Talk:Main Page/Archive index/179

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

5G and China

China has warned U.S. companies not to comply with the new U.S rules sanctioning Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei. If there is anyone who hasn't heard of 5G yet, it's a cell phone communication standard that is twenty times faster than the current 4G standard. There are three companies that provide the equipment necessary to set up this type of network: China's Huawei, Finland's Nokia, and Sweden's Ericsson. The sanctions against Huawei are justified by the claim that Huawei-supplied 5G networks are a security concern. IMO, this is like worrying that a foreign car manufacturer will install listening devices. If the sanctions are meant as a protectionist measure, what U.S. company is supposed to benefit? Perhaps they are being used as a bargaining chip in the larger trade war.
There is a long list of American companies that have been driven out of China over the years, so it's hard to feel much sympathy for Huawei. Other than some Apple iPhone shops, no major foreign technology or pharmaceutical company has a retail presence in China. The government has censored Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. off the Chinese Web. As far as operating from inside China goes, the corporate offices of Microsoft, Uber, and other U.S. companies were closed after repeated police raids. China agreed to free trade when it joined the World Trade Organization in 2001. But Beijing's word doesn't seem to be worth much. PeterKa (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2019 (EDT)

The CCP economic planners have commanded their far left Silicon Valley colluders not to abide by U.S. law. They need their Democrat party allies and fellow human rights abusers to overturn Trump's trade sanctions. RobSDeep Six the Deep State!
Despite the "China threat" coverage that has dominated the U.S. press for many years, China was laid back about it until the Huawei sanctions. Now they are trashing around. Last week, the buzz was about sanctioning rare earth exports. That would be like Trump refusing to sell China soybeans. In the trade negotiations, the "Made in China 2025" program to shut American companies out of the Chinese technology market is apparently the sticking point. If China seriously wants to play U.S. politics, they can place a bet on Biden and create a news network equivalent to Russia's RT or Iran's The Young Turks/Al Jazeera. PeterKa (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2019 (EDT)
Regardless of the politics, Huawei was in a little hot water a few months back about their routers, which were found to be very insecure, (allegedly) at least partially by design. I can't speak for their 5G access points, but I wouldn't trust them. --DavidB4 (TALK) 23:44, 9 June 2019 (EDT)
It sounds like Trump has found a vulnerability: "The trade war could leave Huawei smartphones frozen in time without core technology from the US." This is from South China Morning Post, Hong Kong's English-language daily. Huawei is clearly a company near and dear to the Chinese leadership. PeterKa (talk) 10:51, 12 June 2019 (EDT)
Don't forget the Huwai-Iran connection.
As I've said numerous times, whoever the DNC nominates, they will be onboard with Trump's China policy. There is no going back. China's free ride is over. Trump's tearing up trade agreements with China is permanent, even if he were to be a one-term president. The big losers in America are Family Dollar, Dollar General and Dollar Tree store clerks. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:00, 12 June 2019 (EDT)

China scores in trade war

That trade war thing? Never mind: "Trump Bows to Xi Jinping's Huawei Demands at G20." If Trump is doing this for the soybean farmers, that would seem to be misguided. China stopped purchasing U.S. soybeans last year before the sanctions went into effect. There was a small uptick in purchases from Brazil. There is a world market for soybeans, so which country China buys them from doesn't matter all that much. The larger problem is that China already has more soybeans than it knows what to do with. See this Forbes story: "For American Farmers, China's Soy Tariffs Are Least Of Their Worries." Trump is also talking about more visas for China: "‘We want more Chinese students’: Donald Trump says US looking for new ways to keep scholars in the country." PeterKa (talk) 09:31, 30 June 2019 (EDT)

Duh, Trump's doing it cause Xi bowed to Trump's demands - taking control of Kim Jong-Un's nuclear weapons. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:54, 30 June 2019 (EDT)
It seems that these concessions were made in order to get a surprise summit with Kim in Panmunjom. Trump was in Osaka, so why not pop over to North Korea? It's the Trumpian style. The previous summits had mixed results, but the possibility of a breakthrough with North Korea makes it worth the risk. My sense is that the North Koreans were not happy with the Hanoi summit and did not intend to hold more. This summit represents China leaning hard on North Korea. If nothing else, it shows the Iranians what they can do. If China and North Korea make trouble again, the concessions can be walked back and Trump can take a trip to Taiwan. We now know that Huawei is China's Achilles' heel. PeterKa (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2019 (EDT)
North Korea only has nukes cause Xi allows them to have nukes. Trump demanded Xi take full control of North Korean nukes, in exchange Trump will grant trade concessions to both China and North Korea.
Don't you follow the news? or are you still relying on fake news sources? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:40, 30 June 2019 (EDT)
  • Are you going to post a link? Drudge's headline is, "Kim has conceded nothing on nukes.... " Here is Yonhap: "In DMZ, Trump, Kim agree to resume nuclear talks." Yonhap is the South Korean news agency. It is the underlying source for a large percentage of the news about Korea.
    Judging from this story, it seems that the concessions Trump made for the summit weren't nearly as big a deal as Gordan Chang makes them out to be in the story I linked to at the top of this thread. PeterKa (talk) 00:04, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
This is how diplomacy works. ROK President Moon will get all the credit and possibly a Nobel Prize, so that President Xi can save face in bowing to Trump demands. The background reading on this is quite extensive, and you won't find it news articles or press releases. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:50, 1 July 2019 (EDT)

Some background

I will attempt to explain.

First, toss put everything you thought you knew or understood about the North Korean regime.

