Talk:Main Page/Archive index/183

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

Who will win the Democrat presidential primary?

See also 2020 presidential election
Candidates for Democratic Presidential Nominee Who will win?
Chance of becoming
Democratic nominee
Candidate CA
ND
.
SO
RT
Home
state
End of
month
June
26
8:57
pm
EDT
End of
month
Mon-
day,
Jul.
29,
2019
Tues-
day,
Aug.
06,
2019
Mon-
day,
Aug.
12,
2019
Mon-
day,
Aug.
19,
2019
Mon-
day,
Aug.
26,
2019
Mon-
day,
Sep.
2,
2019
Fri-
day,
Sep.
13,
2019
Mon-
day,
Sep.
16,
2019
V. Pres Joe Biden Bid DE 28.5% 20.2% 24.9% 25.5% 23.3% 23.6% 23.5% 23.5% 22.7%
Sen. Cory Booker Boo NJ 1.6% 2.0% 2.7% 2.4% 2.2% 1.8% 2.2% 2.4% 2.3%
Mayor Pete Buttigieg But IN 11.1% 8.3% 6.8% 6.8% 5.9% 6.1% 5.3% 4.5% 4.4%
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Gab HI 2.5% 1.4% 2.8% 2.9% 1.9% 1.4% 0.9% 0.8% 1.0%
Sen. Kamala Harris Har CA 12.5% 27.4% 19.6% 13.2% 12.3% 10.8% 10.9% 6.6% 7.4%
Rep. Beto O'Rourke O'R TX 4.0% 1.3% 1.9% 1.3% 1.1% 0.5% 0.9% 1.2% 0.9%
Sen. Bernie Sanders San VT 11.2% 7.5% 11.1% 12.0% 12.3% 13.4% 12.7% 12.2% 12.5%
Sen. Elizabeth Warren War MA 15.9% 21.5% 21.7% 26.1% 30.5% 31.5% 33.4% 35.2% 36.6%
Sec'y Hillary Clinton Cli NY 1.7% 1.5% 1.7% 1.8% 1.5% 2.0% 1.9% 3.6% 3.4%
Andrew Yang Yan NY 5.5% 3.3% 3.8% 4.2% 4.4% 4.0% 4.4% 5.4% 5.2%
Candidates for Democratic Presidential Nominee Who will win?
Twitter followers
Candidate CA
ND
.
SO
RT
Home
state
Accts
as of
June
29
New
accts
end of
July(30)
New
accts
Aug
6
New
accts
Aug
12
New
accts
Aug
19
New
accts
Aug
26
New
accts
Sep
2
New
accts
Sep
13
New
accts
Sep
16
V. Pres Joe Biden Bid DE   03.6M:1 +19,000 +20,000 +17,000 +13,000 +14,000 +12,000 +17,000 +8,000
Sen. Cory Booker Boo NJ 04.4M:2 +28,000 +19,000 +9,000 +6,000 +4,000 +3,000 +6,000 +3,000
Mayor Pete Buttigieg But IN 01.2M:2 +72,000 +50,000 +27,000 +13,000 +11,000 +9,000 +23,000 +48,000
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Gab HI 00.6M:2 +34,000 +90,000 +16,000 +8,000 +5,000 +4,000 +15,000 +5,000
Sen. Kamala Harris Har CA 03.6M:2 +245,000 +39,000 +28,000 +28,000 +24,000 +20,000 +25,000 +11,000
Rep. Beto O'Rourke O'R TX 01.4M:1 +4,000 +40,000 +53,000 +13,000 +9,000 +11,000 +20,000 +14,000
Sen. Bernie Sanders San VT 17.8M:2 +134,000 +69,000 +82,000 +63,000 +50,000 +51,000 +63,000 +22,000
Sen. Elizabeth Warren War MA 07.8M:2 +225,000 +101,000 +57,000 +60,000 +55,000 +45,000 +65,000 +27,000
Sec'y Hillary Clinton Cli NY +70,000 +74,000 +86,000 +87,000 +50,000 +66,000 +22,000
Andrew Yang Yan NY 00.5M:1 +25,000 +20,000 +77,000 +22,000

VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 14:47, 1 July 2019 (EDT) VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 15:56, 22 July 2019 (EDT)

2020 U. S. Federal Election template

Andy suggested a 2020 U. S. election template, but the idea got waylaid I think through a case of unintentionally hostile indentations near where it was added to the discussion. I will be working on that, but please don't let that stop you from coming up with your own ideas. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 15:54, 3 September 2019 (EDT)

National popular vote

The attack on the Electoral College is one of several fronts on which American liberals are on the offensive against constitutional government. The main proposal is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. So far, it has been approved by 15 states plus the District of Columbia. These states control 293 electoral votes. The pact goes into effect when states controlling 270 electoral votes approve. This compact is clearly unconstitutional: "No state shall, without Consent of Congress...enter into any Agreement or Compact with another state." (Article I, Section 10). In 2016, we didn't even know who won the popular vote until weeks after the election was held. If a Republican wins the most votes nationally, can Democratic governors be counted on to appoint Republican electors? It's not like there is any way to enforce the compact in court. If no one gets a majority, the democratic solution is a runoff. Instead, the compact proposes a set of rules that would have allowed Hillary to win in 2016. It is all about her supporters being sore losers.[1] PeterKa (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2019 (EDT)

States never would have joined the Union if they knew the Electoral College would be abolished someday. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:14, 3 September 2019 (EDT)

Week of Sept, 2

So Bernie Sanders, Yang, Buttigieg and Biden are flat; Warren's growth has come at the expense of Harris' bubble and one-hit-wonder when she called Biden a racist. These numbers presumable would reflect Warren's growth among blacks, which I don't think is a valid analysis. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:33, 5 September 2019 (EDT)

Now, Harris' bubble after calling Biden a racist may have come from aged white babyboomer hippies and other assorted leftisits; what is interesting to note is that Biden has never really recovered from it (it caused people to look closer at him, where gaffes and health issues intervened). While the race baiters attacks hurt the target (the race baitee), the gains have not re-downed to the race baiter, rather to others. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:36, 5 September 2019 (EDT)

Wizard of Oz

Kamala may not have known it, but "the little guy behind the curtain" was supposed to symbolize Franklin Roosevelt, who used the machinations of the presidency (like the alphabet agencies) to portray the government as involved in vigorous action to boost the economy for the sake of commanding the economy past the Great Depression, just like the guy behind the curtain used the wizard apparition as a trick to bolster the authoritativeness of the commands the little guy was issuing to try to save Oz.

Although once discovered, the wizard did his best to help his guests with the gifts he gave them, but a command economy doesn't work in the long run (The movie was 6 years into Roosevelt's presidency and still in the Great Depression).

Hence, he thanked the group for their appreciation, but pointedly admitted, "I just don't make a very good wizard". VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 01:20, 13 September 2019 (EDT)

(I thought it pre-dated FDR) I go for the throat -- If Kamala exposed the Wizard, what does that make her, Todo? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 04:10, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
The book the movie is based on was published in 1900. The movie is full of references to the election of 1896. "Follow the yellow brick road" is a reference to the gold standard as advocated by President William McKinley. "Oz" is an abbreviation for ounces, as in troy ounces of gold. Dorothy represents the naive American people, nearly led astray by the wizard, who represents William Jennings Bryan, McKinley's Democratic opponent. The Wizard rules an "Emerald City." This is a city based on the fraud of greenback notes that only appear to have value. PeterKa (talk) 05:50, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
And the fraud of Big Gubmint Progressivism; the government can't give you a brain, only a diploma; it can't give you heart, only a timepiece; it can't give you courage, only pin a medal on your chest; and it can't give you a home. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 06:04, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
1896 was when the modern U.S. party structure emerged. That is to say, it was the first election fought over liberal versus conservative economic principles. The Republicans adopted free market economics while the Dems came under the spell of socialist something-for-nothing "populism," as it was called at the time. This is history that today's liberals have some problems with since the populists were the original segregationists. PeterKa (talk) 07:36, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
I read 1976 Libertarian presidential candidate Roger McBride's book, A New Dawn for America: The Libertarian Challenge in 1976. The book is dedicated to Todo, with an explanatory introduction. Excellent book, but I voted for Ford anyway (that communist POS John Brennan voted for Gus Hall while all this was going on). RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:46, 14 September 2019 (EDT)

