with in a year or so, is worth 10 times or more its value. Hillary did something like that back in Arkansas in her famous Cattlegate scandal. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:32, 26 May 2019 (EDT)
Thank you for your comments Karajou - I've always had friendly interactions with you so happy to engage. Firstly I haven't mentioned anything about Trump and partnering with the Russians to alter the election. I don't know enough about that issue to comment and it is far murkier than I know how to understand so I make no judgement on it. Trump is a habitual liar and the evidence for that is all around us. You wouldn't accept it from a Democrat or liberal so we shouldn't accept it from Trump either. His post as president is of the highest esteem and Trump should have respect for that instead of lying with almost every breath. His disrespects the office of president.
Secondly, yes I agree - I do think members of congress should divulge their tax returns. Remember though there are just as many Republican millionaires as Democrats so they should all divulge their income. This might be of interest. As should the president given he said he would. Would you have accepted it if Obama refused to release his? JohnSelway (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2019 (EDT)
That's the biggest pile of bullrot I've read in this forum in awhile. After three years of communist garbage fed by FBI leakers, CNN. NYT et al, and Mueller says 'no there there', it's murky? C'mon, puleeze...
As to Trump's tax return, you must have conservatives confused with Marxist class warriors. Sorry, we don't respond to envy as a supreme virtue. We do believe in an individuals right to life and privacy, or personal 'integrity'. We adamantly oppose unjust taxation. And if a zillionaire finds a legal way to beat the system, God bless him. No one has implied Trump has violated tax laws, which seems to be the dark aspersions you are casting. Show some personal integrity yourself, and stop this unjust, unfair insinuation and innuendo. If envy and covetousness is your personal sin and vice, I suggest you pray to Jesus and ask him to relieve you of this burden. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 20:54, 26 May 2019 (EDT)

The opposition, as in our left-wing liberal establishment, demand Trump's tax returns because they want to see if he committed a crime. Part of the reason that we overthrew the British government back in the late 1700s was that we - as in everyone on earth - have natural rights from God that cannot be taken away, not even by a tyrant, and these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And an important part of securing our right to liberty is found in the 4th Amendment to our Constitution: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." And it was a TYRANT in the person of George III and his government that caused us to put down the 4th Amendment in writing a few short years after we kicked his sorry butt out. In the case of Trump vis-a-vis those tax records, there has to be a warrant SECOND, and based upon the evidence collected indicating that there was in fact a crime committed FIRST; a judge has to sign off on that warrant AFTER he has seen that evidence, and that evidence has to be convincing enough to withstand a trial. If Trump had indeed committed a crime, the IRS would have shown it a long time ago and brought charges; they are greedy enough to do that, and the rich is as much fair game as the poor. What does not count, and should never, ever count, is a bunch of people in a position of power grabbing those tax records to see if there's a crime on the inside, and based on nothing more than their own bigotry and hatred of the man. "Trump hurt our feelings" doesn't count! Karajou (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2019 (EDT)

The opposition wants Trump's tax returns due to the following reasons: Trump wants to pare down the administrative state; Trump is a nationalist who wants fair trade and he wants allies who pull their weight and are not merely protectorates; and lastly, Trump is an ally of the religious right and he is putting socially conservative judges in the judicial system. On top of this, he is blunt and sometimes brash. Those are the main reasons why Trump is hated by many of his enemies although there are other reasons as well.Conservative (talk) 10:16, 27 May 2019 (EDT)
In any $4 billion enterprise, there are lots of people involved. If a maid at a Trump hotel got arrested for shoplifting, I'm sure our leftist friends will argue Trump heads an organization that hires criminals, or Trump is a greedy capitalist who exploits working class people and doesn't pay them enough, forcing them into a life of crime. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:33, 27 May 2019 (EDT)

JohnSelway: Stop the sore loserism. Donald Trump and his supporters have won hands down

A New York Times article admitted that this statement of Donald Trump was prophetic: "We gonna win so much you may even get tired of winning and you'll say please, please Mr. President, It's too much winning! We can't take it anymore!"[8]

You can keep kvetching about Donald Trump, but in the end Trump and his supporters are going to keep on winning.Conservative (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2019 (EDT)

I agree. So back off, pal! VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 15:54, 28 May 2019 (EDT)

Massive deregulation in Idaho

Some good news in Idaho -- the legislature failed to renew the state's 8,200 pages of regulations, so they'll all expire on July 1: [9] This development won't harm citizens, partially because many of these regulations are unhelpful and partially because the government will seek to enforce a limited number of them. Hopefully, this "accident" will bring long-term regulatory improvement to Idaho. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:36, 18 May 2019 (EDT)

Australia rejects climate alarmism

Australia's Labour Party went all in on climate nuttery and has gone down to defeat: "Breaking: Big Election Upset in Australia." PeterKa (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2019 (EDT)

Is Trump derangement for real?

Crazier than thou: "You Knew It! Dems Are Faking Their Stress Over Trump’s Election." I have to say, no I didn't know it. But I guess it makes some sense. It used to be that the left boasted of how deeply angry it was. Now the ideal is Blasey Ford, who looks pathetic and gets victim points by posing as a head case. PeterKa (talk) 08:22, 21 May 2019 (EDT)

The website Marketwatch reported concerning the aftermath of the 2016 presidential race: Trump’s win is causing a surge in demand for mental health services[10].Conservative (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2019 (EDT)
The Guardian reported about Brexit:
In shrinks’ offices across the country, just as in homes, pubs and offices, people are trying to come to terms with the surprise and shock of the Brexit result. Strangers gather together to talk of how “the world is falling apart”.
Many people feel transported into a dystopian Britain that they “do not recognise, cannot understand”. Thousands are hatching plans to leave the country. Social media are full of suddenly violent flaming between former friends.
Therapists everywhere are reporting shockingly elevated levels of anxiety and despair, with few patients wishing to talk about anything else. Mental health referrals have already begun to mushroom. Why is the Brexit vote affecting us so personally? And, what does this tell us about the make-up of our psyches?[11]
See also: Secular leftists and psychogenic illness Conservative (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2019 (EDT)
Associated Press (May 21, 2019). "Liberal woman reports woman on roof of New York City building dressed as oppressed woman from television series A Handmaid's Tale about to jump; police arrive, encounter large red umbrella." NBC Chicago 5 website.
The story was very plausible since you might expect a liberal to climb to the top of a building or tree and act like a nut. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 13:11, 22 May 2019 (EDT)

Kobach for immigration czar

If Kris Kobach wants a jet on call to be immigration czar, I say give him a jet on call. Anne Coulter is pushing Kobach hard.[12] For Trump, it's a win-win. If Kobach can resolve the immigration crisis, a jet is a small price to pay. If he can't, Trump can say that he gave the Coulterian approach a chance. The drama surrounding the appointment creates pressure for Kobach to produce results. As the crisis at the border escalates, the time has come for desperate measures. See "Give Kris Kobach whatever he wants if he can fix the asylum scam" and "Kris Kobach's Cartoon Demands to Serve as Trump Immigration Czar Just Leaked." The second article is an MSM hatchet job. After seeing how much the MSM hates him, I only want to see him appointed more. PeterKa (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2019 (EDT)

If you want Kobach running anything important, you haven't been paying attention. JohnZ (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2019 (EDT)
The article is an example of severe liberal bias. Kobach made less for doing a ton of work than his adversaries; the article made a key factual error as it admits at the end; and many Trump-appointed judges are likely to vindicate Kobach's arguments.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2019 (EDT)
You must be joking. The man's a disaster on wheels. JohnZ (talk) 07:53, 22 May 2019 (EDT)
@JohnZ: All you've proved by your comment is that you're uncritically drinking the left-wing Kool-Aid. Voter fraud does happen in the U.S., and even if it didn't, it's still a wise idea to have laws safeguarding against it. Also, Kobach, as a strong conservative, was strongly opposed and harshly attacked by many in the GOP establishment who agree with 50% of liberal positions anyway and who did the exact same against Trump in 2016. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:56, 22 May 2019 (EDT)
Oh, c'mon. Kobach is a clown: ...“it is not clear to the Court whether Defendant repeatedly failed to meet his disclosure obligations intentionally or due to his unfamiliarity with the federal rules.” She ordered Kobach to attend the equivalent of after-school tutoring: six hours of extra legal education on the rules of civil procedure or the rules of evidence (and to present the court with a certificate of completion).
Which is almost as funny as being contradicted by his own expert witness on voter fraud: "In the courtroom, Ho asked Richman if he believed his research supported such a claim. Richman stammered. He repeatedly looked at Kobach, seemingly searching for a way out. Ho persisted and finally, Richman gave his answer: “I do not believe my study provides strong support for that notion." JohnZ (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2019 (EDT)
What you conveyed about that witness's testimony doesn't seem to me like that deep of a contradiction, and I suspect that Kobach had more than one witness. You'd do better to stick to the facts.
If you did, it could show that Kobach was very effective, for it could be that among those of the many illegal immigration lovers, there have been some who were watching his every move to obtain any piece of information that could be used to damage his reputation, in hopes of preventing illegal aliens from leaving the country.
I hope that Trump picks Kobach, because he acknowledges the illegal alien problem, and because Kobach can do the things he does best like running an operation or being an expert in immigration law and delegate authority to those who can do better what he is less able to do himself. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 12:40, 23 May 2019 (EDT)
Hahaha. Feel free to identify some facts that show Kobach was very effective in that courtroom. Best of luck, son. JohnZ (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2019 (EDT)
Liberals oppose the Harvard/Oxford/Yale-educated Kobach because they know how effective he would be. Liberals wouldn't protest so much otherwise. No one or very few doubt Kobach's abilities. What liberals stridently oppose are his positions.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2019 (EDT)
Unfortunately, in the U.S. (and the EU), it doesn't matter how sound or strong your legal arguments are -- what matters is the personal beliefs of the judge in question, since many judges, particularly those on the Left, subscribe to the "living constitution" theory. If more judges on Kansas were originalists and textualists who don't subscribe to judicial activism, Kobach would have won many more cases. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2019 (EDT)
Scalia himself could have run that bench trial in Kansas, and Kobach would still have gone down in flames. You, too, should feel free to present any evidence to the contrary. I'm away for a few days now - that should give you plenty of time to read up on the case. JohnZ (talk) 08:01, 24 May 2019 (EDT)
Your absence means you'll have fewer opportunities to prove your ignorance of judicial activism. In the meantime, I recommend you read up on these related cases of judicial ideological conflicts of interest: [13][14] --1990'sguy (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2019 (EDT)