The Kim family are essentially feudal landlords. The North Korean military is only nominally under control of the Kim family. The CCP has extensive connections and control within the DPKR (Democratic Socialist Republic of Korea) military. While Kim has extensive control over DPKR politics and society, his influence in the military is limited. His control over society comes at the expense of being a Chinese toady. This has been the situation since 1949 and before (before the founding of either the PRC or DPKR). This misreading of Far Eastern geopolitics by U.S. and Western intelligence has dominated U.S. understanding since 1949-50.

I don't want to get sidetracked into historical analysis, but that's basically the situation today. If you have any questions, feel free to interject.

In one discussion thread I follow, Kim is referred to as a "hostage", Xi as the "hostage taker", and Trump as the "hostage rescuer", which is a gross over simplification, but for background and discussion purposes, it serves just fine.

How this situation came about requires different historical background analysis than is commonly understood. But it's not that difficult. Here again, it's easy to get sidetracked in understanding more recent events, say since 2002 when China was granted MFF (most favored nation) status. But in focusing on events since 2002, my initial premise - forget everything you've been told, Kim is not an unrestrained dictator - makes sense and comes into focus.

I yield the floor. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:38, 1 July 2019 (EDT)

China was desperately poor in the 1940s. The 1950 Chinese invasion of Korea was possible only because of Soviet financing. During the Cold War, North Korea was a dependent state of the Soviet Union, not China. After Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, China established diplomatic relations with South Korea, and North Korea was on its own. This was the time of the "Arduous March" and mass starvation. China started paying North Korea's tab around 1998. PeterKa (talk) 11:24, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
In the pre-MFF period, the dividing line is the Sino-Soviet split of 1962 when the Chinese communist party went its own separate foreign policy way. Beginning in 1979, the CCP under Deng adopted capitalism. By 1992 and the collapse of the USSR, China was a decade ahead of Russia in reforming its economy (a contributing factor to the fall of the USSR).
North Korea has never "been on its own," this is the flaw in Western understanding of Far Eastern geopolitics. It comes from a misunderstanding of the global communist movement in the 2oth century. The CCP was founded in 1923 as arm of the Soviet Communist party. Mao was a Lenin and Stalin lieutenant. In the 1930s Ho Chi Minh was a Mao lieutenant. By 1950, Kim Il-sung was a Mao lieutenant who still was a Stalin flunky. The organization, material, and training of the DPKR military all came from the Soviet and Chinese communist bloc. Between 1962 and 1989, while the USSR funded the global communist movement (national liberation struggles), many groups such as Fidel Castro accepted Soviet material support while adopting Maoist deviationist ideology (ignoring the Sino-Soviet split). This was one colossal failure in CIA and Western intelligence thinking.
I don't want to get too sidetracked in historical analysis. Throughout the 1990s, China prospered, while the USSR faltered. Because of its location, China-DPKR trade ties strengthened, while the USSR cut off all military aid. But Communist party control of the DPKR military, that is, Chinese communist party control took over completely. It was at this point the DPKR got nuclear weapons.
DPKR has never been sovereign and independent, anymore than the West German or Japanese military are free to adopt their own foreign policy and go their own separate way apart from Western and NATO foreign policy, military, and intelligence aims.
So, what you posted is the junior high school version of Far Eastern history from 1949 to 1998. Forget it. And focus on the period 2002 to the present. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:58, 1 July 2019 (EDT)

Democrat primary

1st Democratic Debate: Sen. Elizabeth Warren placed at kids’ table despite rise in her campaign’s popularity due to dip in close competitors

1st and 2nd Democratic Debate to be held on Wednesday, June 26, 2019 and Thursday, June 27, 2019
Candidate Home
of becom-
June 17,
pm EDT
July 1,
# of
Candidate Home
of becom-
June 19,
pm EDT
July 1,
# of
Sen. Cory Booker NJ 1.3% 1.6% 1.5% 2:4.4M +20,000 Sen. Michael Bennet CO 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 2:0.3M +2,000
Sec'y Julián Castro TX 0.4% 0.3% 1.2% 0.2M +88,000 V. Pres Joe Biden DE 29.6% 28.5% 14.9% 3.6M +8,000
Mayor Bill de Blasio NY 0.1% 0.1% 0.5% 2:1.5M +5,000 May. Pete Buttigieg IN 13.4% 11.1% 10.4% 1.2M +61,000
Rep. John Delaney MD 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.02M +3,000 Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand NY 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 2:1.4M +7,000
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard HI 2.6% 2.5% 3.5% 2:0.5M +42,000 Sen. Kamala Harris CA 11.5% 12.5% 24.9% 2:3.5M +105,000
Gov. Jay Inslee WA 0.3% 0.5% 0.1% 2:0.2M +8,000 Gov. John Hickenlooper CO 0.5% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1M +2,000
Sen. Amy Klobuchar MN 1.4% 1.6% 0.5% 2:0.7M +11,000 Sen. Bernie Sanders VT 11.4% 11.2% 9.5% 2:17.7M +31,000
Rep. Beto O'Rourke TX 3.8% 4.0% 1.7% 1.4M +5,000 Rep. Eric Swalwell CA 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 2:0.6M +4,000
Rep. Tim Ryan OH 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 2:0.1M +3,000 Marianne Williamson CA 0.1% 0.1% 0.5% 2.6M +55,000
Sen. Elizabeth Warren MA 15.4% 15.9% 17.0% 2:7.8M +86,000 Andrew Yang NY 4.8% 5.5% 3.8% 0.4M +99,000

VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 04:50, 16 June 2019 (EDT), Tuesday, 00:28, 18 June 2019 (EDT), Wednesday, 09:32, 19 June 2019 (EDT), 17:58, 26 June 2019 (EDT) 19:39, 29 June 2019 (EDT)