Third Democratic debate

The third Democratic debate was held in Houston on Thursday. This time, there were "only" ten candidates. Sadly, neither of the two most interesting candidates, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and Marianne Williamson, made the cut.
Former Vice President Joe Biden was the only debater who showed any awareness that the constitution limits the authority of a president. No one else objected to U.S. Senator Kamala Harris's proposed gun grabbing executive order, an idea that certainly got the crowd excited. Stock up on ammo, folks. The Dems are gung ho for a civil war. The people who think stop and frisk is racist draw the line at legal gun ownership.
For whatever reason, Biden decided it was high time to tell blacks how to improve their parenting: “Play the radio, make sure the television—excuse me, make sure you have the record player on at night, the—make sure that kids hear words, a kid coming from a very poor school, a very poor background will hear 4 million words fewer spoken by the time we get there.” Hey, that's good old Electable Joe talking there. He was given a chance to explain, but wisely chose to ramble on about Venezuela instead. This article makes a stab at trying to figure out what he might have meant.
The media is convinced that "Running Joke" Warren won the debate. From a Republican point of view, it all sounds too good to be true. Jimmy Dore explains the problem in "Why Elizabeth Warren Would Lose To Trump." Aside from not actually being an American Indian, Warren's greatest weakest is her "Aren't we progressives are so smart?" shtick. It doesn't go over well with blacks or moderates, at least not if Warren's election results in Massachusetts are anything to go by. PeterKa (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2019 (EDT)

I like Joe Biden's policies better than the other Democrats, but Andrew Yang is the most likeable. Biden's age is going to be his achilles' heel. Trump (and his surrogates) would likely scuttle Biden just like they did with Jeb "low energy" Bush. If I was forced to decide at this point, it will be be Trump vs. Warren.Conservative (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
Trump v. Warren is basically a Trump v. Hillary rematch. Same demographics. Same organisations. Hillary already is Warren's chief advisor. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 22:25, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
Biden's awareness of limited government, while a disadvantage to his ability to promise federal government largesse last night, was offset by his announcement of a new, generous policy of leniency toward criminal offenders:
“Nobody should be in jail for a non-violent crime." - Joe Biden
VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 22:30, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
Yep. He wants to open the jail cells of all the car thieves and home burglars, so they can support their dope habits, for which they can's be jailed. Makes perfect sense, and earns Biden the label 'socialist'. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 23:08, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
I thought about it more. Joe Biden has been through 3 debates and he is still the leader. He is more likeable to most Democrats as a whole than all the other candidates. He is also more moderate. It will probably be a Trump vs. Biden race. And age is a very delicate issue. Julian Castro found out that the hard way. Trump gets away with bringing up Biden's age because he is older himself and his is known as a brawler/mud wrestler in his rhetoric. It is just Trump being Trump. Many people are amused by it.Conservative (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
I don't see his health holding up. At the appropriate moment, Biden and Sanders will step aside. This theoretically will unite both the Clinton and Sanders factions of 2016. Warren may not have offended minorities yet, to the extent Hillary did; but minorities see her as the fraud that she is. None are enthusiastic about her (her rhetoric is meaningless). She wants to bribe them with free stuff, which more and more young minority voters see as an insult. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 00:03, 14 September 2019 (EDT)
As I see it, the race will eventually narrow to a moderate (Biden) and a leftist (Warren). Since the party has more leftists than moderates, Warren will emerge as the nominee. She is a fake from head to toe, and not only with respect to ancestry. She was a conservative Republican until she was 47 years old. At that point, she flipped left for cynical career reasons. The best refutation of her current political philosophy can be found in her own book, The Two-Income Trap. PeterKa (talk) 02:19, 14 September 2019 (EDT)
In an election year, the saying is "People start paying attention after Labor Day". That's a full year off. Voters will have their say in New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina. Polls, media hype, etc. are meaningless at this stage (especially national polls). It's all about money right now, the ability to fundraise, and put on a good showing in New Hampshire and after. Those whose donors dry up, drop out. Those who make it to the New Hampshire top three, move on. Debate performance and polls right now mean nothing.
Liz Warren is 69 years old. The idea that people will vote for Warren cause she's only 69, but Biden's 76 and Bernie is 78 is ludicrous. Look for voters, young and old voters alike to, jump on Gabbard or Buttigieg, maybe even Booker. At least one will emerge. Gabbard and Booker seem sane and likable, at least. Buttigieg's youth is all he's got going for him, the rest is too risky. Harris, like Buttigieg, is a weak candidate but has a powerful machine. it's all about holding onto the donors and increasing fundraising right now. The FEC reports mean more than polls. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 04:52, 14 September 2019 (EDT)
[Smacks head] Gabbard doesn't have any money, good odds and she wasn't even allowed to debate! And the Democratic voters are just now finally catching on that Booker is a phony! And I wouldn't even have bothered doing any statistics or analysis at all this summer had somebody told me there would be someone whose odds would grow every week! Does the tortoise and the hare ring a bell? That's a pretty hard strategy to miss! I think RobS wishes Elizabeth Warren weren't popular, but instead throws a contrarian curve ball just so he doesn't have to talk about her! VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 09:12, 14 September 2019 (EDT)
Iowa is on Febuary 3. That's less than five months away. If we go by the polls, there is a top tier of candidates that consists of Biden, Sanders, and Warren.[2]
Rob is taking the also rans too seriously. That schoolgirl giggling at Obama's "Yes, we can" slogan isn't going to help Harris break out. Gabbard is the best looking candidate, sharp as a tack, and certainly my favorite. But she is not factor in the race. Apparently, you have to be an abortion enthusiast to be taken seriously in the Democratic Party these days. PeterKa (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2019 (EDT)
Look at two factors: social media and minorities. (1) minorities are the moderates in the Democrat party. Warren is both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in one body. Neither Bernie Sanders nor Hillary Clinton were beloved by moderate Democrats, i.e minorities. Biden is afloat right now by moderates, i.e. minority voters. But that is tepid (more evidence minorities are still not enamored by Liz Warren or Bernie Sanders). Combining the Sanders/Warren vote together gives you a commanding 37-40%. These are aged hippies and activist college student votes. When Biden folds, the Democrat minority vote will melt away in three directions: (a) to the Warren/Sanders faction; (b) to Donald Trump; and (c) apathy.
(2) Social media and internet now is the principle medium voters use to gather information. While television media (CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, etc.) and their print media aligned polls (ABC/Washington Post, NBC/Wall Street Journal etc.) still try to manipulate the outcome, mistrust and disgust in both Big Media and polling organizations is at a universal, bi-partisan all time high. Social media dominates. And fundraising off of social media is the so-called "lower tier"'s only hope for a genuine grassroots movement. Revolution is afoot. Don't count Gabbard, Buttigieg, or Booker out when common, ordinary people finally have their say in February. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:24, 14 September 2019 (EDT)
Meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren begins to pivot a month before in January 2020 and has the experience as a Republican to appeal to those elusive moderates as a cynical centrist, and Hillary's internal polls will tell her whether to enter the race in December, like Gary Hart did in 1987. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 17:58, 14 September 2019 (EDT)

<-- Warren is the product of a coalition built in the 1970s by Reps. Ron Dellums and Patsy Schroeder of middle class suburban white women and the black civil rights movement. Many blacks then, and now, feel Dellums betrayed the civil rights movement by allowing it to be hijacked by white feminists (we see the same resentments today among blacks and feminists who believe the civil rights movement has been hijacked by gays). Others argue (the dominant faction now) that it's all about coalition building (identity politics). Warren, no political neophyte, is aware of these divisions and resentments. She is pursuing the time-worn remedy of offering free stuff, as Lyndon Johnson did, to buy votes and loyalty. However African Americans have come a long way since the 1960s; they themselves have mastered coalition building and coalition politics. 2008 was a sea change, in that they trust no coalition leaders unless they are in the drivers seat. They are not going back to the days of Johnson, Carter, Mondale, Bill Clinton or any other who makes promises, and relegates them to back of the bus upon election.