New York Times is reporting it will be Ken Cuccinelli. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 00:16, 22 May 2019 (EDT)

"The New York Times is always wrong." - Donald Trump.Conservative (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2019 (EDT)
Exactly! They're due for a win. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 12:36, 22 May 2019 (EDT)
Message to JohnZ: Trump knows building a wall and putting in a hardliner for immigration czar is a must for being reelected because Trump needs turnout from his base to win in 2020. Whoever is going to be put in the position of immigration czar is going to be a hardliner, and Trump is going to demand results from him, or he will be fired.Conservative (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2019 (EDT)

Message to JohnZ: Re: Anti-immigration nationalism and recent victories

The New York Times FINALLY Admits: The World is Turning Nationalist Populist.[15]

The New York Times article admitted that this statement of Donald Trump was prophetic: "We gonna win so much you may even get tired of winning and you'll say please, please Mr. President, It's too much winning! We can't take it anymore!"

Speaking on behalf of my fellow Conservapedians, we are declaring total victory when it comes to the Western World. It's all over with the fireworks liberals/leftists. You had your day. It is largely a moppping-up operation now!

9/11 and the terror attacks in France and elsewhere combined with stagnant wages stoked a lot of anti-Muslim immigration around the world.

In the near term, the only major task left is to bring the godless, communist Chinese to the bargaining table and strike an acceptable trade deal. Of course, it is just a matter of time before this happens because Donald Trump is a winner! Conservative (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2019 (EDT)

Aye. Game over, man. Roll the credits. JohnZ (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2019 (EDT)

Trump, Iran, and declarations of war

The American Conservative, a bi-monthly paleoconservative magazine founded by Pat Buchanan, Scott McConnell, and Taki Theodoracopulos, has published an article on its website calling for Congress to impeach President Trump if he goes to war with Iran without a declaration of war. The article was written by Gene Healy, a vice president at the Cato Institute.

Feel free to address and/or rebut Healy's core argument: that ". . . except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress . . .” is an impeachable offense. The quotation is from a 2012 House resolution introduced by Walter Jones (R-NC), and is used in the article. Geopolitician (talk) Wednesday, 13:13, May 22, 2019 (EDT)

Iran is dependent on oil exports and the U.S. Navy controls the shipping lanes. I don't see how a confrontational policy can end well for Iran. Iraq defeated Iran in the Iran-Iraq War, so how hard can it be? We should find out before they get nuclear weapons. They are allowed to continue with supposedly civilian aspects of their nuclear program under Obama's nuclear deal. None of the Iranian reactors is producing electricity for the grid, so claim that any portion of the program is non-military is a fiction. The Iranians have announced they will withdraw from the nuclear deal on July 7. If that happens, the U.S. can move ahead with European support. PeterKa (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2019 (EDT)
Not to say that they had abided by the treaty before then. The Israeli intelligence agency Mossad produced evidence that Iran has been working furiously on their nuclear weapon program practically since the day after they signed that nuclear deal. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 18:52, 24 May 2019 (EDT)
There are several theories about the current situation. One is Trump is looking for an excuse to fire John Bolton. Secondly, a large scale ground action seems highly unlikely. More-likely is a quick widespread strike on Iranian operations throughout the region, including, but not limited to, assets in Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and the territory of Iran. The longer the delay, the more greater the risk of a Chinese reaction. Also, a strike against Iran may result in fulfilling former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn's strategy of coaxing Putin out of Russia's military alliance with Iran.
The basic playbook to review is Trump/Kim jong-un North Korea playbook - tuff talk followed by hugs 'n kisses. China is the big focus here, in dealing with both North Korea and Iran. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:06, 25 May 2019 (EDT)
See also. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:18, 12 June 2019 (EDT)

Trump needs to fire John Bolton NOW.

Just when you thought John Bolton couldn't sink any lower, he decided to spread lies about the extent of Deep State influences among President Trump's staff. According to John Bolton, all the reports about how certain members of Trump's staff have been insubordinate and/or sabotaging his agenda are fake news. Even if the reports are from conservative sources. Fake news. It's all propaganda created by North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Russia, and/or China.[16]

In other words, he's now attacking the base and accusing people like us of being useful idiots for America's enemies. And when I say he thinks we're "useful idiots," I mean "useful idiots." He thinks we're stupid enough to believe that "oh, he's just talking about the left-wing media." No, he's not. He's talking about all media, including pro-Trump media. You know, the pro-Trump media that's reporting the insubordination/sabotage in good faith because they want this administration to succeed?

If that disgraceful display of arrogance doesn't convince you that Bolton is part of the Deep State, then I don't know what else to say.--Geopolitician (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2019 (EDT)

Not disagreement with what you wrote, but while I oppose Bolton's positions on foreign intervention and overseas troops, I think he's really good on other issues such as international organizations and national sovereignty, and I think he actually has advanced Trump's nationalist agenda on those issues despite failing on troop levels and interventionism.
Because of that, I'm reluctant to call for firing Bolton because the likelihood of him being replaced by an even worse globalist, similar to McMaster, is high. The deep state will fight tooth and nail against choosing someone like Douglas MacGregor, who I think should serve in the Trump Administration. Instead, I would prefer if Trump chooses a good Defense Secretary, like MacGregor or Jim Webb, who will counter Bolton on the issues he performs poorly at while still allowing Bolton to advance issues related to sovereignty. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2019 (EDT)
At this point, I actually believe Bolton is worse than McMaster. And this is coming from the guy who created the "McMasterites" article.
This man has nothing but contempt for the concept of an "America First" foreign policy, and he's not even trying to hide it anymore. He is constantly trying to lure us into a war, more often than not on behalf of an "ally" that we shouldn't have anything to do with for both ideological and practical reasons. He wants us to go to war with Iran and Turkey on behalf of Saudi Arabia. He wants us to go to war with Venezuela on behalf of Juan Guaido, who is a socialist just like Maduro. He may even want us to go to war with Russia! He also wants the US to support far left militias in the Middle East such as the MEK and the PKK. He attempted to sabotage the Syria withdrawal, and he may have even succeeded at that one. And now he's attacking Trump's base as useful idiots for America's enemies.
Trump has fired other staff over far less. --Geopolitician (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2019 (EDT)
John Bolton a Deep Stater? Surely you jest. Bolton is Trump's pitbull on Iran, precisely at the time it's needed. The risk of war with China is overriding, they have said as much. Trump splitting-off North Korea from the Chinese orbit is not complete, and at a very difficult stage. The Chinese-Iranian alliance (through Huwai and other sanction export violators) makes simultaneous naval confrontations in the Persian Gulf and South China Sea very real. What's most important in diplomacy is that Iranians believe war with the US is a real possibility, and we're not there just to show the flag. That's Bolton's job right now. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:28, 12 June 2019 (EDT)
IMO, Trump's foreign policy has been going quite well lately. He just made a breakthrough on the asylum issue with Mexico. The Russians are out of Venezuela. The sanctions against both China and Iran seem to be making progress. So I would question the need for a staff shakeup. Of course, Secretary of State Pompeo deserves his share of the credit. The issue with Bolton may relate to problems with North Korea. NK is a puppet state of China. I assume the Chinese are using NK to get back at us on the trade issue. Either way, the focus needs to stay on China/U.S. relations. PeterKa (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2019 (EDT)
RobS, I absolutely am not jesting. Virtually all of Bolton's actions have been motivated by a desire to get us into another war in the Middle East. He wants a war because he wants to keep the petrodollar alive. He doesn't care that Saudi Arabia is the greater of two evils when compared to Iran. In fact, he's all in on perpetuating the Deep State lie that Iran is the greater evil. He is willing to pull every dirty trick in the book to make sure this war happens, even if it means committing public acts of insubordination against President Trump. Not only is he part of the Deep State, I wouldn't be surprised if he was one of the Deep State's leaders.--Geopolitician (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2019 (EDT)
PeterKa, all of Trump's successes with foreign policy will be meaningless if Bolton gets his way with Iran. --Geopolitician (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2019 (EDT)
An Arab told me on Facebook that the Saudis don't make love to their wives without consulting Washington first, so trying to gauge who's the lesser of two evils, the Saudi clan or the Iranian Supreme Council is an ideological debate. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:22, 13 June 2019 (EDT)
The Saudis are and always have been the greater evil. They control the Muslim World League, a so-called "charity" that is responsible for funding most of the Islamist terrorism that has taken place over the past 40 years. That includes virtually every Islamist attack on the West. In stark contrast, almost all of Iran's state-sponsored terrorism has been confined to the Middle East. The Saudis have a much wider reach and a much higher body count. --Geopolitician (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2019 (EDT)
Of coarse. There's 10 times more Sunnis than Shia. The Muslim World League is a competing organization to the Muslim Brotherhood. It was created to compete for recruits and control them. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:48, 13 June 2019 (EDT)
@Geopolitician: I strongly disagree with the notion that Bolton is worse than McMaster. McMaster blindly accepted the neocon/liberal "consensus" on globalism and international organizations and made no effort to challenge the EU or UN. McMaster also wanted Trump to continue his predecessor's policies on trade. Also, it was McMaster who advocated for a major troop surge in Afghanistan when we should rather be pulling out: [17][18] (not as many troops were added as McMaster wanted).
Bolton, on the other hand, vocally supports Brexit and has challenged/opposed international organizations and treaties which reduce American sovereignty and threaten the freedoms contained in the Constitution. I agree that his views are wrong when it comes to troop levels and foreign wars, but I also think he can be considered a nationalist when it comes to other areas like sovereignty. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2019 (EDT)
Trump does not want to get into another war. He cares more about the men in military than many of his predecessors and does not want to spill their blood in another pointless/endless war (Trump is the only president who is making significant reforms to the VA). He is also a businessman and doesn't think the return on investment is good in modern day wars. Trump picked Bolton for the obvious reason that Bolton scares U.S. enemies/frenemies so they will think twice about attacking the USA. I just wish the Trump administration would pull the USA out of the Afghanistan quagmire as soon as possible.Conservative (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2019 (EDT)
We can't pull out of Afghanistan. That would hand over the $60 billion a year international heroin trade to China and the Taliban, who not only will profit off of destroying Western European and American children, will use the profits to fund terrorism (in the case of the Taliban) and modernize their military (in the case of China). Take off your rose-colored glasses and stop sounding like an idiot/ideologue. This is the real world, and has been the real world for the seventeen years we've been in Afghanistan. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:15, 14 June 2019 (EDT)
Yeah, and besides, considering that after we drove out the Soviets, we let the Afghanis alone and that ultimately resulted in the Taliban taking over, and that essentially resulted in not just 9/11, but also the World Trade bombing in 1993, USS Cole bombing, among others, we simply cannot afford to leave Afghanistan. Heck, do I really need to remind you of Vietnam? We left the country, and it fell apart shortly thereafter thanks to those idiot Democrats in Congress slashing arms shipments to Vietnam. We cannot afford to leave until we have a decisive victory. If we leave too soon, we WILL have another 9/11 on our hands sooner or later. Pokeria1 (talk) 12:20, 14 June 2019 (EDT)
1990'sguy, Bolton may not be a globalist, but his positions on interventionism are so extreme that sometimes I wish he was. If he were a globalist, we'd all be united against him, instead of some of us overlooking just how dangerous this man really is.
Conservative, Trump may not want to get into another war, but Bolton clearly does. And his recent behavior indicates that he's dissatisfied with merely scaring enemies (real or imagined) and would rather outright provoke them. --Geopolitician (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2019 (EDT)
Peace or war, the drone shoot down is already a win for warmongering anti-Russia Democrats and the Pentagon: How the Pentagon Nickel-and-Dimed Its Way Into Losing a Drone. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:33, 20 June 2019 (EDT)