She's being spotlighted without having to debate comrade Sanders. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:26, 16 June 2019 (EDT)
RobS was right: Cory Booker doubled his popularity, and the bump remains three weeks after his "Spartacus stance". VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 00:50, 18 June 2019 (EDT)
Kamala beats Bernie by a whisker. Looks like she's earning her way onto the ticket. Democrats don't have a prayer without her, either top or bottom. Without Harris on the ticket, a significant amount of Blacks will defect to Trump or remain apathetic as they did with Hillary, RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:44, 19 June 2019 (EDT)
Once Bernie is out, Bernie's donors and organization will redound to Harris, doubling her numbers, dwarfing the two jokers Warren and Buttigieg, and approximately equalizing Biden's imploding numbers. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:49, 19 June 2019 (EDT)
Those numbers reflect the fact that Harris has united the Black base behind her, with the exception of Booker whose numbers are largely local East Coast. Castro numbers are largely Hispanic, which is hurting Beto's numbers which are largely homegrown Texan. Harris wins Booker and Castro's share as well. Yang supporters most likely will sign up with Warren (cause its foremost an economic giveaway program, rather than an SJW program). Warren and Beto largely represent the Democrat racist vote that Hillary held in 2008, holding out against the brown onslaught. Buttigieg (and Hickenlooper)'s people will go with whoever looks like a winner. Biden might not make it past the debates without a respirator or wheelchair. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:02, 19 June 2019 (EDT)
Bernie and Warren's numbers combined beat Biden. Once one or the other drops out (likely Sanders) after the September debates limited to 8 contestants, Biden is running for VP again, which he can't. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:57, 25 June 2019 (EDT)
Today, (Bernie [11.5%] + Warren [15%]) is less than Biden (29%). But either Bernie or Warren alone have more Twitter followers, as shown above. But Biden entered the race relatively late, while Warren and Sanders probably have won almost as many Twitter followers as they can get without someone dropping out. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 18:18, 26 June 2019 (EDT)
This interactive chart shows who is stealing from who. You can see Warren eating into both Biden and Sanders; you can see Buttigieg eating into Beto. It'll be interesting to see who gains from Buttigieg losses this week when the charts updated in the next eek or two. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:39, 26 June 2019 (EDT)
Yeah, but with a minimal application of the reader's liberal arts training, my chart does the same thing, and is, not to mention its intra-Conservapedia convenience, much better. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 22:04, 26 June 2019 (EDT)
Looks like Gabbard's gain will be Booty-judge's loss. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:01, 27 June 2019 (EDT)
You misspelled "Biden". Buttigieg lost voters after his video-recorded encounter with those black protesters that we discussed here, and during and after the debate he didn't get them all back. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 17:14, 27 June 2019 (EDT)
Gabbard looks like a winner, if she can get over her homophobia, antisemitsm, and support from white supremacists. She's the best hope Democrats got at the moment. Maybe she's just paying lip service to the gay agenda, but has a secret plan to undo gay marriage. and remember, she's a Hindu, not Christian. That's a plus among Democrats. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:22, 27 June 2019 (EDT)
In case you missed it: Harris had a verbal sparring with Biden during the second debate, and in a shocking reversal of support levels, Harris is the "new Biden" and Biden merely the largest of the "four dwarves". VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 09:26, 29 June 2019 (EDT)
The public just isn't buying some of the candidates, if you can think you can rely, whether or not the figures are being padded, on their increase in Twitter followers after the debate, which I just reported.
If you think I'm being too preoccupied with these figures, I'm actually saving time in the long run if I can eliminate reporting on certain candidates that show they're not going to win. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 19:39, 29 June 2019 (EDT)
So Harris, Yang, Castro, and Warren, in that order. On the bottom you have Hickenlooper, Bennet, Delany, Ryan and Swalwell, who are out. Moving up the ladder, Beto ties with De Blasio (5,000), Gillbrand (7,000), and Biden (8,000). Smell that? Smell's like someone died. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 20:48, 29 June 2019 (EDT)
Wait wait! The numbers for Biden can't be correct; +8,000 is not 28.5% of 3.6M. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:11, 29 June 2019 (EDT) My error.
Continuing top down: Buttigieg beats Williamson narrowly; followed by a group with only fractions of all the top six: Gabbard, Sanders, and Booker. This is a dividing line; from Sanders on down, none really generated new interest among people who didn't know them. From Gabbard up, Williamson, Castro, and Yang are all big winners.
I've considered Biden and Sanders out for a few weeks, and this confirms some of my suspicions about Booker. But money and organization still play a big role. Buttigieg I view as a liability to the party, largely due to racial issues. The longer he lingers, the more damage done (we're talking about VP choices now). It's hard to see how Williamson and Yang can hang on with no money. Castro is being promoted behind the scenes. Gabbard represents a real threat, almost of Trumpian proportions between the party establishment and a populist base. They are actively trying to snuff her out (moreso than Yang, who would be next). But I imagine people now are thinking of a Harris/Buttigieg, Harris/Castro, or possibly a Harris/Yang ticket.RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:32, 29 June 2019 (EDT)

Harris/Castro seems the logical choice, a coalition of blacks and Hispanics with a smattering of white liberal atheists, gays. and abortion fanatics, cementing (theoretically) the Hispanic vote as voting bloc, like blacks.

So, get ready for the politics of racial division. Democrats seem to want to go there. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 02:30, 1 July 2019 (EDT)

Kamala and Elias

Huffington Post: South Bend Officer Who Fatally Shot Black Man Had History Of Racist Comments.[1] If this is true, Boot-edge-edge's candidacy will go down in flames even faster.