There is now an educated, professional, moderate, black middle class. Accepting 'free stuff' they regard as an insult, if not openly racist slap that blacks are too stupid to fend for themselves. Having come of age now, and seeing themselves in the drivers seat of the Democrat party, anything less than full control they view as a step backwards. Yes, there is a division among blacks which they hide well; but there also is an emerging consensus among blacks that promises of free stuff is racist, and you see it in the lack of black support for Sanders, Warren, Yang, or Harris. The only support for 'free stuff' comes from the liberal white privileged middle class.

Let's look at two: student debt forgiveness - rich whites will benefit disproportionately; internet access for rural red state America, targeting white Trump voters. Either way, if you promise blacks free stuff you insult them by saying they are lazy and incompetent, and when you promise white voters free stuff from the public treasury you discriminate against blacks. Blacks themselves see this and understand this.

A third: a $200 monthly pay increase, disproportionately for retired white seniors, whose cost burden will be imposed on minority youth.

All of Warren's promises and rhetoric is racially divisive. RobSDe Plorabus Unum [September 14, 2019]

Missing in action

Has anyone noticed what has been missing from all of the Democrat debates so far?
There has not been a single American flag on stage for all three debates
Not in Detroit
Not in Miami
And not last night in Houston
What country are they trying to represent?
[chin holding, pondering emoji] —Charlie Kirk

VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 08:58, 14 September 2019 (EDT)

The only people watching debates are college aged activists. All the hard left rhetoric is geared toward them. It is a competition for 18 -25 year old activist volunteers, not even a competition for moderate, middle of the road Democrat voters, let alone American voters. Professor Liz Warren, who speaks their language, has a natural advantage. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:56, 14 September 2019 (EDT)

Silver linings: Epstein

Pedogate roundup

The FBI sent divers to Epstein's island. Some are claiming they found human remains there.

Some are saying the scandal will reach Hollywood by the end of next week. I'm sure it could take longer, but regardless, if the FBI (or SDNY?) arrests people, it could be that those arrested first will be those most likely to whom they will offer a deal. That being said, I'm still not "naming names." It could be a deliberately false leak.

Perhaps you've heard that the golden dome on the mock-Egyptian temple on Epstein's island was taken down. Well, supposedly someone sent a cement truck there too. Who would lie about something like that? But I don't really know if that's a good way to hide all or any types of evidence or not.

I haven't heard this mentioned since Epstein (or his look-alike) died, but what ever happened to Epstein's rumored "kill-switch" that would release evidence to the authorities in the event of his death?

VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 17:52, 16 August 2019 (EDT)

SDNY is investigating itself. I think we need an Independent Counsel.
In the IG report recommending Andrew McCabe's firing, you'll see that McCabe leaked to the Wall Street Journal. When investigated, he tried to pin the leak on the New York Field Office and SDNY, knowing its reputation and the likelihood an investigation would never produce conclusive evidence. When two internal investigations (FBI Inspection Division and DOJ IG) pinned the leak on McCabe, it became another charge of him trying to pass off his own corrupt behavior on others. But McCabe's theory, that the SDNY was corrupt, certainly was plausible in FBI's Washington HQs. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:40, 16 August 2019 (EDT)
RobS, I mentioned the SDNY corruption reputation here months ago, so you and your sources are not alone in claiming this.
But the story I referenced about the discovery of human remains? I traced the story to the source and then found a discussion of it on 4chan/pol completely accidentally. They seemed to think it was too good to be true, as far as drawing interest from those following the story.
Even worse for the story's credibility, however, was that, first, the source quoted was called a Russian, top secret document. Something like that can't ordinarily be either confirmed or denied. Secondly, even if the truth of the report were sought out from Russia, the sentence that actually describes the source and transmission of the report has a grammatical error. What Russian official would stoop down to prove or disprove a charge made as carelessly as that? VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 23:40, 17 August 2019 (EDT)
You're talking about Sorcha Faal. You have to learn how to read Sorcha Faal, not its verbatim contents. They talk in code.
Here's a video purporting to show Prince Andrew at Epstein's Manhattan residence; perhaps some of our UK viewers can help making a positive ID. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 00:00, 18 August 2019 (EDT)
I can't believe you're justifying giving this journalist credibility on sorcha faalse premise. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 08:33, 18 August 2019 (EDT)
Sorcha Faal has sometimes broke stories hours if not days ahead of mainstream sources. The Pakistani connections in the New York limo accident comes to mind. Sorcha Faal was 24-72 hours ahead of mainstream sources, and MSM only hinted at the owners father being an FBI informant, at which point MSM reporting ceased. (Never mind all the chlorine bomb stuff, cause that's probably just added to draw attention).
In the Epstein case, Sorcha Faal has twice now claimed the tail numbers on Epstein's aircraft were stolen, and seems frustrated there is no reporting on it. I haven't delved into it, but if it ever does appear in MSM, I'll recall where the first reports came from. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:14, 18 August 2019 (EDT)

So here's a likely theory in the New York limo accident, drawn from all sources: The company was founded by a Pakistani immigrant after the 9/11 attacks who was likely re-located to the United States in the witness protection program as an FBI informant. His Limo business made him self-sustaining and not a public charge (using the capital supplied by the government to start-up). At some point he retired and passed the business along to his son. The company was involved in horrid, freak accident, prompting a public outcry, numerous lawsuits, and New York's governor threatening to take their license away. In less than 24 hours, a guy in the federal witness protection program was publicly identified, exposing holes and weaknesses in the whole federal witness protection program based on Google open source information (See Nellie Ohr; Nellie Ohr's whole career as a CIA, and later FBI contractor, was built on being an open source specialist. She used open source information to build the whole Russia collusion narrative. Her whole "Who's Who" (download) is built on open source, which sites such as Ratinfestedwiki use verbatim in its 'Trump Russia connection' article. Any supposed "classified information" in the Mueller Report and the whole Trump-Russia fiasco is to hide the identities and wrongdoing by Obama administration civil servants, not national security "sources and methods.")

The NY limo accident is somewhat an example of the function of the Sorcha Faal website. Use it to develop analytical skills in the counterintelligence field. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:40, 18 August 2019 (EDT)

Sorcha Faal has a good one today. It pulls together all the information in the Michael Flynn case, with underlying links. It does however, add to the narrative a fiction than Flynn plotted this take down of the Deep State by pleading guilty. This is done to add some bravado and make it appear more interesting and appealing to less informed readers who haven't followed the story so closely. Other than that, if you follow the story after the upcoming Sept 10 hearing, you can judge for yourself the veracity of Sorcha Faal's information. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:08, 2 September 2019 (EDT)

Joe Biden has a long term lead over other Democratic rivals, but for how long?

I was hoping that Biden's campaign would falter because mentally, I don't believe he is up to the job. I have talked to 90+ year olds who have more mental acuity than Biden (see: Biden's age). Unfortunately, the typical American diet is not good for long term brain health (see: Cognitive decline and diet).

The media refuses to face the fact that Joe Biden isn’t close to collapsing.[3]

It's really pitiful that Joe Biden is the frontrunner.Conservative (talk) 10:30, 29 August 2019 (EDT)