Iran attacks Gulf shipping

Who does this kind of thing when the U.S. has a carrier stationed near the Gulf? "Oil tankers attacked in Gulf of Oman, U.S. Navy says." It's time for the U.S. Navy to blow up some Iranian speedboats. Do another one every day until the Iranians agree to pay damages to Oman. Iran is a nutty place. This is the top story in Tehran Times: "Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei dismisses US President Donald Trump as a person not worthy of exchanging messages with." PeterKa (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2019 (EDT)

Although I wouldn't be surprised if Iran did this, I also wouldn't be surprised if they didn't. Anyone else here concerned that it may have been a false flag?--Geopolitician (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2019 (EDT)
Iran is boasting that will acquire more than 300 kg of uranium by June 27 in open violation the nuclear deal.[19]. I liked this headline in Tehran Times: "If Iran does something it will ‘bravely’ announce it, military chief says in response to accusations of oil tanker incidents". Mobster talk is the way to go when you are accused of something you can't refute. I notice that neither the Tehran Times nor the Iranian military chief are promoting Ben Rhodes' "false flag" line. Instead, they are threatening to cut off shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and are comparing Trump to....Saddam Hussien (?!). I mean, don't those Iranians realize that Saddam never had any WMD and was the innocent victim of George W. Bush's rage? PeterKa (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2019 (EDT)
It would take about 10 minutes to wipe out the Iranian navy. As noted, the U.S. can't risk simultaneous confrontations in the Gulf of Oman and the South China Sea. China is already in violation of Iranian sanctions with Huwai. That's why the pressure to act now quickly is on, before China has a chance to beef up its ally Iran. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:08, 17 June 2019 (EDT)
I was thinking an attack on the Iranian navy as well. But Pompeo may have bigger things in mind. The U.S. is planning, "an aerial bombardment of an Iranian facility linked to its nuclear program," according to the Jerusalem Post. The bombardment "will be massive, but limited to a specific target." Iran's nuclear facilities are protected by Russian S-300 anti-aircraft batteries. It seems that the Pentagon is now confident that it has a solution to that problem. PeterKa (talk) 07:59, 18 June 2019 (EDT)
Do you believe such an aerial bombardment wouldn't escalate into a wider war? --Geopolitician (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2019 (EDT)t
What do you mean 'wider war'? The US has no intention to occupy ground or force regime change. A 'wider conflict' would be engaging with the Chinese military in the South China Sea. Trump and Xi will meet in coming days. The pressure to act against Iranian forces and facilities is now. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:58, 18 June 2019 (EDT)
Iran has leverage all over the region thanks in large part to Bush's invasion of Iraq and Obama's "Arab Spring." Any large-scale attack on Iran will likely prompt it to retaliate in other parts of the region, starting a wider conflict which could get us into a war with among other countries China, Lebanon, Russia, Qatar, Syria, Turkey (and possibly other members of NATO if it invokes Article V), and/or Yemen.--Geopolitician (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2019 (EDT)
Destruction of the Iranian navy would end the supply line to Yemen; destruction of warmaking facilities would terminate overland supply lines to Syria (and Afghanistan). Tensions between Russia and Iran over Syria are already developing, to be discussed in Jerusalem this week. China's the wildcard here, and Trump has already made it clear to Chairman Xi he has to do something about North Korea's nuclear program if China wants continued trade talks. China has a decision to make, peace or war with the United States. And the US will no longer submit to nuclear blackmail, be it from North Korea, China, or Iran. Russia likely is with the US in this approach. RobSDeep Six the Deep State!
The Iranians have indicated many times that their plan is build a nuke and drop it on Israel. This, they hope, will bring about the end times. Tell me again about that wider war thing. PeterKa (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2019 (EDT)
I'm not disputing that. In fact, that gives us all the more reason to fear a wider war should we launch pre-emptive strikes.--Geopolitician (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2019 (EDT)
If we attack Iran, its proxies will attack our forces in Syria and Iraq. This will escalate fighting in the Levant and cause Russia, Syria, and Turkey to intervene. Meanwhile, Hezbollah and the Houthis will start attacking Israel and Saudi Arabia, causing those countries to get dragged in, along with Lebanon, Qatar, and Yemen. Meanwhile, if we end up attacking Turkey as a result of this wider war, there's a good chance Turkey will invoke Article V against us, and then what? And no, Russia is not with the US on this approach. We've alienated it so much that it now considers China to be the lesser evil. --Geopolitician (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2019 (EDT)
Sure, there'd be a few scattered dead-enders and stragglers holding out. But once Iran's war making ability is destroyed, they'd have no re-supply of weapons. Food would become a problem in short order. And their attacks wouldn't be against Americans who vote in U.S. elections, so who cares? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:12, 19 June 2019 (EDT)
It won't matter if we destroy Iran's war-making ability. It already has enough clout in the region to blow it all up and spread the fighting across the entire western half of the Eurasian super-continent. This could be 1914 all over again.--Geopolitician (talk) 09:35, 19 June 2019 (EDT)]
You need weapons and food to fight. Do they have that? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 04:51, 20 June 2019 (EDT)
If a 1914 scenario occurs, it won't matter. We would have far more enemies to deal with and they would be more than happy to rectify any food shortages in Iran caused by our bombing runs.--Geopolitician (talk) 12:35, 20 June 2019 (EDT)
What you are talking about now is a breakdown in the whole sanctions regime (Magnitsky Act, Iranian Sanctions Act, etc). The JCPOA was just that - recognition and concession by the Obama administration that the sanctions regime was failing. By extension, what you just suggested, would be a total break down of the global financial system. If Iran wanted or needed Chinese food or weapons assistance, it would have to shipped beyond the limits of the China's navy. As to food assistance locally, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and elsewhere agricultural production has been hampered and disrupted by wars and terrorism (that's why there's 3 million refugees flooding Europe.
Unreported in the U.S. is a Iranian missile attack on the sovereign territory of Saudi Arabia. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:38, 20 June 2019 (EDT)
Actually, Iran has promoted the "false flag" line[20]. And again, although I'm not gonna outright say that it was or wasn't a false flag, I am going to point out that there are multiple actors in the region who want the US to go to war with Iran because they believe they will gain something from that. --Geopolitician (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2019 (EDT)
Ok, so the phrase has been used by the UN delegation in New York. But wouldn't military and intelligence people be on the case if Iran was seriously promoting the idea? My point is, it's much more about the Russia collusion people looking for a new conspiracy theory to latch on to than it is about Iran. PeterKa (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2019 (EDT)
But it may not even be a conspiracy theory. It may in fact be what happened. There are multiple actors in the region who want war to happen. --Geopolitician (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2019 (EDT)
There is more than enough crude in the international market these days. Iran retains its old arrogance, but no longer has the leverage it once had. It's caught in a Thucydides trap. PeterKa (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2019 (EDT)
The whole incident resembles the 1980s when Libya challenged the US Navy and declared a 200 mile "line of death" over the Gulf of Sidre. After a few aspirin factories and fertilized plants were blown up, it was over. Yah, the Iran operation might take half a day or a few days at most. Itineraries of the G20 meeting are being discussed right now; when Trump & Xi are talking face-to-face might be good time to pull it off. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:36, 19 June 2019 (EDT)
The Iran operation will take far more than just a few days. The network of alliances created in the Middle East since 2003 will see to it.--Geopolitician (talk) 09:35, 19 June 2019 (EDT)
Reagan also had to deal with a Tanker War in the Persian Gulf. Politico has a story about it.
The carrier USS Abraham Lincoln was sent to the gulf, not by Bolton or anyone in Washington, but by CENTCOM commander Frank McKenzie. McKenzie is clearly a man we should all know more about, perhaps a proconsul in the making. Add I shouldn't imply that McKenzie is freelancing. He is a protégé of Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the joint chiefs. But it does appear that the military has made some major decisions without consulting the White House.
As for the Gulf of Sirte incident, it was a response to attacks on the Rome and Vienna airports in 1985 by the Abu Nidal group. Libya retaliated for Gulf of Sirte taking down a Pan Am jet over Lockerbie. PeterKa (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2019 (EDT)
Iranian militia networks will whither on the vine once you eliminate Iran's weapons production and transport capacity. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:16, 19 June 2019 (EDT)
It's not just the 2019 Tanker attackers prompting a response; it's the discovery of 3 metric tones of ammonium nitrate fertilizer (almost twice the amount use in the Oklahoma City bombing) stockpiled in London months after the UK signed the Iran nuke deal. This news has been kept secret until now. Theresa May's resignation may be directly related to this cover up, moreso than Brexit.
Hezbollah is under the direct command of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, and is a standing occupation force in Lebanon. Hezbollah is in Venezuela, traffics cocaine to Africa, North America, and Europe. Hezbollah is not "just another terrorist group." It is an official arm of the Iranian government.
The revelation of Iranian activities has a media blackout in the US cause it conflicts with the 'Orange Man Bad' narrative. But it has not been hid in the UK. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:35, 19 June 2019 (EDT)