This is good news. This means Pocahantas will soak up Boot-edge-edge votes even quicker and be more competitive against Sleepy Joe Biden.Conservative (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2019 (EDT)

Kamala Harris has Marc Elias on the payroll. The fix is in. Buttigieg just rousted himself as a contender for the No. 2 spot. Sleepy Joe's on meds. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 20:51, 23 June 2019 (EDT)
My guess is that a police union may have protected South Bend police officers who engaged in racist comments and they may have been relatively unfireable. I know it is almost impossible to get bad teachers fired in NYC thanks to the teacher's union there. Democrats love unions. Conservative (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2019 (EDT)
None of it's a national issue, other than that his own black residents of the fourth largest city in Indiana hate him and don't trust him. And that he simply is not prepared. Watch his poll numbers after the debate. Biden, Beto, and Sanders are all sliding. All Kamala has to do is maintain the pace. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:25, 23 June 2019 (EDT)
Kamala Harris is not going to win the Democratic nomination. Kamala Harris is not as charming/likeable as much of her competition. In a television age, likeability/charm was important. On the internet, video content's popularity is growing and growing so likeability/charm is even more important in a hybrid TV and internet video age. In addition, she is a former DA and attorney general and the Democratic party is not a law and order party.Conservative (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2019 (EDT)
That's what they said about Obama in June 2007 when Hillary was inevitable. Harris has the Hillary, Obama, and (beleive it not) Sanders machine - staff and donors - behind her already, The nomination is hers to lose. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:04, 23 June 2019 (EDT)
Hillary Clinton was never charming/likeable. Barack Obama, like the devil, a false angel of light and a person's rationalizations for their bad behavior, could be charming. "I mean, you got the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man." - Joe Biden on Barack Obama in 2007.Conservative (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2019 (EDT)
Kamamla Harris is a very good looking woman for: her age. She has all the Obama machine and media behind her. Blacks are not riding the back of the Democrat bus anymore. When they don't support a candidate, like Hillary in 2016, they loose. When Black women come out to vote, as in 2018, they flip Congress. They got a taste for power and leadership, and won't take a backseat to bigots like Biden, Buttigieg, Warren or half of the rest of the field. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:21, 23 June 2019 (EDT)

New California Poll Bursts Kamala Harris’ 2020 Bubble — Doesn’t Even Crack Top 3 Candidates in Home State.[2] Kamala Harris is not charming/likeable enough to win the Democratic nomination.Conservative (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2019 (EDT)

The only way the very important likeability/charm factor could be overcome is if the Democrats want a hardcore brawler and attack dog to go after Trump. I have my doubts that this will happen.
Trump is fairly versatile. He can be charming, yet he can be an attack dog too.Conservative (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2019 (EDT)
If you believe polls. Polls mean nothing in themselves; who commissioned it and for what purpose has to be considered. Polls get fed into an echo chamber, much like the Russia collusion stories of 2016. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:36, 24 June 2019 (EDT)
I know charming/likeability when I see it. And Kamala Harris doesn't have it. She doesn't smile enough. She is not expressive, but comes across as controlled. She doesn't exude energy (Robert F. Kennedy was not as eloquent as his brother JFK, but he did exude energy). Trump knows it can be very effective to brand rival candidates as low energy (Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton and Sleepy Joe Biden). People like leaders who are people of action and exude energy.Conservative (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2019 (EDT)
It's hard to be likeable when you focus on grievance politics like Kamala Harris. You come across as a whiner. While Trump did air some legitimate grievances like bringing back jobs to America when it is very achievable to do so and having a secure border, his main focus was on "making America great again". It's also harder to push grievance politics when minorities have higher employment and less poverty than under Obama.Conservative (talk) 01:14, 24 June 2019 (EDT)
I think my first real awareness that Kamala Harris existed was the Kavanaugh hearings. And she came across as a sour/nasty woman. I just saw some videos of Kamala Harris and she is more personable than I initially thought. But she is whiner in many cases.Conservative (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2019 (EDT)
Have you seen any of her campaign materials? How would you respond to this? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:44, 24 June 2019 (EDT)
Laura Ingraham tries to refute Kamala's above campaign material, but it likely will not work; like Obama, this cannot be countered with facts. You are confronted with an angry, motivated mob. You cannot persuade any of them. You can only offset their numbers by appealling to undecided moderates who fear being labeled racist. The Democrats and fake news media have done the groundwork, much more than they did with McCain and Romney, painting Trump and Republicans as racist. So that's the problem.
How do you appeal to undecided moderates? If they shared your views, they would not be undecided moderates. How do you appeal to them to counter the campaign, evidenced by the link above, already underway. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:08, 1 July 2019 (EDT)

I don't respond well to her. I think she is an evil and shallow woman.Conservative (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2019 (EDT)

The View - "America's most watched political show" and was all gaga over Buttigieg two months ago, this morning echoed what I said. Buttigieg is not prepared to be president. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:29, 24 June 2019 (EDT)
The safest generalization about the Democratic fold over the past week is that Buttigieg lost 2% of all available Democratic votes and passed them on to Harris. There's been rumors that Harris has a large gay following, and if she's wise, she'll notify the Secret Service and have them tell him to go home. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 03:52, 26 June 2019 (EDT)
Harris herself is a lesbo, or at least her door swings both ways. The good news is, at the age of 50 she decided to settle down, get married, and run for president. I'm looking forward to all the "our children" speeches, when she decided a long time ago to put herself and her career over having children. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 04:50, 26 June 2019 (EDT)

Busing, Harris, and Biden

Harris has been deemed the winner of the first round of Democratic presidential debates and Biden the loser, mostly because of an exchange about busing. Harris told a story about being bused as child. WTF? Every kid hates being bused. At graduation, no student has ever said, "You know what I'll miss most about this school? My time on the bus. It made feel like I was doing my part for racial justice." With this ripe target before him, what was Biden's response? "I did not oppose busing in America; I opposed busing ordered by the Department of Education." If only he had said something more like: "I opposed busing because parents and students in my state hated it. Those were the people I represented in the U.S. Senate." PeterKa (talk) 04:12, 28 June 2019 (EDT)