Biden's gaffes and/or him being forced to campaign harder (he makes more gaffes later in the day) is the only thing that could probably shake up the race.Conservative (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2019 (EDT)
434 DAYS TO GO: 2008 Dem: Clinton led by 16.9 points. 2008 GOP: Giuliani led by 10.6 points. 2012 GOP: Perry led by 5 points. 2016 Dem: Clinton led by 24.2 points. 2016 GOP: Trump led by 14.5 points.
Just as we all know about the "unreliability" of polls, we also know polls can be "cooked"; IMO, we're seeing some polls being "cooked" right now to eliminate Tulsi Gabbard. And who would have believed De Blasio would survive Gillibrand? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:49, 29 August 2019 (EDT)
Biden has the more moderate lane. He stands out. The left leaning Warren/Sanders are diehards who will not drop out easily and their votes are fractured. Trump was elected because he took the right lane and he stood out. Opposition to Trump was fractured among moderates (Cruz was too unlikeable and softer on immigration).
And black support for Biden will likely not waver given he was Obama's VP, Biden's overall voting record on race/black issues, etc.
Biden's lack of mental stamina and gaffes are the only things that stands in the way of him getting the nomination.Conservative (talk) 10:59, 29 August 2019 (EDT)
Biden does have a long term lead as long as he stays as much out of the public as possible. He is like a fighter with long arms who stays away from his opponent.
There is probably a 60-70% chance that once he has to get out in the public more, his lack of mental stamina and his gaffes will sink his campaign.Conservative (talk) 11:31, 29 August 2019 (EDT)
Warren could knock out Biden in IA/NH too and then gain momentum.[4] You are entirely correct. It is too early in the race to predict.Conservative (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2019 (EDT)
The British odds-makers have increased Warren's predicted odds of winning for ten straight weeks in a row now, placing her six points ahead of Biden, regardless of polls. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 15:10, 29 August 2019 (EDT)
I grant the British oddmakers have an outside view and can theoretically be more objective. But I would trust an American oddmaker website more. John Stossel's political oddsmaker website has Warren in the lead.[5]
My guess is that Biden will be knocked out in IA/NH. My guess is that NH will be the knockout blow. Maybe that will puncture his electability argument and a significant amount of black voters in South Carolina will defect from Biden. My guess is that a large segment of black voters will be pragmatic and vote according to "what's in it for us" and flee Biden. Conservative (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2019 (EDT)
It isn't legal for Americans to participate in the larger of the two polls averaged to determine the odds on the Stossel/Lott website, so that's why I call them the "British oddsmakers'" predictions, as it's also located in the U.K. By the way, I agreed that Warren was ahead; I wanted to point out the interesting fact that her odds have been increasing week after week (her momentum is growing).
I saw a recent poll on Twitter that said 49% of black Democrats preferred Biden as their candidate. So what's stopping Biden from promising his own assortment of federal government goodies to win votes? VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 16:23, 29 August 2019 (EDT)
Here's what the polls reveal: Blacks and Hispanics are the Democrat moderates. Old hippies and white privileged Antifa Millenials are the far left. Biden is buoyed by blacks, while the Sanders/Warren extreme white privileged far left vote should be counted as one bloc. Booker and Harris have not caught on among blacks cause they're chasing the white privileged far left vote. Identity politics appears to be failing.
All this points to Obama being kingmaker. While Obama ideologically is more in line with the predominantly white Warren/Sanders bloc, he's not particularly enamored to Biden, who is ideologically more in line with racial and ethnic minority voters than Obama is. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:40, 29 August 2019 (EDT)

Homosexual agenda

Can someone please add this to In the News:

Setback for the homosexual agenda: Major study finds that there is no "gay gene." See here. - JobsNotMobs

I doubt homosexuality is genetic at all. The article argues there is no one single "gay gene", but that homosexuality is partly genetic and the result of more than one gene. See: Homosexuality and choice
For example, Asian/African/Middle Eastern/Latino cultures often look down on homosexuality more than Europeans/Westerners do and religion/culture likely plays a big role in this (see: Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality and Atheism and racism).[6] But obviously, the people in these cultures have genetic differences from Westerners.
In addition, the scientific community has become politicized and it has much fraud/incompetence (see: Limitations of science). This is sad, but true.Conservative (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2019 (EDT)
"complex mix of genetic and environmental influences". Maybe there is a serial killer gene, too. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:51, 29 August 2019 (EDT)

See if this looks cool Proposed logo

I like it. With right-wing nationalism growing in the world, it would be good for Conservapedia to gain more overseas editors. For example, with Brexit finally likely going to happen soon, the UK could shift further rightward.Conservative (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2019 (EDT)
I oppose it, as I don't like the "globe" symbol (often, and for obvious reasons, it's used as a symbol for globalism -- I'm not saying it's the intention here, but it could lead to confusion). If we're going to change CP's symbol, I would use something like Liberty Bell or the U.S. Constitution (or the Magna Carta if we want to attract non-Americans) -- something with stronger conservative philosophical symbolism. The current proposal seems well-intentioned, but I just don't think it's an improvement. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2019 (EDT)
Maybe, User:Conservative. But it's also possible, and arguably more likely, that the British Conservative party - the only viable right wing party in the UK - could tear itself apart by the end of the year and allow in a Socialist government on a Brexit backlash. To address your substantive point, I agree. I've argued sporadically for years that we need more UK editors to correct misconceptions about the UK as much as anything. Rafael (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2019 (EDT)
An interesting observation: "in this heavily researched piece, shows that we highly educated tend to be more ideologically rigid and less willing to adjust policy beliefs to empirical feedback than the less educated".[7]
You're citing TWITTER? Really? With its statement that something is "heavily researched"? What does it mean for something to be "heavily researched"? Researched heavily enough to be actually published somewhere? What next for your heavily researched citations? YouTube? Infowars? SamHB (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2019 (EDT)
I am citing Professor Eric Kaufmann's Twitter feed who cites scholarship located on the website of Inside Higher Ed which is the leading digital media company serving the higher education space. All you needed to do is click the link on the Twitter feed and you have seen that. You are still clinging to your genetic fallacy illogical behavior. It is ridiculous on your part to knowingly be illogical.Conservative (talk) 01:44, 31 August 2019 (EDT)
If Eric Kaufmann's Twitter feed goes to an intellectually defensible (i.e. not Twitter) web site, why didn't YOU follow that link and post same? I hardly ever go to that cesspool called Twitter, though I see lots of screen captures, on actual web sites, showing how stupid it is. I do not have a Twitter account, and would never post there.
And I'll thank you not to disparage my cognitive or intellectual capabilities by suggesting that I subscribe to one of your pet "fallacies". The page you suggest is commonly used by you in order to bully people, and I'm not going to play that game.
I assume that, as a Christian, you adhere to the Golden Rule, and therefore would like to have other people treat you the way you are treating me. That is, you would like to have them impugn your intellectual and cognitive abilities. I'm sorry, but I'm too busy to oblige you in this matter, though I am willing to give you occasional advice on matters of grammatical construction. However, there's a website, that I'm sure you know about, that has extensive commentary on your intellectual and cognitive shortcomings.
SamHB (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2019 (EDT)
SamHB, I did not disparage your cognitive abilities. I said you willfully engaged in illogical behavior. That is far different from saying it is a result of cognitive impairment. As far as that website you refered to that has extensive commentary, have you seen THIS. Medical science research indicates that excess weight impairs brain function (see: Obesity and its negative impact on intelligence). By the way, there are now 4 individuals with access to the User: Conservative, but three individuals who have used the account. Keep that in mind when referring to the extensive commentary on the User: Conservative account. 微乎微乎,至于无形;神乎神乎,至于无声;故能为敌之司命.Conservative (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2019 (EDT)
The educated ruling class will continue to be out of touch with "the deplorables" and right-wing populism and anti-Islam/anti-immigrant nativism will likely keep driving politics rightward for the foreseeable future.
As far as highly educated left leaning pundits who isolate themselves from "the deplorables", they will continue to be poor political forecasters.Conservative (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2019 (EDT)
I object to your use of the term 'anti-Muslim'. Surely there is a better way to convey what you mean. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 01:12, 30 August 2019 (EDT)
I changed it to anti-Islam. Nevertheless, I think many Europeans are anti-Muslim. That is why: France has a headscarft ban, many French Muslims face employment discrimination[8], German refugee shelter torched in 'anti-immigrant' attack, etc. Generally speaking, the higher the percentage of Muslims in a non-Muslim country, the greater the level of conflict.[9].Conservative (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2019 (EDT)
Thanks. You know how it is. No sense attracting negative publicity unnecessarily. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 01:14, 31 August 2019 (EDT)
I just discovered this today from Pew Research, "While Americans still feel coolest toward Muslims and atheists, mean ratings for these two groups increased from a somewhat chilly 40 and 41 degrees, respectively, to more neutral ratings of 48 and 50."[10]Conservative (talk) 01:40, 31 August 2019 (EDT)
On the surface, you are right. But that disregards several factors. First, British populism tends left. The mythical Golden Age is one where the state helped communities to help themselves. Second, right wing populism is bankrupt of policies here. Boris Johnson is as good as it gets and he's socially liberal. Third, a lot of what we are seeing is a backlash to the Conservatives' economic policies of the last nine years, which brings us back to the first point. There are other factors but do not take it for granted that the tendency in Britain is to the right. On the contrary, we are seeing a deep and dangerous crisis in Conservativism (g Ruth Davidson's resignation). Rafael (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2019 (EDT)
Define "Conservatives' economic policies of the last nine years", because from what I gather, it was more the Labour Party, which isn't conservative by any stretch and if anything is of the far left. Also, we've got a Canadian Catholic on here, Northwest, who's actually extremely conservative even by American standards, let alone Canadian standards (and bear in mind, Canada's politics are closer to Britain than in America at the very least, and if anything are even closer to the politics of Macron's France right now, and is pretty much stereotyped as big government policies and socialized medicine, not to mention very far left, so if we've got a Canadian user who defies that stereotype and comes across as very conservative, I'm fairly sure there are Brits who come closer to that, as well). And as you said, Boris Johnson is a start. Pokeria1 (talk) 06:09, 30 August 2019 (EDT)