What Iran wants

The ayatollahs who rule Iran have little interest in the economic hardship their policies cause. Their focus is on getting a nuclear weapon as soon as possible. That is to say, the tension between Washington and Tehran is not about the recent economic and military moves that dominate the headlines. When Pompeo sanctioned uranium and heavy water exports on May 3, the action got little notice in the mainstream media. But the Iranians certainly noticed it. Five days later, they announced that Iran would begin stockpiling low enriched uranium in violation of the 2015 agreement. One of the tankers that was recently attacked was Japanese, so the Iran may be trying to bully Japan ahead of next week's G-20 summit in Osaka. Japan is a major buyer of Iranian oil. Who bombs the customer?
Despite many offers over the years, Iran refuses to simply buy reactor-grade uranium on the international market. They have long insisted on enriching the uranium they use themselves. With uranium and their own enrichment facilities, they can continue the enrichment process until they have weapons grade uranium. Over the years, Iran has suffered hundreds of billions of dollars in economic sanctions over this issue. Blowing up the world is clearly a matter of overriding importance. See "What Iran Is Really Up To." PeterKa (talk) 06:36, 25 June 2019 (EDT)

How long can we keep getting lucky? First, we learned about an Iranian explosive cache in London, now Paris: "Iran attempted attack in Paris, half a ton of explosives found - report." PeterKa (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2019 (EDT)
You don't smell a fish? UK, France, and Germany are still going ahead with the JCPOA despite Iran's "announced" intention to violate it? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:52, 25 June 2019 (EDT)

European Parliament

Earlier today, Friday, May 24, 2019, Europe voted in the European Parliament elections. Tommy Robinson ran as an independent in a small Parliament district in the north of England. Robinson was a free speech champion who had been jailed for reporting on the trial of a Muslim, contrary to the judge's gag order on public response to the trial for its duration.

Nigel Farage ran with his fellow members on the Brexit Party slate, which under his leadership had grown to being the plurality party in Britain.

The results of the European Parliament election will be announced on Sunday, May 26, 2019. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 22:18, 24 May 2019 (EDT)

Voting started in the UK and the Netherlands on Thursday, May 23, and is ongoing through Sunday, the day which most countries vote. Let's hope Europe wises up and chooses patriotic parties this time around. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2019 (EDT)
Some corrections. I am not stating or inferring an opinion, merely stating some facts. Tommy Robinson is not standing for Parliament, he is standing for the European Parliament. He was not jailed for reporting on a trial, he was jailed for contempt of court because the trial was one one of a series and he risked giving the defendant a reason to ask for a mistrial. He might have escaped jail if he didn't already have convictions for assault, fraud and using a fake passport. Tommy Robinson is not his real name. Nigel Farage's party is riding a protest wave and, in a general election, stands to win zero seats again. In the European elections, the Brexit Party is likely to beat all the other individual parties. Its success is largely down to it being the only party with a coherent pro-Brexit position whereas the anti-Brexit vote is fragmented among three parties. The combined share of the anti-Brexit parties is likely to be significantly larger than the Brexit Party's. Nigel Farage has made it clear several times that the Brexit Party is running without a platform beyond leaving the EU. In the recent local government elections, the strongly pro-EU Liberal Democrats wiped the floor with everyone else. At an MPR tangent, Scotland is still part of Great Britain, although it looks likely to move for independence when we leave the EU. Rafael (talk) 13:33, 25 May 2019 (EDT)
Everything else aside, I'm pretty sure VargasMilan was referring to the EU parliament when he said "small Parliament district in the north of England" -- the UK has multiple "districts" that, in each district, it groups several of its EU parliament seats. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:39, 25 May 2019 (EDT)
Also, the recent local elections may not have been entirely representative of the nation's attitudes considering that the Brexit Party did not participate and the Conservative Party had deeply disappointed pro-Brexit people, likely discouraging such people from voting. This allowed the Lib Dems to steal the show. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2019 (EDT)
Question: Are EU Parliament seats At-Large or divided into local districts? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:54, 25 May 2019 (EDT)
Depends on the country. Some have all their EU Parliament members elected proportionally based simply on a national popular vote, while some divide the country into districts and elect members proportionally in each district. Either way, it's all based on proportional representation. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2019 (EDT)
Well, I said Tommy Robinson was running in a district. As a side note, I thought you knew everything. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 15:22, 25 May 2019 (EDT)
I may have to go back and re-read Congressional Research Reports or, heaven forbid - rely on Wikipedia, RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:41, 25 May 2019 (EDT)
The preliminary results fom the U.K. Telegraph website from today's counting with 10 of 12 regions declared gives the Brexit Party 28 seats of the 751 seat European Parliament (evidently, since the same people who won want Britain to leave the European Parliament, they may not be there for long) which is 3.7% of the seats. Brexit is part of a larger European alliance called the EFDD (Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy) which has preliminarily won 56 seats (7.5%). VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 22:45, 26 May 2019 (EDT)
The 11th British region, Scotland, will report their results at 7 am today (Monday, May 27, 2019 [EDT]). Northern Ireland has a unique voting system where voters rank the candidates when they cast their vote, the counting of which, consequently, is complicated, but we can be fairly sure that they reach completion by the end of the year, 2021 at the latest. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 03:23, 27 May 2019 (EDT)
Brexit won another seat from the Scotland region (taking second place to first place Scottish National Party) bringing their total to 29 seats of the 751 seats. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 08:42, 27 May 2019 (EDT)

Laura Loomer's legal action against CAIR and Twitter

"This is an action for

  1. breach of contract
  2. tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship
  3. restraint of trade in violation of Fla. Stat. § 542.18
  4. civil conspiracy
  5. violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 501.201, et seq."

As you might have guessed, some of these legal complaints could carry legal conclusions with a broader scope than just Laura Loomer's case. President Trump himself recently attempted to "settle out of court" and avoid these trials and other barriers directed solely towards conservatives by making some noise with the goal of awakening the social media companies back to their senses.

As more conservatives get hit/shadow-banned on social media, keep in mind which torts might be applied to each of their situations when you read about them, so you will feel less demoralized and more persevering as they occur.

And consider donating to to offset her legal expenses. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 23:24, 24 May 2019 (EDT)

Britain's next PM

Mifsud (right) with UK Prime Minister frontrunner Boris Johnson (center) two weeks after George Papadopoulos' plea agreement with Robert Mueller.[1] According to Democrats, John Brennan, James Comey, Rachel Maddow and Never Trumpers, Mifsud is a Russian agent.

Just what sort of man is Boris Johnson? The former foreign secretary has been described as Britain's Trump. He is widely tipped to be the next prime minister.
Well, he certainly has his share of amusing quotes: "If the EU was an animal it would be a lobster. I tell you why it would be a lobster. Because the EU, by the very way it works, encourages its participating members to order the lobster because they know that the bill will be settled by someone else, usually the Germans. So that's what the EU would be: A gigantic lobster with some sort of butter sauce."
Here is why Britain should vote Tory: "Voting Tory will cause your wife to have bigger breasts and increase your chances of owning a BMW M3." See "Boris Johnson's top 50 quotes." PeterKa (talk) 01:12, 26 May 2019 (EDT)