Another debate takeaway: The candidates all want free healthcare for everyone in America, including illegal aliens. Plus, they want to make it legal for anyone from any country to cross the border. Are these people familiar with the concept of money?[3] PeterKa (talk) 05:49, 28 June 2019 (EDT)
Among all the research available on the subject (what Biden and Harris debated last night, and Biden's defense) is this must read article. Students (like Kamala) who sere bussed and attended desegregated schools now, it has been scientifically proven, earn 25% more than black student who remained in segregated schools. Biden misrepresented facts: he blamed the Oakland school district for not integrating. Facts are he (1) repealed a section of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that required HEW (now HHS) to withhold funds for schools that didn't abide by Brown v. Board, and (2) threatened a Constitutional Amendment if his legislation failed.
There is a lengthy 1975 NYT article online as well that goes into more detail on busing in the 1970s.
Sen. Edward Brooke was Biden's main opponent. Brooke is largely forgotten today because he was a black Republican who supported abortion. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:06, 28 June 2019 (EDT)
IOW, Biden led a drive to outlaw portions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by Constitutional Amendment. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:18, 28 June 2019 (EDT)
See, Here is an instance where The Gateway Pundit goes off the rails out of sheer ignorance, stupidity, and blind partisanship which works to undermine the whole attack on Biden and Democrat party racism.
The issue is busing to achieve integration, not integration itself. The plain fact and historical truth is Biden along with Democrat segrationists repealed sections of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
This is part of Black History, celebrated every Black History Month. Every student of Black history now will know these facts: Obama's VP repealed portions of the Civil Rights Act.
While I like, appreciate, and use Gatewaypundit very much, still, CP editors need to be aware of some of its vulnerabilities and flaws, and be cautious when using it as a sole citiation. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:06, 28 June 2019 (EDT)
  • Harris went to a high school near Montreal in Canada. So she is apparently talking about the two-year period when she went to elementary school in Oakland. It hadn't occurred to me that anyone would want to bus elementary school students. That she did it for only a short time suggests that her family thought of it as a bad situation and got her out of it as soon as they could. PeterKa (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2019 (EDT)
No no no. You are entirely missing the point. Scientific studies now have determined students who spent five years in a desegregated school have earned 25% more than black students who remained in segregated schools. Biden scuttled sections of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that required HEW (now HHS and Dept. of Educ.) to withhold funds from schools that refused to comply with court ordered de-segregation.
Biden took the Eastland Amendment, slapped his name on it, and won liberal Senators for passage.
Do not personalize this issue as something related to Harris. It is a prime of example of liberal Democrat racism from the 1970s. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:06, 28 June 2019 (EDT)
Democrats fought school desgregation with the Southern Manifesto; they fought it with the Little Rock Crisis of 1957; they filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act; and they fought black integration with the Biden Amendment of 1975. This is Black history. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:19, 28 June 2019 (EDT)

Biden down 10, Harris up 9. I'd expect Biden to crumple and fold at any time. Harris is younger and more of a fighter. But there are, what, 7 debates between now and December? I don't think Biden or Bernie will make it to February when balloting begins. The torch is being passed to Millenials right now in the Democrat party. If you're looking for the final 8, final 5, final 3, and final 2, you can eliminate Biden and Sanders right now. Warren might make it to the final two, which would somewhat resemble the 2008 Obama/Hillary matchup or the 2016 Hillary/ Sanders matchup, with Harris playing the role of Hillary, albeit in Obama's skin. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:53, 29 June 2019 (EDT)

It wasn't just at the Democrat debates...

Manure explodes in Spain. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:12, 29 June 2019 (EDT)

This is exactly what happened to the Democrat party. "Firefighters are battling a major wildfire that probably started after a heap of manure self-ignited." RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:18, 29 June 2019 (EDT)

Dems' promise on healthcare for illegal aliens will haunt them

When asked if they thought illegal aliens should get health care at the taxpayer's expense, every Democratic candidate for president raised their hand at the last debate. Pollsters have tried to gauge the effect of various issues on the presidential race. It turns out that no issue changes minds faster than this one. Newsbusters calls the pledge "Christmas in June." If the Trump campaign reminds everyone of this promise in an ad campaign just before the next election, we could have a red tsunami. PeterKa (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2019 (EDT)

They can try to change their positions later, but it's too late. They are on record. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:05, 1 July 2019 (EDT)

Border crisis recap

@JimJinksCT 4 hours ago Replying to @redsteeze

Assuming you know this but I’ll say it anyway. Trump’s demand for a border wall was about a supposed ‘crisis’ of illegal immigration. But the humanitarian crisis in the border camps is Trump’s making. It’s cruel, intentional & proving to be ineffective (not to mention costly.)

@WAT530 [a brave Anon] 4 hours ago

This is false. The humanitarian crisis in border facilities is a direct result of the illegal immigration crisis that began under Obama. Our CBP stations and infrastructure weren't built to house mass amounts of people, and none to house children. In the past, it was mostly young males, migrant farm workers, etc. Then it was males just coming for any work. Our facilities were meant for short processing times and you moved them out.

When Obama announced DACA, families started flocking to the border. It became a crisis when parents, who were already here illegally, started paying smugglers to bring their children, thus, the unaccompanied minors being dumped at the border. Obama opened the detention centers because there was nowhere to house these children while they were being processed, then turned over to HHS to be transported to shelters or turned over to the parents that smuggled them here. Because of the Flores Agreement, Obama couldn't hold the children with their parents while the parents were being processed, thus you have "catch and release." This prompted parents to start dragging their children with them in droves under Trump.