User:Conservative needs to weigh every comment he's made for the past ten years one! last! time! because the fact that SamHB has failed to demonstrate User:Conservative has in any instance been inaccurate in pointing out the logical errors in the verbal impositions of left-wing mouthpieces and ideologues, he, yes SamHB, thinks it's time to appoint himself, SamHB, the Tone Police—and judge too!—and is now free to sit in the judgment seat, admitting firstly to his bench the very matter that is being discussed, namely his own advancement of rude allegations of abuse and imputations of blame towards Conservative, and to which he, SamHB, condescends to receive any evidence against (by proving a negative!) that might be offered, or we would sooner say he lies back in his lounge chair and criticizes Conservative for not living up to his, that is Sherlock SamHB's, personal, private, opaque and strangely inspection-avoidant standards of deportment that he, SamHB, with an arbitrary play of his imagination and without a trace of self-irony, simply renounces their applying to himself for the duration of the discussion to begin with. Isn't that the kind of personality everybody likes the most?

And if Conservative doesn't catalog those ten years of comments, that proves that he's afraid! VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 20:35, 1 September 2019 (EDT)

VargasMilan, do I and the other editors who are using the User: Conservative account need to read this article? The Ultimate Guide on How to Not Care About What Other People Think of You and Live the Life You Want by Nia Shanks
Or do you think I have sufficient serenity and/or mental toughness to not care what others think of me? And remember, the greatest being to ever walk the face of the earth was nailed to a cross!
And also remember that SamHB's center-left world is crashing all around him - people are moving out of Massachusetts; Donald Trump was elected; right-wing nationalism is spreading like wildfire in Europe and around the globe; and finally, liberal Christianity churches are imploding in membership while evangelical Christianity is growing briskly in the world. So you have to forgive SamHB for his occasional bouts of frustration.
Question: What will SamHB do if there is a 2020 Trumpslide?Conservative (talk) 04:48, 2 September 2019 (EDT)
He will be very startled by the roars of acclamation. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 07:12, 3 September 2019 (EDT)

Why we need guns: The Hong Kong edition

Biden may be old enough to remember when the Dems were the party of the American working class. But the rest of his party isn't. Nowadays, the party's agenda is to open the border, give the vote to illegal immigrants, abolish the Electoral College, and snatch our guns. They tell us that any attempt by Republicans to verify the vote is "voter suppression." If the Electoral College is abolished, any state can generate as many votes as it likes and these votes must be counted in the national vote count. In short, the plan is to steal an election and retain power indefinately.
If you want to see the future of the U.S. after a Democratic Party return to power, take a look at Hong Kong. Hong Kong was scheduled to have a free election in 2017. This election was shamelessly manipulated by the Chinese Communist Party. Nowadays, the opinions that matter in the city are those of the party leadership and the real estate speculators. (In the last few years, party leaders have bought a great deal of land in Hong Kong. Xi Jinping is said to own seven properties in Hong Kong while rising prices have made housing almost unaffordable for the average Hong Konger.)
The party plans to mop up pro-democracy protests by October 1, the sixtieth anniversary of the founding of the people's republic. That's not going to be pretty. And just as the Democrats justify manipulating elections by pointing to Russia, the Communists point to the presence of "black hands" in Hong Kong, meaning the U.S. While the Dems threaten to open the U.S. border with Mexico, Beijing threatens to undermine Hong Kong's special status by opening the mainland/Hong Kong border. Although no one in Hong Kong wants this, it's all too possible because the citizens of Hong Kong remain unarmed and defenseless.
Here is a video of yesterday's chaos in Hong Kong. Flames rise while police go through subway cars beating the passengers with clubs. PeterKa (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2019 (EDT)

The Hong Kong protests mark the return of Big History. Trump's response is what he will be remembered for. Corruption is the Communist Party's most vulnerable point. U.S. intelligence needs to put together dossiers for leaders implicated in the crackdown. Post them all over Youku (China's equivalent to Youtube) and Weibo (China's equivalent to Twitter). That's where young Chinese get their news from. PeterKa (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2019 (EDT)
It's not all China's fault. Hong Kong chief executive Carrie Lam said she has caused “unforgivable havoc” by igniting the political crisis engulfing the city and would quit if she had a choice. Surely there's some kind of compromise solution to be struck that acknowledges the wrongs of both countries. And with a characterization that politically convenient to them, China would be too embarrassed to ask people to take it at face value unless it were definitely not coerced. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 20:49, 2 September 2019 (EDT)
Lam is an appointee of the Communist leaders in Beijing. She was "elected" in 2017. But as I explained above, this election was a farce -- and one of the issues that provoked the protests in the first place. PeterKa (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2019 (EDT)
Hong Kong needs to step up and finally accept Lam as their leader—It was so big of her to assume the role of their sole representative, reject all forms of defense and forfeit credit for the authenticity of their grievances regarding their basic liberties, on behalf of the people of Hong Kong, by, up to and including, characterizing their dissent as "havoc". VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 15:35, 3 September 2019 (EDT)

We gave up on impeachment as "he's not worth it" long ago, but impeachment is on the table

Like a shiny gun, Democrats say they've holstered that issue, but when people have gathered to listen to them, you suddenly notice that that supposedly forgotten weapon is being brandished about again by every liberal. Total troll. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 02:59, 13 September 2019 (EDT)

It's in the courts; Nadler needs an impeachment resolution to pursue certain subpoenas for his fishing expedition. The courts will decide the matter. But of coarse we won't get the issue resolved in the courts til after the election. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 03:30, 13 September 2019 (EDT)

I beg all of your pardons. I had assured myself that impeachment was extreme, but I didn't realize the magnitude of the situation:

"If we don't impeach this president, he will get re-elected." —Congressman Al Green, Texas (D).

VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 02:41, 14 September 2019 (EDT)

Al Green is a communist. He's from a district that is 94% communist. He can say what he likes, as is wont and his habit. He's preaching to the liberal choir, with no consequences at the ballot box. Other Democrats envy him for that.
Al Green is typical of the type of Democrat who can't imagine that there are people in America who are not communists. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 03:48, 14 September 2019 (EDT)
"Impeachment until you don't have the votes". - Hypocrite Diaries.Conservative (talk) 04:00, 14 September 2019 (EDT)
Here's the situation, based on a Nixon era precedent; Congress goes on a fishing expedition looking for something, anything. They subpoena people and documents. The people say, "That's not related to the business of government." The congress then has to pass a full House Resolution for an impeachment inquiry, and refer it to committee. The Committee then is vested with extraordinary powers to go into court and say, "This is of vital importance to the business of government." The court then orders the person or agency to comply.
The Committee right now is on a fishing expedition with no more than it's oversight powers. The Committee itself has to draft a Resolution and bring it to the floor for vote to grant it extraordinary impeachment powers. They got 137 votes from safe blue districts. The purple districts are scared witless of even talking about impeachment.
It'll remain a non-issue no matter how much 137 deep blue district voters (about 45 million voters) and the commie/lib fake news media talk about it. Experience shows it will blow up in their faces. But we're dealing with idiots here, after all, so what can one expect? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 04:08, 14 September 2019 (EDT)
Here, look at Al Green's district: he's had 2 Republican challengers in the past 5 elections. In 2016 he won 100% with 32,000 votes; in 2018, he 80% with 136,000 votes. This man has no clue what America looks like outside his district or Washington. In this man's world, you get what you want by bullying and intimidation. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 04:26, 14 September 2019 (EDT)
Especially in Green's case, the less you study the liberal sludge involved with his office-holding the better (watch them try to skip the full vote to begin the impeachment inquiry). I was just admiring Green's creative way of carrying out his commitment to enforcing justice against President Trump. His legal grounds for the impeachment: "Article 1: If the President is not impeached, he is likely to be re-elected."
I don't think "possible re-election" meets the constitutional standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors", do you? VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 09:57, 14 September 2019 (EDT)
In lib-think "possible re-election" is a crime for which we all can be held accountable for.
I'll admit to a secret: I've always studied closely the rhetoric used by congresspeople of both parties who run unopposed and serve for decades; it's an insight into the heart and sole of both parties. Wishy-washy moderates change with the wind. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:45, 14 September 2019 (EDT)
I admire your courage, but it will take you just that long to get through the liberal kind. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 18:10, 14 September 2019 (EDT)