We'll know soon enough. If he wants to preserve the US-UK "special relationship," Boris Johnson needs to come clean on who Joseph Mifsud is. That means the Deep State crisis and housecleaning in the US will spread to the UK. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:23, 26 May 2019 (EDT)
The photo was taken at a "Brexit dinner" held on October 19, 2017.[21] At the time, Johnson was foreign secretary and thus the cabinet member presiding over British intelligence. At one point, Johnson claimed he never met Mifsud. When the photo came out, this was changed to, he never "knowingly" met Mifsud. So Johnson saw Mifsud as just another Brexit diner? The Papadopoulos plea was still confidential at this time, but surely MI-6 was aware that Mueller had Mifsud in his sites. Was Mifsud an MI-6 spy trainer, a Russian election interference superagent, or just a guy who happens to show up in various interesting places? We can't ask him as he disappeared soon after this photo was taken. PeterKa (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2019 (EDT)
He's been located (an aside to collusion junkies: Stephan Roh, Mifsud's lawyer, I suspect Roh's wife may be "Putin's niece" that Mifsud introduced to Papadopoulos). Here's one of the best reads you'll find on Mifsud. This read, after it's verified by Barr's report, will certainly give away much of NATO's "sources and methods." Too bad. Brennan, Clapper and Richard Dearlove fell into Obama's trap to destroy the Western alliance. Everything, including the US-UK relationship, has to be rebuilt from scratch.
As to the photo, it may be a fake. Mifsud head is far larger than the rest and the lighting behind him is brighter. But Politico thinks it's real. I understand it has been established Mifsud and Johnson did meet. Mifsud has been photographed with Theresa May, and Roh with Bill Clinton. And Mifsud's 302 interview with the FBI, three weeks after Trump's inauguration when Mifsud was an honored speaker at a State Department function, will be declassified. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:05, 26 May 2019 (EDT)
Regarding whether or not Mifsud is a Russian agent, if he is instrumental for Brexit, I really fail to see how he'd be an agent of Putin. I don't think dismantling the EU would have helped Putin at all. Heck, if anything, given how he doesn't make much secret to still be an adherer to Communism, keeping the EU intact would work better for Putin's aims, to say little about how Merkel's pro-EU status landed Putin with supplying gas to Germany and them eating out of his hands. Also keep in mind the EU was created largely to push Marxist-Leninist/Marxist-Trotskyite views. Pokeria1 (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2019 (EDT)
That's correct. I'm slowly coming to the opinion he was cynically and unwittingly used by Brennan, Dearlove, Robert Hannigan and Richard Wood. It'll take likely a year (closer to the 2020 election) to bring to light British interference in the American electoral process, just in time to expose to the American public Democrat illegal collusion with foreign intelligence agencies to thwart American democracy. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:52, 27 May 2019 (EDT)

Brexit: the British deep state strikes again

Just as the Conservative Party is beginning its leadership contest, it was announced that Boris Johnson would face charges for "lying" to voters during the Brexit campaign over three years earlier: [22] Johnson is the frontrunner in the contest and the strongest supporter of a "no deal" Brexit, and the Tory leadership, which opposes Brexit, is happy at this news: [23] This is yet another example of the British deep state working against what voters chose in 2016. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2019 (EDT)

Eh? It's a private prosecution. The state, deep or otherwise, had nowt to do with bringing it. JohnZ (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2019 (EDT)
Yeah, and it just so happens that the target is the Tory candidate most favorable to a "no deal" Brexit, specifically as he begins his campaign to succeed Theresa May. What a coincidence.
Unrelated to this, I found an article that states Philip Hammond will advocate against free-market policies in a speech: [24] Once again, this illustrates how liberal the Tory leadership has become. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:37, 30 May 2019 (EDT)
Boris Johnson most favourable to a "no deal" Brexit? Andrea Leadsom, Dominic Raab, Esther McVey and a large proportion of the party membership disagree. Boris Johnson can most politely be described as pragmatic. He is most favourable to Boris Johnson.
Unrelated to this, which Tory leadership candidate, when asked about the impact of Brexit on business, said "F**** business"? His initials are B and J. Rafael (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2019 (EDT)
Boris Johnson is most outspoken in favor of it compared to the other candidates, as far as I know. The "f**** business" quote affirms this perception -- partially or entirely because of big business interests, which lean left-wing (it's outdated, at least, for people to believe they're essentially conservative), that Brexit is stalled and why other countries aren't leaving, that the Euro and Schengen Agreement remain in force in countries like Italy and Greece, why NAFTA and other bad globalist trade deals remain in force, and why mandatory E-Verify hasn't been approved. In other words, many big businesses advocate for globalist and open borders policies -- as well as crony capitalism, which is compatible with socialism -- rather than limited government. Thus, I think it's a great thing that Johnson is suggesting he won't be beholden to them as the UK (hopefully) attempts to leave the EU. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:54, 30 May 2019 (EDT)
@JohnZ It may have started as a private prosecution case, but a District Judge allowed it to proceed and the Director of Public Prosecutions has a massive anti-Boris bias. Thankfully, this nonsense has been stopped and the case thrown out. --RWRW (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2019 (EDT)

Dominic Raab might be as good, if not better, of a candidate that Johnson, considering that he won't rule out suspending parliament to achieve Brexit, something that Johnson has ruled out: [25] --1990'sguy (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2019 (EDT)

Curb your enthusiasm, man. There's zero chance of Raab or anyone else proroguing Parliament to force a no-deal Brexit. It would require the Queen's assent and there's absolutely no way she'd allow the monarchy to be dragged into such a constitutional clusterf___. JohnZ (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2019 (EDT)
"require the Queen's assent"??? The symbolic monarchy hasn't interfered with major political decisions in how many decades, or centuries.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2019 (EDT)
You can put as many question marks as you like. Constitutionally, it's her call, and there's not a cat in hell's chance she'd support an unelected PM's boondoggle over the clearly expressed will of Parliament. JohnZ (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2019 (EDT)

Human rights article

I read the human rights article, and it seems to be incomplete.

I understand the values of the American Revolution to be that governments are instituted among men to secure these rights in order to promote their free exercise.

I'm also given to understand that they presuppose that human beings share a species-specific human nature, so existentialists like Jean-Paul Sartre who stated it is the nature of man not to have a nature, shouldn't agree about the existence of human rights[, taken generally, regarding man's intelligence and rational components in desires].

Also: by that human nature our natural (that is, having to do with our full conscious human nature) desires pursue what are real goods, so we don't have the right to things that are bad for us. That is not to say that all real goods exist in isolation from everything that might be evil. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 22:46, 29 May 2019 (EDT)

Mueller crawls out from under his rock

Mueller is once again demonstrating his most amazing skill: the ability to sit almost silently at the center of one swirling Washington controversy after another. Why did he pursue the wrong anthrax suspect for five years? If Governor Elliot Spitzer committed sex trafficking, why didn't Mueller recommend charges?
As special counsel, Mueller recommended various charges of "lying to the FBI." Mueller could just decide that he doesn't believe something said by George Papadoupolos, Michael Flynn or whoever and they went off to jail. When the heat was on, Papadoupolos deleted his Facebook account. He was told that he would be charged with obstruction if didn't cop a plea to lying. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that what both men are really guilty of is working for Trump.
The media neatly avoids any consideration of Mueller's misconduct by focusing on impeachment. At his latest appearance, Mueller told us that he couldn't recommend impeachment or even charges against Trump because the Department of Justice has a policy against charging an incumbent president. By this logic, making accusations informally would be unfair since Trump can't defend himself in court as long as he is president. But there is an obvious way out of this paradox: issue sealed indictments that get unsealed when Trump leaves office. More to the point, Mueller is being a total hypocrite. The entire "Part II" of his report is about hinting what it is that Trump can be charged with.[26]
This isn't the first time Mueller has bent the rules to avoid going to court. The FBI told the lawyer of anthrax suspect Bruce Ivins' that they would leak a claim about how Ivins was obsessed with a sorority. The only evidence for this "obsession" was a few rather uninteresting edits Ivins made on Wikipedia. All the same, Ivins promptly overdosed, thereby avoiding the need for a trial. PeterKa (talk) 23:53, 29 May 2019 (EDT)

Put him under oath, then let's hear his partisan trash talk.
Mueller is obstructing justice by refusing to answer House Judiciary Committee questions.
John Durham will get him singing like a canary. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:09, 30 May 2019 (EDT)
Oh, and the "12 Russian GRU agent indictments" ain't gonna wash to excuse his failure to perform the task he was appointed to. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:14, 30 May 2019 (EDT)
Lastly, Rosenstein's Memorandum of May 8, 2017 rebuking Comey had this line:
we do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation. Derogatory information sometimes is disclosed in the course of criminal investigations and prosecutions, but we never release it gratuitously. The Director laid out his version of the facts for the news media as if it were a closing argument, but without a trial. It is a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.
Mueller just did a Comey. But Mueller resigned before he could be fired for doing the exact same thing. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:23, 30 May 2019 (EDT)
PeterKa, I already reported that, remember?
"RobS, why didn't you tell me Nancy Pelosi intimated Bill Barr might have perjured himself after he wouldn't show up to Congress to explain why he wouldn't start a second investigation into Trump on obstruction and debate it on the merits? That's not news?! Those 20 pages Mueller wrote in Mueller Report Volume II dedicated to defending his interpretation of statute: 18 U.S.C. § 1512 subsection (c)(2) were already bloody epic, and his legal perspectives were sure to prevail! I disavow bla bla bla..."
The interpretation of the statute was about the scope of a sitting President's culpability for obstruction beyond evidence impairment; there was way more than just what you called "hints" [it offered a whole legal justification]. That's why Bill Barr was hired for Pete's sake! PDF:THE Statute Interpretation written by Barr
Other than that that was very informative, as was the thinkpiece that you inspired RobS to write. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 01:31, 30 May 2019 (EDT)
There are three phases to the current investigation:
1. Obama FISA abuse from June 2012 (when Comey was FBI director) to March 2016;
2. Obama and UK interference in the 2016 election, c. November 2015 to November 2016;
3. The cover-up (which includes Mueller) and Coup plot, October 2016 to May 2019. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:51, 30 May 2019 (EDT)
  • Rosenstein is Hillary's guy. His memo plays to her self-image as a victim. He was scheming to bring back Mueller as FBI director when he wrote it. Judicial Watch has established that Hillary sent out quite a bit more confidential material than Comey admitted. His claim that "no reasonable prosecutor" would have indicted her was nonsense. Comey was lying to protect Hillary, not issuing derogatory information. My guess is that the DOJ leadership was afraid of McCabe, who apparently thought nothing of blackmailing Sessions.
    Aside from being full of lies, Comey's statement usurped the authority of the prosecutors. But I don't buy Rosenstein's argument that the DOJ cannot issue derogatory statements concerning people who were not indicted. It is supposedly open season on people who are indicted? I don't see the logic. PeterKa (talk) 10:04, 31 May 2019 (EDT)
    • You were among the few to not be influenced by what came from what was really only Rosenstein's lips, teeth, cheeks and gums. The rest of us got carried along by his fine words and didn't feel it when we did a faceplant of admiration an embarrassingly many yards beyond the credit that was actually due them. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 14:19, 31 May 2019 (EDT)
    • May I try to describe the grounds for the leadership's fear of McCabe? I think Comey was in a bind: McCabe slow-walked acting on the new Hillary e-mail trove, and that fact would have come out had Hillary won, putting McCabe in legal jeopardy (and in prolonged and serious hot water with the public for rigging the system) and also thwarting their revenge plot on citizen Trump. He couldn't follow procedure by giving the case to Lynch because McCabe had violated procedure. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 14:42, 31 May 2019 (EDT)

Cory Booker to the rescue

"Robert Mueller’s statement makes it clear: Congress has a legal and moral obligation to begin impeachment proceedings immediately." 4.3M Twitter followers —Wednesday, May 29, 2019.