So you had people renting kids, stealing kids, using other family members children, etc because that was their free pass. You have a kid, you get in. Trump begged Congress to fix this loophole, but to the Dems, no crisis, nothing to see here, move along. Trump then separated the children from their parents while they were being processed, again, because the court told Obama he couldn't hold them together.

Then people started having a fit. Many of these children weren't related to the people who brought them, many were abandoned once they got here. Trump stopped the separations, although I dont think he should have. Because it's been ignored, and anything Trump has tried to do has been shot down, we now have thousands upon thousands of unaccompanied minors at the border, and don't have the infrastructure or funds, thanks to the Dems.

So I'm not sure what exactly you, or anyone else expects Trump or any other president to do in this crisis. We have thousands of children dumped at our border. Where exactly should they go? Should they just be dumped in the street? People in Congress want to scream and holler "I will not give any money," then complain about the conditions there? AOC pumping her fist in solidarity with a strike at the company making beds for those kids, and then bitches about there not being beds. #moron

I live between Houston TX and the border. I don't need someone from DC, NY, Mass, etc to tell me what is and isn't going on down here. We see it with our own eyes. This isn't a crisis because of Trump. This is a crisis because of Congress. Even Democratic mayors are getting sick of it. It's costing the citizens of Texas to do the federal government's job. This is just one example..[1]

  • Every Democrat running for president is for decriminalizing border crossings,[4] as well as for providing free health care to illegal aliens. If DACA was enough to trigger the current border crisis, imagine what these policies would do. There would be hundreds of millions of people from the Third World headed for America. PeterKa (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2019 (EDT)

The Wannabe tribe

Suppose you are not a powerful senator or media darling, but you still want to be recognized as the American Indian that your high check boned pawpaw told you that you were. The Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory, an unrecognized tribe founded in 1978, is here to help. It turns out that faking Cherokee ancestry is big business. This group's members were awarded $300 million in affirmative action contracts, according to a recent exposé by the Los Angeles Times. See "'It’s infuriating': Fake 'Cherokee' busineses land millions of dollars in contracts." PeterKa (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2019 (EDT)

The inner liberal in me says "Hey, if they want to identify as native Americans, we have to respect their personal choice." The inner conservative in me realizes how ridiculous—and now how lucrative to certain financially ambitious interests—that sounds. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 21:55, 26 June 2019 (EDT)
The Northern Cherokee should challenge Warren to a DNA throwdown so we can find out who is whiter. The story above originated in the LAT. So other mainstream media editors have to know about it, but they won't touch it. See "How ‘pretendians’ undermine the rights of Indigenous people." PeterKa (talk) 01:23, 27 June 2019 (EDT)
But she identifies as an Indian. We'll have to wait til a transgender gets arrested in the girls room to get a final ruling from SCOTUS on this one. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 08:55, 27 June 2019 (EDT)
It's two days later, but only one more news story on the Northern Cherokee affair has been published.[5] The media is sure in the tank for Warren on this one. According to the latest story, five contractors lost their affirmative action status as a result of the LAT article. PeterKa (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2019 (EDT)

E. Jean Carroll

We all know by now that the Russia hoax represents Clintonian payback for Uranium One and that the proposed impeachment of Trump is payback for Bill Clinton's impeachment. It follows that the sexual allegations against Trump are payback for Monica Lewinsky. It's hard to explain them any other way. They just keep coming, and fraud involved gets more obvious each time. Trump raped a fifty-year-old in the fitting room of a crowded Bergdorf in the 1990s? At the time, Trump was a celebrity with a name to protect. How did this one pass the laugh test? The accuser in this case has some...very odd views on sex and politics: "BREAKING: E. Jean Carroll Offered People $17,000 To Have Sex With Trump With Their Eyes Closed In 2012." PeterKa (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2019 (EDT)

It's just another scripted mainstream fake news media narrative, not worth mentioning or discussing on this server. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:47, 29 June 2019 (EDT)

Stephanie Grisham

If you Google "Stephanie Grisham" for news items her actions are reported by all news agencies. The mainpage item is incorrect. JohnSelway (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2019 (EDT)

Google? "all news agencies"? What bleep is is wrong with you? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:12, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
Google gets caught debating the manipulation of search results on ideological grounds.[6]
I replaced Google with DuckDuckGo as my default search engine. I don't want to be manipulated by Google or be in a filter bubble. I also use Bing. Sometimes I use Google though, but I am getting away from them when it comes to ideological searches.
I predict as Google becomes more and more infested with SJWs, the quality of their search results will keep on deteriorating and then a more objective search engine or search engines will emerge.Conservative (talk) 01:28, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
Google is already hacking the 2020 election. And some nitwit comes in here and says, "Google says blah blah bla," or "fake news says blah blah blah," and we're suppose to cower to their authority and authenticity. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 02:01, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
I’m a little bit stunned by these replies. It has nothing to do with particular search engines. It doesn’t matter what the search engine is - it was represented by all the news agencies. Why is this even in disputes? Why has it become a discussion? Every news agency has covered it, that’s factual. This main page post is incorrect. Does any one actually care about verifiable information? Conservapedia has 10 simple rules, this post betrays those. Conservatism to me is a higher moral authority. Why don’t we strive to be better? JohnSelway (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
Just take another bong hit. Nobody cares. Nobody's listening. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 03:00, 1 July 2019 (EDT)

JohnSelway, you didn't demonstrate the main page right post was incorrect. I don't see news agencies disputing the issue reported on main page right.

All "your news agencies" were spectacularly wrong when it came to Trump's election, Trump-Russian collusion and have shown themselves to intentionally misreport various items (see: Fake news). And in addition to committing sins of commission, they wildly engage in sins of omission (see: Media bias). If one had relied on your news organization, one would have been totally blindsided when it came to Brexit, Trump's election and the rise of right-wing nationalism in the world.