Comey's memos

It is certainly dissappointing that the inspector general has determined that Comey's most serious offense was....wait for it....refusing to turn over four memos worth of work product when he left the FBI. It's like finding out that Lee Harvey Oswald took home the office stapler. If these memos had been classified, Comey could have been accused of mishandling classified information. But a committee consisting of Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, and Peter Strzok determined that they weren't classified. There is apparently no one in a position to overrule this absurd decision.
The larger issue is why Comey created these memos and what he planned to do with them. It seems that he wrote them in order to force the appointment of a special counsel. At very least, that's usurping the authority of the attorney general. IMO, the entire process starting with the memos and going through to the Mueller report represents a planned conspiracy. That is to say, Comey provoked his own firing because he expected that this would result in the appointment of a special counsel team filled with investigators determined to get Trump. That would amount to an attempted coup. PeterKa (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2019 (EDT)

Rumor has it the FISA abuse report will be out tomorrow which will damn Comey and send him to hell, along with Brennan and Clapper, paving the way for Lindsey Graham to begin open hearings, netting more info for John Durham's grand jury and put the final nails in the coffin of the coup cabal, including McCabe, Strzok, Susan Rice, et al. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:18, 2 September 2019 (EDT)
It should be noted, there are many more than just 7 "Comey Memos". I've begun referring to them as the Comey Diaries. They are supposed to be out by October 12. They include the names of FBI spies, presumably Mifsud, Halper, etc. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:22, 2 September 2019 (EDT)
Remember in Final Days how Nixon kept a diary on a tape recorder, and Ziegler said the public would appreciate him more if he could find a way to communicate the ideas he came up with while recording them? VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 04:55, 3 September 2019 (EDT)
(Or the Morganthau Diaries; "the serious problem of unauthorized, uncontrolled and often dangerous power exercised by nonelected officials" ) The Comey Diaries are a collection of memos Comey wrote to himself that are said to include the names of spies or "lures" that the FBI had used against the Trump campaign in Europe beginning as early as December 2015. It is a contemporaneous narrative of the whole illegal operation ran against Donald Trump that can be used as a road map when laid against other FBI, CIA, State Department, GCQH and other sources.
In the case of CNN vs. DOJ (related to January 6, 2017 Comey Trump Tower meeting (Comey Memo 1) and Clapper leak to Jake Tapper, the judge has already ordered release of the full, unredacted Comey Diaries, which the DOJ is fighting. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:26, 3 September 2019 (EDT)

Wow, this is good

"Globalism writ large requires Big Government, central planning, and full control of systems by political elites. Socialism requires exactly the same structure. Through globalism you have multinational corporations, financial elites, making rules for the underclass. Socialism requires the exact same top-down distribution process.
A few high powered political institutions (think Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren) decide the wealth distribution and sharing processes used to support the masses. They retain power through control at all costs. Within this alignment you see financial elites, globalists in every sense of the word, accepting socialism as a tool to retain corrupt power and influence; and defend against the independent action of lower-class rubes.

I recommend the whole article. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 01:02, 4 September 2019 (EDT)

I would like the use this quote, but I can't find it in the linked article. Are you sure it's the right one? --1990'sguy (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2019 (EDT)
You're right. Here it is. And here's a follow up article on the same lines. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 09:53, 5 September 2019 (EDT)
The Free Beacon has an article on similar lines:
. Every week brings new examples of CEOs intervening in political, cultural, and social debate. In every instance, the prominent spokesmen for American business situate themselves comfortably on the left side of the political spectrum. Shareholder capitalism finds itself under attack. Not just from socialism but also from woke capitalism. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:33, 8 September 2019 (EDT)

British Parliament

Boris needs to calm down, his overwhelming emotion is anger and the left is taking full advantage. The prospect of a far left Prime Minister Corbyn who will surrender all sovereignty to The EU is appalling. Boris needs to get a grip or step aside as time is running out.--Chewy Suarez (talk) 10:23, 5 September 2019 (EDT)

So, are they gonna have an election or not? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:25, 5 September 2019 (EDT)
Flip a coin.--Chewy Suarez (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2019 (EDT)
Lemme see if I have this correct: an Election would work toward Brexit, and not having an election works toward Remain. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:35, 5 September 2019 (EDT)
Again, flip a coin. The Tories would be the biggest party but they would have to at least gain parity in seats in order to form a government and deliver Brexit. It is uncertain if that will happen.--Chewy Suarez (talk) 10:44, 5 September 2019 (EDT)
So the leftwing Labour party is the party of status quo, and the Tories are for change? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:46, 5 September 2019 (EDT)
Now that is a very good question. Yes, sort of, it depends. Both parties are in an eternal crisis at the moment. The moderate Tories are dismayed at the swing to the right and the moderate Labour people at the swing to left. The left want full integration with the EU and the right want no formal relationship whatsoever. The moderates want to leave but to still have strong political, cultural and economic relationships with it, the best of both worlds.--Chewy Suarez (talk) 10:58, 5 September 2019 (EDT)
Alexander Mercouris of The Duran explains the process from about 9:45; the above CTH link (The Conservative Treehouse) link says, "Johnson could intentionally just ignore the law (if passed), proceed toward a no-deal Brexit and force Parliament to vote him out of office; which would trigger the general election vote the Prime Minister is seeking." RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:15, 5 September 2019 (EDT)
I have to disagree with Chewy. It is not a question of left and right. Many on the left want to leave, many on the right want to stay. However, it is true to say the liberal centre tends to be consistently in favour of remain and stronger links with EU. Surprisingly, many globalists are in favour of leaving so we can our country have a global outlook and a broader immigration policy. And that's the problem: leavers have never been able to agree what leave actually means.
Alexander Mercouris's opinion is interesting but ignores the basic constitutional principle of parliamentary sovereignity. If he were to ignore the law, he risks being buried in an avalanche of judicial reviews and every subsequent move set aside as being ultra vires. Given that he has already been given his political teeth in a cup twice, and he is starting to look punch drunk, I doubt that's in Boris's top ten options.
Addressing RobS's point, an election might work towards Brexit and it might not. The most likely outcome is another hung parliament, even more confusion and even less leverage for the conservatives. The worst outcome is a socialist government. To paraphrase Clint Eastwood, does Boris Johnson feel lucky? Rafael (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2019 (EDT)
  • I don't think Boris has much to worry about.There is no other plausible candidate for prime minister. His net approval is at +6 percent compared to -45 percent for Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. The Conservatives lost thier parliamentary majority by expelling 21 pro-EU members. Now the party stands for something. PeterKa (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2019 (EDT)
That's not how the British system works. Boris's national net approval is irrelevant. Theresa May went in to the 2017 election with a bigger approval gap - and fell flat on her face in the election.
Each of the 650 parliamentary constituencies votes for an MP. The leader of the party which is most likely to be able to form a working government - usually the leader of the party with the most MPs - is appointed as Prime Minister and forms a government. If no party gets more than 325 MPs, two or more of the minority parties can agree a coalition with varying degrees of formality eg David Cameron's coalition with the Liberal Democrats in 2010 and Theresa May's coalition with the Democratic Unionist Party in 2017. However, even with a coalition but without a significant parliamentary majority, the PM has his hands tied from day one - eg Theresa May.
Boris has got off to a terrible start: he set a new record in getting a Parliamentary beating; he has purged some of his most experienced parliamentarians, weakening the talent pool at the top of the party; he is seeing defections at every level; he is starting to lose the BoJo va-va-voom (pizzazz, I think you Americans say); his allies and supporters in the MSM are openly questioning his judgement; the opposition parties starting to coalesce into a "Rebel Alliance".
The main thing in his favour is the personal incompetence of Jeremy Corbyn (ironically the only party to be consistently personally committed to leaving the EU and arguably a major player in splitting the pro-EU faction from the inside). If an able and clear pro-EU MP - eg Kier Starmer - were to take over the Labour Party, we would have a socialist government by Christmas.
We are very, very vulnerable but anyone who has pointed this out over the last two years is treated like Cassandra in the Greek legend.Rafael (talk) 10:17, 6 September 2019 (EDT)
That's right. To thumbnail it for American readers: There is no direct election of Prime Minister; the party that forms a government sits as an American convention, caucus, or the Electoral College and elects a leader to head it. The only citizens who ever voted for any Prime Minister are those in his/her respective district. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:27, 6 September 2019 (EDT)
I am getting my British news from this article by Daniel Hannan. When Prime Minister Spencer Percieval was assasinated in 1812, nobody much noticed. But a modern PM has a major media profile by definition and thus has to care about his approval/disapproval numbers. PeterKa (talk) 02:01, 7 September 2019 (EDT)
The point is, it's a party system. You vote for a party and your own rep. That's it. The party then sorts out leaders among themselves without any input from the public. And these leaders need to work with and forge coalitions with other parties. It's not a winner-take-all system. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 02:15, 7 September 2019 (EDT)