Cory Booker in Democrat sweepstakes: 143:1 —Thursday, May 30, 2019.

VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 03:51, 30 May 2019 (EDT)

Hmm, let's see in two or three weeks if his courageous Spartacus stance moves his poll numbers or number of twit followers. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:55, 30 May 2019 (EDT)
Are you kidding? Who among his supporters has an attention span that long? VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 18:32, 30 May 2019 (EDT)

The United States' largest mass killing up to that point in 2019

Eight people, including a 12-year-old girl, were found dead in Sumner County over the last weekend of April in what the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation is calling a string of homicides linked to Michael Lee Cummins.

Why don't you know about this? Because there was no gun involved. If killers resort to other methods when they don't have a gun, there's no need to confiscate the guns of citizens, who are then free to pass...inconvenient legislation that sweeps in that aspiring actress a Disney executive knocks up on the casting couch. Is that offensive to you? I can't disagree. Know about it? It needs to be hidden at any cost! VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 01:02, 1 June 2019 (EDT)

How to get suspended on Twitter

Erick Erickson tweeted: “Elizabeth Warren set to introduce the Wrecking American Prosperity Under Marxism, or WAMPUM act, wherein she gives everything away for free.”[27] Pretty hateful, man. PeterKa (talk) 01:14, 1 June 2019 (EDT)

Democrat conjunction

A Democratic officer in Congress mouthed some legal gibberish about the Mueller Report today, and a Trump supporter noted that she most probably couldn't have done that without the approval of Pelosi. You and I can note further that it might be co-ordinated.

For Biden gave a speech today. The gaming industry hasn't done a whole lot to improve political discourse, and Biden has a political technique that takes the form of a "super-power" you could call a "flash stupidity bomb" where he uses a description of some improbable event that affects his serious political opponents by making underlying assumptions that are as blindingly stupid as possible. For some reason he likes to aim these against blacks.

I warned you about this when I said Biden could be expected to repeat a kind of political disruption that paralleled his "they want to put 'you-all' in chains" remark years back. Today he noted that five trans-gender blacks had been killed this year. For all we know, they each could have been killed in a domestic tragedy by their partner, but that's not going to stop Joe Biden. He goes on immediately to say that the best way to stop this is to put an end to the Trump Administration. Hysterical leaps like this are usually confined to the mentally unstable, but if so in Joe's case, who are we to judge?

I would suspect that it would be a good way for Democrats to set the standard (of no pretense to rationality) of what's to come. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 01:35, 4 June 2019 (EDT)

Here's the key: You saw how Black apathy was responsible for Hillary's loss when blacks held her responsible for her husband signing the Superpredator crime bill. How will Blacks react when they learn Biden wrote the bill?
ABC 20/20 recently spent two hours on the 1991 Central Park jogger case just to call Trump a racist; ABC left out the fact that the Central Park 5 were the Superpredators Hillary spoke of and who inspired Biden's 1994 crime bill.
All this is predicated on the notion, as Candace Owens says, that Black people are stupid. Black women are credited with winning back the House (I attribute it rather to the Mueller probe's obstruction of Congressional investigations). That's why so much homage and attention is paid to Stacey Abrams. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 20:09, 4 June 2019 (EDT)

Central Park jogger case

I'm talking about impeachment, but since you brought up the Democratic primary, Buttigieg, who you called an "idea" (iow he wouldn't win, but the successes and failures of his campaign would be the model for an improved version in 2024) is now tied for second, but I have to admit only four-tenths of the same people who think he can win the primary also think he can win the general election, just like Conservative doesn't.
I don't think the crime bill will stick to Biden, as he's not dumb enough to use words like super-predator. And the Central Park Five being written up in editorials last year and in 2014 falsely settled for millions by NYC based on the potential award for false actual or punitive damages on account of their falsely described "malicious" prosecution had a specific purpose. And that purpose was precisely to "punish" those like Trump and make an example of him by placing a trap door under him because he bravely spoke out against the vicious teens early on.
July 25, 2018
The city of New York released thousands of documents from the 1989 Central Park rape case last week, provoking more weeping and gnashing of teeth over Donald Trump's full-page ads in four New York newspapers taken out soon after that attack with the headline:
His ad never mentioned the Central Park rape, but talked about New York families -- "White, Black, Hispanic and Asian" -- unable to enjoy walks through the park at dusk. Of muggers and murderers, he said, "I no longer want to understand their anger. I want them to understand our anger. ... They should be forced to suffer and, when they kill, they should be executed for their crimes."
According to the media, the five convicted boys were INNOCENT — and Trump would have executed the poor lads! This is nonsense. They wouldn't have been executed because the rape victim miraculously survived. Also, they weren't innocent.
Let's look at the facts of the case.
On April 19, 1989, investment banker Trisha Meili went for a run through Central Park around 9 p.m., whereupon she was attacked by a wolf pack looking for a "white girl," dragged 100 yards into the woods, stripped, beaten with a pipe and a brick, raped and left for dead.
By the time the police found Meili, she'd lost three-quarters of her blood. Her case was initially assigned to the homicide unit of the D.A.'s office because none of her doctors thought she would make it through the night.
Of the 37 youths brought in for questioning about the multiple violent attacks in the park that night, only 10 were charged with a crime and only five for the rape of the jogger: Antron McCray, Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, Kevin Richardson and Korey Wise. All five confessed -- four on videotape with adult relatives present and one with a parent present, but not on videotape.
Two unanimous, multicultural juries convicted them, despite aggressive defense lawyers putting on their best case.
But the media have a different method of judging guilt and innocence. They don't look at irrelevant factors, such as evidence, but at relevant factors such as the race of the accused and the race of the victim.
Unfortunately for Meili, she was guilty of being white, while her attackers belonged to the Brahmin caste: "people of color." So, after waiting an interminable 13 years, the media proclaimed that the five convicts had been "exonerated" by DNA evidence!
DNA evidence didn't convict them, so it couldn't "exonerate" them. This was a gang attack. It was always known that other rapists "got away," as the prosecutor told the jury, and that none of the defendants' DNA was found in the jogger's cervix or on her sock -- the only samples that were taken.
While it blows most people away to find out that none of the suspects' DNA was found on Meili, this is a sleight of hand. The trick is that we're looking at it through a modern lens. True, today, these kids' DNA would have been found all over the crime scene. But in 1989, DNA was a primitive science. Most cops wouldn't have even bothered collecting samples for DNA tests back then.
The case was solved with other evidence -- and there was a lot of it.
On the drive to the precinct, Raymond Santana blurted out, "I had nothing to do with the rape. All I did was feel the woman's t*ts." The cops didn't even know about a rape yet.
Yusef Salaam announced to the detective interviewing him, "I was there, but I didn't rape her." Even if true, under the law, anyone who participated in the attack on Meili is guilty of her rape.
Two of Korey Wise's friends said that when they ran into him on the street the day after the attack, he told them the cops were after him. "You heard about that woman that was beat up and raped in the park last night? That was us!"
Taken to the scene of the crime by a detective and a prosecutor, he said, "Damn, damn, that's a lot of blood. ... I knew she was bleeding, but I didn't know how bad she was. It was dark. I couldn't see how much blood there was at night."
Wise also told a detective that someone he thought was named "Rudy" stole the jogger's Walkman and belt pouch. The jogger was still in a coma. The police did not know yet that a Walkman had been stolen from her.
Wise told a friend's sister, Melody Jackson, that he didn't rape the jogger; he "only held her legs down while Kevin (Richardson) f---ed her." Jackson volunteered this information to the police, thinking it would help Wise.
The night of the attack, Richardson told an acquaintance, "We just raped somebody." The crotch of his underwear was suspiciously stained with semen, grass stains, dirt and debris. Walking near the crime scene with a detective the next day, Richardson said, "This is where we got her ... where the raping occurred."
Santana and Richardson independently brought investigators to the precise location of the attack on the jogger.
Recall that, when all these statements were made, no one -- not the police, the witnesses, the suspects, or their friends and acquaintances -- knew whether Meili would emerge from her coma and be able to identify her attackers.
Sarah Burns, who co-wrote and co-directed the propaganda film "The Central Park Five" with her father (whose reputation she has now destroyed), waved away the defendants' confessions -- forget all the other evidence -- in a 2016 New York Times op-ed, explaining: "The power imbalance in an interrogation room is extreme, especially when the suspects are young teenagers, afraid of the police and unfamiliar with the justice system or their rights."
Far from trembling and afraid, as Burns imagines, the suspects were singing the rap song "Wild Thing" for hours in the precinct house, laughing and joking about raping the jogger. One of the attackers said, "It was fun."
When a cop told Santana that he should have been out with a girlfriend rather than mugging people in Central Park, Santana responded, "I already got mines," and laughed with another boy from the park.
One of the youths arrested that night stated on videotape that he heard Santana and another boy laughing about "how they 'made a woman bleed.'"
They sound absolutely terrified!
In Burns' defense, she knows so little about that case that she called the prosecutor by the wrong name in her op-ed.
The actual evidence doesn't matter. Again, the victim was a privileged white woman (BAD!) and the perpetrators were youths of color (GOOD!). So the media lied and claimed the DNA evidence "exonerated" them.
This allegation was based on Matias Reyes' confession to the attack -- and his claim that he acted alone. His DNA matched the unidentified DNA on the jogger -- proving nothing, other than that he was the one of the others who "got away." He is also the "Rudy" who stole her Walkman, as Wise said at the time. How did Wise know Reyes -- or "Rudy" -- had taken a Walkman?
A cellmate claims Reyes told him that he heard a woman screaming in the park that night and ran to join the fun.
The "exoneration" comes down to Reyes' unsubstantiated claim that he acted alone. Years of careful investigation, videotaped confessions, witness statements, assembling evidence, trial by jury and repeated appeals -- all that is nothing compared to the word of an upstanding citizen like Reyes, a violent psychopath who sexually assaulted his own mother and raped and murdered a pregnant woman while her children heard the attack through the bedroom door.
That's the sum total of the "exoneration": the word of a psycho.
Note that Reyes faced absolutely no penalty for his confession -- the statute of limitations had run out years earlier. Before he confessed, Reyes had been moved to Korey Wise's cellblock. He requested a transfer on the grounds that he feared Wise's gang. All he had to do was confess -- with no penalty -- and he got his prison transfer!
Not even this monster's self-serving "confession" can explain away the five attackers' other crimes that night -- vicious beatings that left one parkgoer unconscious and another permanently injured. These attacks, the "Central Park Five" never disputed, and frequently admitted.
The SJW's verdict: Award the criminals $41 million. Trump's idea: Punish them.
And you still can't figure out how he became president.
I would only add that the hit songs "Wild Thing" and "Funky Cold Medina" played on the radio in 1989 acted as a kind of authority figure that mirrored and validated what became the nearly fatally irresponsible desires of teens back at themselves.
And that Candace Owens the black conservative also makes points like saying not all blacks would support Planned Parenthood just because Miley Cyrus did (not stupid), but at the present, according to my observations, they may just be sensitive to the thinking of others like Hillary that leads to words like "Super-predator". VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 07:58, 5 June 2019 (EDT)
IMO, Biden won't survive the primaries, barring the DNC rigging the nomination ala Hillary Clinton 2016. Once the public starts voting, Progressives who dominate the Democrat party will reject Biden. The situation is reminiscent to 2016, in that anti-establishment activists won in the GOP, but lost to the DNC. It is now the Democrats turn to pass the torch to a new generation.
Sanders only sticks around, as he did in 2016, to drive the dabate and agenda. At the appropriate moment he we will back out and support Harris. Alternatively, Buttigieg is considered an "establishment" candidate - he ran for DNC chair - but his white privilege worked against him. His intersectionality now is a plus.
ABC Good Morning America reran the Central Park 5 hit piece this morning. The 2016 election is too fresh in peoples' mind to forget. Biden & Hillary's Superpredator crime act was created out of the Central Park jogger case. Trump has a full page ad to answer for. Biden and Hillary were policy makers who created racist laws and the incarceration of 2.5 million Blacks. (What Democrats, liberals, and the white-dominated MSM don't understand is, Blacks view issues such as the Central Park 5, the Superpredator comment, and the 1994 crime bill very very different than mainstream media, whites, and Democrats; it's not just hitting a speedbump on the road to the presidency, as Democrats think. It's a key issue for Blacks. And the more educated Blacks are, the more decisive it is).
In responding to this ABC smear attack, you will see the political genius of Trump at work. He already took the initiative on prison reform - undoing the damage Hillary, Biden, and Democrats did to Black families and communities - and lowering Black unemployed through immigration restrictions. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:45, 5 June 2019 (EDT)
Ann Coulter goes into this at length in Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama, if you want to know more. However, I myself haven't read it. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 17:44, 5 June 2019 (EDT)
And a big factor - the commie/lib MSM is not in the tank for Biden as they were for Hillary, given viable alternatives. I suspect they'll go with another woman, whoever shines in the debates and survives in February. In the end, Biden's headed for Jeb Bush territory. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:37, 5 June 2019 (EDT)