In short, I suggest you get out of your Google/mainstream news/NZ related filter bubble. For example, NZ is politically out of step with the rest of the free world when it comes to the degree of the rise of right-wing nationalism (NZ still leans left and it leans further left than most of the free world).

In 2019, John Feffer wrote at the left leaning The Nation:

"In the Americas, the Trump tsunami has swept across both continents and the 'pink tide' of progressivism has all but disappeared from the southern half of the hemisphere...
In this planet-wide rising tide of right-wing populism, the liberal left commands only a few disconnected islands — Iceland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Korea, Spain, Uruguay... Worse, crafty operators with even more ambitious agendas stand ready to destroy the liberal status quo once and for all."[7]Conservative (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2019 (EDT)

33 key questions for Robert Mueller

Proving a negative

Robert Mueller, the special prosecutor who conducted an investigation having to do with members of President Trump's 2016 presidential campaign colluding (which is not a crime) with Russian nationals. Meanwhile evidence exists that Hillary Clinton made deals with Russians during her tenure as Secretary of State, notably regarding an enormous supply of Uranium usable in nuclear weapons manufacture, who were not investigated.

Mueller concluded that there was no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, but later made the remark, "If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

You may have heard it said that it is impossible to "prove a negative". It might be unfair of us to ask someone to do so, but strictly speaking, it is possible—one can show that stating the opposite leads to a contradiction.

But in this case showing such a contradiction isn't possible; the President would have had to have been observed every moment of his Presidency.

So this kind of bogus declaration by Mueller leads me to conclude that he is not interested in a fair account of the facts, but instead is too slack-moralled to entertain even the basics of what would constitute a fair presumption of innocence on Trump's part, if Mueller is not actively avoiding them altogether.

This observation didn't escape the notice of Jeff Carlson at The Epoch Times website.[1], who thankfully kept this idea in mind while listening to and reading Mueller's presentation of his investigation.

This same observation sheds light on Mueller's suspicious conduct and unanswered questions, revealing a garish picture of disrespect for the rights of our duly-elected President, even when one sets apart the illegal FISA evidence, the gatherers of which uncharged to this day, that was used to ensnare the members of his incoming 2016 administration; the same evidence of their response to which was the only sign of irregularity that linked to Trump to begin with.

"Robert Mueller, who investigated allegations of Russia collusion and obstruction of justice for nearly two years as special counsel, will be testifying before the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees on July 17.

"Mueller’s investigation, which concluded there was no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia and that there was insufficient evidence to support obstruction charges, has been criticized for attempting to inflict political damage on President Donald Trump.

"Specifically, Volume II of the Mueller report contained sections that were selectively edited, apparently in order to provide damaging portrayals. Examples include the representation of the transcript of a phone call between the president’s attorney, John Dowd, and the attorney for former national security adviser Michael Flynn; a letter from the attorney of an individual referenced in the Mueller report; and a sequence of dates concerning the meeting between Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos and Australian diplomat Alexander Downer. There are also disturbing details surrounding a heavily used witness in the Mueller report, George Nader.

"Ahead of Mueller’s congressional testimony, we are raising 33 crucial questions that the former special counsel should be asked.

  1. Did Attorney General William Barr in any way misrepresent your 448-page report?
  2. Who actually wrote Volume I and Volume II of your report?
  3. Were any of the authors of your report in contact or consulting with representatives of either Brookings Institution or Atlantic Council?
  4. In your report, you reference “efforts to curtail the Special Counsel’s investigation.” Did the president ever actually limit or impede your investigation?
  5. Why did you provide a conclusion on collusion but not on obstruction?
  6. At what point did you and/or the special counsel team determine that there was no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia?
  7. You determined there was no collusion on the part of the Trump campaign, which implies that you also determined the allegations within the Steele dossier to be invalid. Was there an obligation on your part to inform the FISA court of this and did you do so?
  8. Did you examine the effects on the election that may have resulted from a Fusion-led Steele disinformation campaign?
  9. Why did you not examine the Hillary Clinton campaign’s and the DNC’s ties to Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele, and the dossier?
  10. Did you examine Bruce Ohr’s interactions with Steele and the FBI during and after the election?
  11. Why did you not investigate the work of Nellie Ohr on behalf of Fusion GPS, along with her ties to Ukrainian member of Parliament Serhiy Leschenko?
  12. Did you investigate Christopher Steele’s discussions with State Department official Kathleen Kavalec?
  13. Did you investigate election meddling by any countries other than Russia?
  14. Why did your report omit information regarding Fusion’s employment by Russian clients while they were also employed by Perkins Coie on behalf of the DNC?
  15. Why did you report omit Christopher Steele’s direct ties to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska—including the fact that Steele was actually employed by Deripaska?
  16. Why was selective editing used in the representation of the transcript of a phone call between the president’s attorney, John Dowd, and the attorney for former national security adviser Michael Flynn?
  17. Did you fully investigate the origins of the alleged DNC server hack, and what forensic evidence was actually examined?
  18. Did you investigate the FBI’s initiation of its July 31, 2016 counterintelligence investigation and the role John Brennan had in providing the information that helped establish it?
  19. Why was selective editing used in the representation of communications between former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen and Giorgi Rtskhiladze, who was born in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia and has been a U.S. citizen since 2017?
  20. Why did you use May 6, 2016, as the date of a meeting between George Papadopoulos and a representative of a foreign government—and was this in reference to Australian diplomat Alexander Downer?
  21. Why did you fail to note that Rod Rosenstein and then-AG Jeff Sessions had discussed the need to remove James Comey as FBI director prior to Sessions’s confirmation as AG?
  22. Why was George Nader, a witness who is mentioned more than 100 times in your report, allowed to leave the country, and why wasn’t it disclosed that he was charged for possession of child pornography?
  23. Why have you not made publicly available the unredacted versions of the two additional scope memos from Rod Rosenstein? Do any additional memos exist?
  24. Who leaked Gen. Michael Flynn’s phone calls with the Russian ambassador—a felony violation? Was there a FISA or national security letter issued on Flynn?
  25. Is there a 302 FBI document from Jan. 19, 2017, on Gen. Michael Flynn?
  26. Why did the special counsel’s office delete all the data from Peter Strzok’s phone?
  27. Why did you bring Peter Strzok and Lisa Page onto your team after they had been involved in the investigation into the Hillary Clinton email server investigation? Were you aware of their personal relationship?
  28. Why did the special counsel interview Peter Strzok approximately one week before he was removed from the special counsel investigation?
  29. Why did you staff your investigation with people who appeared to have a political bias and had publicly demonstrated support for Clinton and the Obama administration?
  30. Please describe your May 16, 2017, meeting with President Donald Trump and then-DAG Rod Rosenstein. Was the possibility of your becoming the FBI director discussed at the meeting?
  31. When did you learn of the Strzok emails and did you learn of them from IG Michael Horowitz or from acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe? Did McCabe play a role in Peter Strzok’s removal from the special counsel’s investigation?
  32. Why did you choose to step outside a normal prosecutorial role and comment publicly that your investigation did not exonerate President Trump?
  33. Why did you fail to charge Joseph Mifsud, despite your findings that he lied to the special counsel team? Are any of the people listed in your report, such as Mifsud, Konstantin Kilimnik, or Felix Sater, U.S. government informants?"

VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 01:28, 6 July 2019‎ (EDT)

Margot Hemingway of The Federalist writes:[2]

Another area of concern? Mueller’s reliance on “the testimony of George Nader, who is mentioned more than 100 times in the Mueller report.” Carlson explained in The Epoch Times that Nader’s role involved arranging “a meeting between Kirill Dmitriev, a Russian national who heads Russia’s sovereign wealth fund, and Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater, during the transition period following the 2016 presidential election.”
While the FBI succeeded in arresting Nader when he returned to the states, the failure to charge him earlier could have instead allowed a child predator to go free.
Then came Nader’s June 3, 2019 arrest on child pornography charges. As details emerged, it appeared that the FBI knew Nader had child pornography on his cell phones at the time he was cooperating with the special counsel team. Yet he was not indicted until after he had already left the country.
While the FBI succeeded in arresting Nader when he returned to the states, the failure to charge him earlier could have instead allowed a child predator to go free. Mueller should be quizzed on his knowledge of Nader’s offense and efforts agents took to ensure he did not flee the country.
Sounds eerily similar to the Jeffrey Epstein case. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:50, 7 July 2019 (EDT)

Among so many, question #30 is key. The May 16, 2017 Mueller, Rosenstein, and Trump Oval Office meeting. Of course, we know how he's going to answer. In his press conference he said, "the report is my testimony," so he'll say, "that was before I was SC so I can't answer," and Chairman Nadler will back him up. However, Rosenstein informed the Go8 less than 24 hours after the May 16, 2017 meeting that Mueller had been appointed. May 17, 2017 may not necessarily be when he accepted the appointment.
  1. When did Rod Rosenstein first contact you about becoming special counsel?
  2. Were there conversations about a possible ‘special counsel position’ prior to May 16th, 2017?
  3. Were you aware President Trump was under investigation prior to your conversation of May 16th, with President Trump?
  4. Were you aware of the nature of the investigation, prior to May 16, 2017?
  5. Were you aware of the possibility of being appointed ‘special counsel’?
  6. Did you take any recording devices into the Oval Office meeting?
  7. Did you own the cell phone you left in the Oval Office on May 16, 2017?
  8. Between the afternoon Oval Office meeting and the next day announcement to the Gang-of-Eight by Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe, when exactly did you agree to become special counsel?
  9. How did Rod Rosenstein contact you between May 16, 2017 and early morning May 17, 2017, about becoming special counsel?
  10. Did you immediately agree to become special counsel when asked?
  11. How much time transpired between Rosenstein asking you to become special counsel and your acceptance of the position?
Mueller forgot a cell phone in the Oval Office which had to be retrieved later. That was 4 days after Rosenstein and McCabe discussed "wearing a wire" into the Oval Office, and the 25th amendment coup plot. The interview for FBI director was just a ruse (he was ineligible anyway) and Mueller himself is now directly implicated in the coup plot. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 02:52, 6 July 2019 (EDT)
Question #3 also addresses the coup plotters head on: The Lawfare group is part of the Brookings institution. Lawfare group unhatched the "insurance policy" and two its members now serve as counsels to Nadler; Crowdstrike is founded by a board member of the Atlantic Council. Crowdstrike concocted the "Russia hacked the DNC" narrative to discredit the WikiLeaks revelations and refused to allow the FBI to verify. Mueller has no evidence whatsoever that Russia hacked the DNC. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:17, 6 July 2019 (EDT) appears Robert Mueller entered the Oval Office on May 16, 2017 with the intent to deceive the President of the United States while investigating "obstruction of justice" in the firing of James Comey, who was investigating Donald Trump for a crime Trump never committed, as cover for Comey to hide crimes he (Comey), his FBI, Brennan, the DOJ-NSD, FusionGPS, and others associated with the Lawfare group, committed. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:46, 6 July 2019 (EDT)

As to Part II of the report, the so-called "obstruction" case, Mueller cannot just sit there and trash talk innocent people who have not been charged with a crime - that's what got Comey fired. If he tries, he should have his law license revoked. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:51, 6 July 2019 (EDT)