Hong Kongians new demands

I met someone on Twitter passing out news about Hong Kong.

Carrie Lam has promised to propose withdrawing the extradition bill. But that is over a month away, and she could renege on the promise. The delay would serve to disperse focus from the promise, and if she reneges, consume the energy of the united Hong Kongians through the disorienting remobilization of the union that would be necessary.

The union has made four more demands to insure Lam remains in earnest and does not exploit the delay to cause attrition of the union's focus and the felt interest of the rest of the world who are watching:

Five Demands - Not One Less

  1. Completely withdraw extradition bill
  2. Retract the proclamation that the protests were riots
  3. Withdraw criminal charges against all protesters
  4. Thoroughly investigate abuse of powers by the police
  5. Immediately implement dual universal suffrage

VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 04:37, 6 September 2019 (EDT)

So many pundits think Xi Jinping is a master strategist, but IMO he has been stumbing badly lately. Hong Kongers just want to live under rule of law in their own city. Xi's response is to have subway passengers beaten with sticks on camera. If he just replaced Lam with someone more sympathic, he'd be halfway to resolving the crisis.
Xi retaliated against Trump's tariffs by refusing to buy American soybeans. This is a silly shoot-yourself-in-the-foot sort of vindictiveness. Without soybeans, Chinese pig farmers have been feeding their poor pigs contaminated slop. The resulting epidemics have killed a third of the pigs in China. The local price of pork has doubled. Pork is pretty important in China and lately news stations have been showing videos housewives fighting over it. PeterKa (talk) 07:48, 6 September 2019 (EDT)
Here's my prediction: the mainland will back down on extradition, and over the next few years will turn Hong Kong into a dumping ground for all kinds of socially undesirables and criminals until Hong Kongers demand an extradition bill requiring the mainland to take them back. Carrie Lam will be rewarded with a seat on the mainland Politburo.
This is generally how things have always worked out in leftist and socialist societies. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 09:52, 6 September 2019 (EDT)
The Hong Kong media is now literally under attack, with fire bombs thrown at the home of pro-democracy media mogul Jimmy Lai yesterday. Hong Kong represents only 3 percent of China's GDP nowadays. In 1983, it was 12 percent of the Chinese economy. But that didn't stop Deng Xiaoping from holding the Hong Kong economy hostage in the "currency crisis" and forcing British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to agree to a return on his terms. Hong Kong is currently experiencing the largest real estate bubble anywhere in history. A young couple that wants to buy a home of their own has to leave the city.
We see protests in China and we think about Tiananmen. But not every China protest story has a sad ending. In 2003, Hong Kong had enormous protests against "Article 23." Chinese leader Hu Jintao responded by firing Hong Kong Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa and by making other concessions. Chinese rule was modestly popular in Hong Kong for the next decade or so. PeterKa (talk) 03:40, 7 September 2019 (EDT)
That was at the time of MFA (Most Favored Nation status). China's economic growth exploded at the expense of U.S. wealth exfiltration to China. U.S. did not compete as one percent of GDP was allocated to the War on Terror. China adopted a "be nice" policy to win support among the population for the success of Communist party policy.
Now the CCP wants Shanghai to be a be a global and financial capital, and to transfer all that wealth from Hong Kong to Shanghai, as the globalist house of cards comes crashing down. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:08, 7 September 2019 (EDT)
The Chinese leadership has various factions which are not well understood. The protests in 2003 were provoked when hardliners headed by First Secretary Zeng Qinghong attempted to implement Article 23 of Hong Kong's Basic Law. Over the course of the protests, President Hu Jintao's reformist faction gained the upper hand. Xi Jinping, China's top leader since 2012, is Zeng's handpicked successor as head of the hardline faction. PeterKa (talk) 23:06, 7 September 2019 (EDT)
Times have changed. Riding the gravy train to prosperity by access to the U.S. consumer market is history; no Democrat running for President, nor Congress itself, proposes undoing the direction Trump has set (as the Chosen One) in regards to U.S.-China trade policy. The CCP made Xi president for life in anticipation of this radical shift in the terrain. Xi will change with the times, as well. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 23:27, 7 September 2019 (EDT)
I been watching these protests outside the U.S. Consulate for hours. The crowd is singing London Bridge is Falling Down and chanting Yankee Come Home. It's heartbreaking. 13:10, 8 September 2019 (EDT)

Am I the only one who is tempted to agree with Beijing’s claim that the protests are an attempt at a Deep State-sponsored colour revolution?--Geopolitician (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2019 (EDT)

I read that at Moon over Alabama, too. They claim Tienanmen Square was color revolution, too, and that sanctions were put on afterward, which is totally false. Rather, Brent Scowcroft flew to Beijing and toasted the Butchers of Beijing the day afterward, assuring them the globalist plans would move forward (Board members of Walmart at the time, like Hillary Clinton, profited immensely from selling cheap Chinese manufactured junk and destroying American jobs).
No sanctions were ever imposed, no compliance with human rights pre-conditions were ever discussed or imposed, and China was granted Most Favored Nation trade status on schedule.
So you can't believe everything you read. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:52, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
And yet there are certain factions of the Deep State who want Xi gone because they want the US to be in charge of a New World Order, rather than China. If this is a colour revolution, it is probably those factions who are behind it. And yes, I do believe they are willing to go to war with China over this.--Geopolitician (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2019 (EDT)

Bolton out

This is about efforts to jump start Iranian nuclear talks. Come election day, the U.S. will be making nice with North Korea and Iran. Trump is the Peace candidate; his critics are nuclear warmongers. The details for a world of peace, love, and cooperation will have to wait til Trump's 2nd term ., RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:58, 10 September 2019 (EDT)

We should be making Iran an ally, at least for now. We’re supporting the wrong side in the Gulf crisis, and it’s time that we treat Saudi Arabia like the we currently do Iran. Hopefully, Netanyahu will accept this reversal of American foreign policy. I’d hate to see the US-Israel special relationship fall apart over this. --Geopolitician (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
That sounds like wishful thinking. Saudi Arabia, the third largest defense budget on the planet surpassing Russia, is a U.S. proxy and Pentagon front organization. There's no untangling that alliance anytime soon. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia are joined at the hip.
As long as the nation state of Saudi Arabia exists, it will remain a U.S. ally. When we speak of the U.S. defense budget being X times bigger than the rest of the world combined, you really have to add in the Saudi defense budget as well to get a clearer picture. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:27, 10 September 2019 (EDT)