Linda Fairstein

Back in 1989, feminists were still very much opposed to rape, believe it or not. Linda Fairstein thought she was being a good liberal when she prosecuted the Central Park Five. Few can boast a better liberal legal pedigree. Fairstein worked for the legendary Robert Morgenthau, appointed head of SDNY by Bobby Kennedy himself. She was also the inspiration for Law And Order: SVU.[28] It is not like there is any question that the accused were guilty. They were convicted in two separate jury trials. These trials were upheld in four separate appeals. That's a lot judges and juries who would have to wrong for them to be innocent. This was a hugely publicized case in New York City, capital of the legal industry.
Then came Clinton's impeachment, and liberals no longer thought so highly of women who claimed harassment or rape. The weaselly Morganthau got the convictions vacated in 2002. The city agreed to pay the rapists $41 million in 2014. Trisha Meili, the victim, still thinks the Central Park Five are guilty.[29] Fairstein is the villain of Netflix's When They See Us and liberal America is ostracizing her. See "The Wilding of Linda Fairstein." PeterKa (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2019 (EDT)

Yes, we need more research and discussion along these lines. With Trump and possibly Biden in the race, the Central Park jogger case will definitely be an issue in 2020.
Interestingly, the Manhattan DA's office has been dominated by the children and grandchildren of Henry Morganthau and Cyrus Vance for generations now. JFK Jr. was working in the office before the Clinton's whacked him to head off a primary contest in Hillary's Senate bid. The Morganthau Diaries is a US Senate Report based on an investigation spanning 21 years under both Democrat and Republican chairmanships documenting corruption and policy subversion in the FDR administration which I am well familiar with (related to the case of Harry Dexter White).
I'd like to move the subsection up to our discussion on the Central Park jogger case, if you don't mind. Thanks. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:49, 13 June 2019 (EDT)

Two (brave) new major templates

User:Conservative's commitment to excellence has inspired the same from his Conservapedia compadres. His article of the year for 2019, Atheism and human rights violations, displayed on Main Page Left along with a well-chosen picture related to the featured article contributed by Rob Smith, highlighted the need for two templates that were lacking, in that they were required to make that excellent article the best it could be, with its formatting seeking the elevation of its broad and reliable set of sources and its well-organized and persuasive arguments and illustrations.

Template:Reflist1904 is probably the first Conservapedia template that allows for separate sections of both references and notes. As early as June 2016, User:AK implemented this useful pair of sections in the Albert Einstein article, but as far as I know, a notes section has never been activated at Conservapedia using a dedicated template until now.

I first became interested in introducing this type of template when I saw it used in an article on another wiki within a range of my interests, extra-terrestial planets and planetoids, about our own solar system's planetoid Pluto. The memory of that clever arrangement became my touchstone as I sought to reconstruct the organizing effect of that template in the article containing Conservative's paragraphs-long reference commentary.

The template was named Reflist1904 after the year and month (2019, 4th month April) of its origination in case it need to be completed or improved at a later date. It is employed by a simple modification of a parameter called "group" in the ref tags of the references desired to be collected as annotations (<ref name=qq, group=note>) and a corresponding reference list command to select the notes within the template {{Reflist1904|group=note}} which introduces a reference link beginning with the word "note" (like[note 1])


  1. test

If you're like me, you've probably never pictured yourself using such astounding features on a wiki before. So maybe you can imagine how I felt having written them (with only a bare minimum of plagiarism)!

Monday: The stirring tale of a template derailed by bullet points and how it was put back on track. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 23:44, 8 June 2019 (EDT)

I'd like to learn more about this. Do others have any comments on this?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:24, 9 June 2019 (EDT)
Try clicking the "Note 1" superscript and then the up arrow in the item under the Notes section back and forth to see it in action. The item should turn blue as the other item turns off. The template contains 15 logically-expanded lines of code with only 18 unique operators, and it matches Conservapedia Template:Reflist as 85% identical. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 06:24, 9 June 2019 (EDT)

I have a question (not Trump related for a change!) -- metric system

How come the US still doesn't use the metric system? I read somewhere that the main reason is because to update all the road signs, measuring cups and everything else from Imperial is too costly. Is that right? (Sorry I don't know any other Americans to ask!) JohnSelway (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2019 (EDT)

Oh BTW - I ask because I saw a recent clip of Tucker Carslon on Fox talking about it. JohnSelway (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2019 (EDT)
I think this is a guy asking questions about a "conservative" practice whose possible answers he's actually anticipated. And then hoping that further probing questions beneath its superficial simplicity will be too actually cumbersome to answer in a non-awkward way and even obliquely reflect badly on conservatism in general. The best answer to the type of captious queries with which I suspect he'd follow is of the kind that takes place before they start, along the lines of "hard cases make bad law". VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 23:47, 6 June 2019 (EDT)
Homebuilding is the No. 1 manufacturing industry in the US. Asking millions of carpenters to re-learn a trade so they can cut off 3/8 of an inch on a 2x4 in cms just to please the rest of the world is too much to ask. Heck, the rest of the world hasn't paid us back for World War I yet.
And globalization hasn't helped, either. When the French firm, La Farge, bought out a local stucco factory, they wanted everything recorded in metric tons. Accounting was a nightmare. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:00, 7 June 2019 (EDT)
I don't know why, exactly, the U.S. doesn't use the metric system, but I'm glad it doesn't. Not only does the imperial system work just fine, but it also (and more importantly) helps prevent the U.S. from becoming too integrated into the "global system" -- similar as to how a unified currency, open borders, and economic globalization have accelerated the loss of sovereignty in European nation-states, standardized weights and measures also promote further integration and unification. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:31, 7 June 2019 (EDT)a
Conversion will of course cost money, that didn't stop Europe or Latin America from converting. The U.S. has an economy large and self-sufficient enough to be able to ignore the rest of the world. The U.S. Constitution provides that congress establish a uniform system of weights and measures. Washington thought the task urgent and assigned it to Jefferson. Jefferson came up with his own decimal system of weight and measures. This idea was obviously impractical and Congress took no action. The U.S. was at war with France when the metric system was established in 1798-1799. John Quincy Adams wrote a comprehensive Report on Weights and Measures in 1821. He found that every state had, on its own, already adopt a very similar system. He concluded that federal action was no longer necessary. PeterKa (talk) 04:59, 7 June 2019 (EDT)
I found the Tucker Carlson interview. I agree with the person Tucker interviewed, and he expressed his view more eloquently than I did. --1990'sguy (talk) 06:52, 7 June 2019 (EDT)
The current U.S. measurement system, which is based on the Adams report, is called "U.S. customary units." The imperial system is a similar system adopted by the British parliament in 1824. PeterKa (talk) 10:48, 7 June 2019 (EDT)

Because it is based on 10, the metric system is easier to do calculations with so it would increase productivity. There would also be less kids winding up in ER rooms due to dosage errors. [30] The metric system wins hands down.

By the way, long live the Library of Congress library classification system!!! Death to the fans of the Dewey decimal library classification system!!!Conservative (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2019 (EDT)

1990sguy wrote: "Not only does the imperial system work just fine...".
Because it is based on 10, the metric system is easier to do calculations with so it would increase productivity. There would also be less kids winding up in ER rooms due to dosage errors. [31] "The standardized structure and decimal features of the metric system made it well suited for scientific and engineering work."[32] We live in an increasingly technical/scientific age. It is time to acknowledge this fact and move to the metric system.
There is good, better and best. The imperial system is "fine"/good, but the metric system is best. "Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win." - The Apostle Paul. Make America have the greatest measurement system - the metric system!Conservative (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2019 (EDT)
The metric system is far easier. 10cm x 10 = 1 metre. 10 x 10 metres = 100 metres. 100 metres x 10 = Kilometer. very very simple. Much easier to divide and add and measure than 5280 feet equals 1 mile. Also weights are the same base 10. Simple and easy. Same goes for Celsius vs Fahrenheit. Water freezes at 0 and boils at 100 at sea level. Easy. JohnSelway (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2019 (EDT)
No one disagrees. However it would take at least a generation. In 1978, when the American auto industry still was vital, my brother had to buy two sets of wrenches - standard and metric - to work on his 1978 Ford Mustang cuz the body was built in the U.S. but engine built elsewhere. This was a generation before NAFTA. And we've seen the result - destruction of vital American manufacturing jobs.
America is self contained - we don't need any foreign imports. Until the rest of the world starts buying from America, we have no reason to change. Now it can be argued, they don't buy from us cuz they all have metric tools and can't work on American cars. But today you can't even change a wiper blade outside a factory dealership cuz it voids your factory warranty. Globalization (and technical improvements - the advent of so-called "disposable cars"), have destroyed the secondary auto repair market - jobs among so-called non-union "fly-by-night" mechanics. Again, the only "benefit" is job loss.
I sat in a meeting with La Farge executives and their 44 employees of a stucco manufacturing firm. They were straight up and honest about the reason for their investment in purchasing the company. They asked the 44 workers to help the multinational global firm destroy their own jobs (creative destruction) so as to reduce the number of employees to 4 with the same daily output in a fully automated robotic factory (they didn't say it was on a two year timetable). The only immediate beneficiaries were accountants and inventory control clerks, whose daily tasks were duplicated and redundant, converting ounces of color additives into metric tonnes of total output.
So even high school drop outs and ex-felons who can't find employment elsewhere other than as a fly-by-night auto mechanic or grunt worker in a stucco factory understand that globalization and a fixed rate between the dollar and the Euro works against their health and best interests. Andrew Yang's proposal to turn America into a nation of paid obese couch potatoes seriously threatens America's mental, emotional, spiritual and physical health. As to turning America into another sh*thole with the metric system, Viva l' deferance! RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:10, 8 June 2019 (EDT)

Why Metric is better

I saw this posted and it makes sense as to why metric is far superior to imperial. I have removed the foul language from the original post though.

In metric, one milliliter of water occupies one cubic centimeter, weighs one gram and requires one calorie of energy to heat it up by one centigrade - which is one percent of the difference between its freezing point and it's boiling point. An amount of Hydrogen weighing the same amount has exactly one mole of atoms in it.

Metric is easier and better. But I can understand how difficult it would be to introduce to a huge country with a population of about 380 Million people. JohnSelway (talk) 01:44, 9 June 2019 (EDT)

And we in the States have no problem with imperial. We can tell at a glance the size of a quarter-acre, or a half-mile; a cup of water, or a teaspoon of vanilla; a 5/8-inch wrench; how long a blue whale is in feet, or a hummingbird is in inches. And a cubic foot has 1728 cubic inches, containing 62.4 pounds of water. Simple! Karajou (talk) 04:16, 9 June 2019 (EDT)
Once you stoop to using decimal pounds you're already 57/64 of the way to the metric system. A cubic foot of water properly weighs 62 pounds, 6 oz, 13 dr, 15 1/4 grains, plus a little more, because there is no direct relationship between volume and weight. Before you say 'a pint's a pound the world around', please remember that a US pint of water weighs 1 lb, 306 1/4 grains and a gallon is 231 cubic inches.--Brossa (talk) 09:39, 9 June 2019 (EDT)
It's not "imperial"! It's the "United States Customary System."[33] PeterKa (talk) 06:16, 9 June 2019 (EDT)
How many Troy ounces to a Pound Sterling? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:03, 9 June 2019 (EDT)
When the baby boomers die off, the USA will probably adopt the metric system.Conservative (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2019 (EDT)
Remember, the Metric System is a product of atheistic revolutionary France -- the same people who also tried to implement a more "rational" calendar which included a ten-day work week (as did the USSR). There's actually a strong parallel between how we calculate time and the imperial system -- sixty minutes in an hour, 24 hours in a day, 30/31 days in a month, 52 weeks in a year, etc., similar to 5,280 feet in a mile, etc. -- neither are simple. But both systems are not a problem for us because we need to know it and thus memorize it. I like how the Imperial System uses numbers like 12 and 60, which can be divided many ways into whole numbers.
More importantly, I oppose adopting a new system of weights and measures -- particularly one with the secular humanist origins of the metric system -- in order to get in line with other countries. There's no pressing need to adopt the metric system, as the imperial system works fine for us (irrespective as to which one is "better"). The only "pressing need" I can think of is to integrate the U.S. further into the world economy (accomplished through the web of international organizations/treaties, which reduces its sovereignty and threatens its constitutional freedoms -- something which isn't desirable). I see this as similar to how the U.S. is the only country that isn't part of the Paris climate agreement, hasn't ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, or which has an amendment protecting the right to self-defense. The U.S. should not take actions which reduce its sovereignty or which make it dependent on other countries, including economic integration (a powerful force at getting countries to change their political policies -- look at China's investment in the third world, for example). --1990'sguy (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2019 (EDT)
I'm not sure a system of measurement has anything to do with "secular humanist origins". DO you oppose numbers because they are Arabic? It's a silly position to take. JohnSelway (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2019 (EDT)
We in this country are used to doing things by inches, miles, pounds, etc; others around the world are used to metrics. Whether or not it's "secular humanist" is debatable (and a silly debate at that), but to myself both are mere units of measurement and nothing more. And that's the way it should be. Karajou (talk) 01:40, 10 June 2019 (EDT)
@JohnSelway: Obviously, it's not secular humanist to count in metrics -- what I mean is that the metric system, unlike Arabic numbers or anything else like that, was originally created to uproot tradition and embody the secular humanistic ideals of the French Revolution. Thus, I don't like the symbolism of adopting it, especially if current system works well for us and the best reason people can give for changing is "But everybody else is using metrics!" -- similar to how I would oppose changing the number of days in a week if a viable calendar alternative were created. Is symbolism a poor reason to oppose metrics? Maybe, but once again, I haven't heard any good reasons why we need to change it in the first place. --1990'sguy (talk) 07:44, 10 June 2019 (EDT)
The only incentive or economic benefit the US has to adopting the metric is to compete in the export market of manufactured goods, which at this point is still a ways off. As the US brings jobs home from China to rebuild our manufacturing base (which appears permanent at this point), shifting to metric may be something to consider. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:08, 10 June 2019 (EDT)

Exporting is not the only benefit - especially in the long run. Because it is based on 10, the metric system is easier to do calculations with so it would increase productivity. There would also be less kids winding up in ER rooms due to dosage errors. [34] "The standardized structure and decimal features of the metric system made it well suited for scientific and engineering work."[35] We live in an increasingly technical/scientific age. It is time to acknowledge this fact and move to the metric system.Conservative (talk) 11:17, 10 June 2019 (EDT)

See also: A gram of prevention: Providers urged to go metric to avoid medication errors.Conservative (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2019 (EDT)
Here is an excellent article: 3 major reasons why the metric system is better.Conservative (talk) 11:24, 10 June 2019 (EDT)

Tucker Carlson and the metric system. I like Tucker Carlson, but he is a bit of a Luddite

Tucker Carlson is against the metric system. He is also against self-driving trucks because it will put a lot of truckers out of work. I don't know all the pros-cons as far as the future of self-driving trucks, but Carlson is a bit of a Luddite (Despite this, I still like Tucker Carlson).

People are going to have to develop their powers of learning/creativity/productivity because robotics/artificial intelligence/automation are coming. And as soon as the baby boomers die off, the metric system will likely be adopted in the USA.Conservative (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2019 (EDT)