Valerie Plame

Lying scum Valerie Plame is back, this time running for congress in New Mexico. Her latest ad accuses Dick Cheney aide Scooter Libby of "outing" her, thus making her a victim of Trump, who pardoned Libby last year. This claim is ridiculous at so many levels. Libby was prosecuted by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, who was appointed by James Comey. The Plame Affair was thus a precursor to the Mueller investigation. Plame's cover was supposedly blown in 2003 when columnist Michael Novak wrote, "[Joe] Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." Novak didn't get any of this information from Libby. He learned that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA from State Department official Richard Armitage. He found Plame's supposedly supersecret maiden name by looking it up in Who's Who in America.
The name issue was huge at the time because the publication of Plame's name supposedly violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Like the Logan Act used against Michael Flynn, this is a largely inoperative law that likely violates the First Amendment. The peculiar status of these two laws makes them common topics of discussion in law school. If you look at the text of IIPA, it is hard to see why it was triggered by Novak's column. It's a "Phillip Agee Act" that is tailored narrowly to the activities this rogue CIA agent. PeterKa (talk) 07:51, 11 September 2019 (EDT)

Richard Armitage outed Plame. And yes, the Plame Affair was a dress rehearsal for Mueller probe. It was initiated as an attack on "Bush's brain", Karl Rove. The first action was for Comey to get AG John Ashcroft to recuse himself, so Clinton crony Patrick Fitzgerald could be appointed Special Counsel. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:02, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
Just as the Mueller investigation was made possible by Trump's decision to leave Comey as director of the FBI, the Plame affair was a result of Bush leaving Clinton loyalist George Tenet at the helm of the CIA. Tenet knew that Muslims were training to fly jets on simulators in Minnesota and kept it to himself. Despite authorizing the torture of Al Qaeda terrorists, Tenet remains a hero to the liberal media for referring the Novak/Plame matter to the Department of Justice for an IIPA investigation. PeterKa (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
The pattern is all too familiar. James Comey and Patrick Fitzgerald are prominent in both. First, target a GOP president; second, get the GOP's AG to recuse; third, failing to get the target, inflict as much damage on GOP appointees as possible and create a disincentive for anybody to serve on a GOP campaign or in a GOP administration.
In both cases, G.W. Bush and Trump, the target failed to win the popular vote, which serves as justification for Comey's lawbreaking and the current attack on the electoral college. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:29, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
The popular vote was never an issue in 2000. For liberals, it was an election decided by an overreaching Supreme Court. The court had a liberal majority at this time, but that didn't stop the media from treating it as a right-wing bogeyman. If the court had followed federal law, they would have left the issue up to Jeb Bush as governor. In 2016, Hillary tried to get the Electoral College to overturn Trump's election. So the popular vote certainly wasn't an issue at the time. All the same, it's an issue now. Perhaps we should shift to California-style nonpartison primaries and runoffs before this time bomb explodes.
Liberals advance two incompatible arguments regarding the 2016 election. They think the Russians stole the election from Hillary and they are also think they were cheated by the Electoral College. But the Electoral College is not a sneaky trick the Russians played on Hillary. It's always been public information, available to anyone who can read the constitution. During the campaign, Hillary's people often boasted of the "blue wall." That is to say, they believed that the Electoral College was so obviously biased in their favor that Republicans were wasting everyone's time by contesting the election at all. PeterKa (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2019 (EDT)
The popular vote was never an issue in 2000? On what planet? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:02, 12 September 2019 (EDT)
Watched Plame in a candidate forum with six other candidates tonite. Knowing NM's 3rd district, I doubt Plame can win a primary. There are two or three other very good candidates. Most importantly, she's a non-native gringa. The Chicanos of the 3rd district have lived there for over 400 years - before the Pilgrams landed at Plymouth Rock. They've heard every line of BS from white folks imaginable. I think getting Trent Toulouse's sister to stuff the ballot box for Plame is too tall of an order. She's running in the Senate primary anyway and will be distracted; but she'll meet the same fate as a gringa against Benny Ray Luhan (#4 in the U.S House leadership right now). RobSDe Plorabus Unum 04:03, 13 September 2019 (EDT)

Mass incarceration saved black America

You'd better appreciate this column, RobS; Coulter customized it for you.

September 11, 2019

The left has the luxury of having lost the argument on crime for the past few decades and, as a consequence, the electorate has no recollection of the living nightmare produced by Great Liberal Ideas About Crime.

Brooklyn hipsters blithely go about their business, completely unaware that their trendy neighborhoods were war zones in the 1970s, 1980s -- and well into the 1990s. Walking those streets meant you were taking your life into your hands.

Thanks to Republicans’ aggressive law-and-order policies, today, most U.S. cities are astonishingly safe. Crime is at its lowest level in decades. Life is possible again!

But Joe Biden, the leading Democratic candidate for president, is said to be hurt by the fact that, as The New York Times puts it, “he championed the 1994 crime bill that many experts now associate with mass incarceration.”

Point One: What’s the matter with “mass incarceration”?

Are we supposed to stop incarcerating people who commit crimes? Is that the argument? If there are hundreds of innocent people in prison, why do liberals keep giving us the fake sob stories -- the cases they lie about, forcing me to look up the facts, as illustrated in several of my recent columns?

Point Two: By “many experts,” the Times means “raving lunatics we keep on speed-dial for when we need a quote we agree with.”

In fact, the only theory by which Biden’s crime bill -- technically the “Clinton Crime Bill” -- attacked crime was by ushering in the first Republican Congress in 40 years, as a result of including the "assault weapons" ban in the bill.

In the very next election, just two months after the bill was signed, long-serving Democrats lost their seats, one after another after another.

Apart from that, the 1994 Crime Bill didn’t do much. There was “midnight basketball”; the “Violence Against Women Act” (feminist nonsense, later held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court); loads of pointless federal funding for local law enforcement; innumerable death penalties added for capital offenses committed on this or that federal property; and the aforementioned “assault weapons ban,” or “Gift From God to the GOP.”

But Biden and Clinton were at least savvy enough to know that Democrats had to try to steal the crime issue from Republicans, even if only with meaningless gestures.

Not today’s Democrats! Biden’s opponents seem to be competing for the title of “Candidate Most Likely to Return Murder and Mayhem to Our Streets”!

As with all the left’s insane ideas, they’re packaging this as an attack on “racism.” Let’s take a stroll down memory lane, for a reminder of who bears the brunt of cretinous liberal crime policies.

In the late 1980s, it was the Congressional Black Caucus that was demanding tougher policies in the war on drugs. At a three-day Congressional Black Caucus Legislative Weekend in September 1989, Rep. Charlie Rangel held hearing after hearing on the devastation crack cocaine was raining on the black community.

The CBC being Democrats, the gist of the hearing was to attack President George H.W. Bush ... for not fighting the war on drugs with sufficient ferocity. Thus, Rev. Jesse Jackson testified:

“(P)resident Bush's plan ... greatly underestimates the military arsenals and viciousness of the drug lords and pushers who not only have deadly firepower from AK-47s to Uzis, superior to the weapons of the police, they have a reckless attitude and no respect for human life. ...

“(Drug) pushers are terrorists. Those who consume drugs are engaged in treason against themselves, their families and their communities. ...

“We demand a right to volunteer in the army -- (audience applause) -- to fight a war on drugs.”

Throughout the 1980s, The New York Times was full of reports about the scourge of crack cocaine in neighborhoods “where Americans -- especially minorities -- do worst.”

There were stories of dealers preying on “poor blacks” who “coughed up enough $5 bills” for a vial of crack; an account of two little girls in the Bronx, children of crack-addicted mothers, “resorting to prostitution and falling prey to a (65-year-old) neighborhood man for $5 or $10”; and reports of dealers who “offered two-for-one deals and 'Mother's Day' specials timed to coincide with the arrival of welfare checks.”

A Washington Post-ABC News Poll, taken after President Bush gave a speech in 1989 announcing his “War on Drugs,” showed that 68% of black respondents approved of his plan -- or six times as many as voted for him. While only about half of white respondents characterized drugs as a “crisis” in their neighborhoods, two-thirds of African Americans did.

And then, in 1993, Rudy Giuliani became mayor of New York and saved the “ungovernable city." By the end of his two terms in office, murders in the city -- mostly blacks killing other blacks -- had been slashed from about 2,500 a year to 900. With subsequent mayors continuing his policies, whether with enthusiasm or out of fear of the voters, the murder rate has continued to fall.

Thousands of black people are alive today who otherwise would not be because of Giuliani’s tough-on-crime policies. As the Rev. Calvin Butts, pastor of Harlem’s Abyssinian Baptist Church, put it, without Giuliani, “we would have been overrun.”

If Jordan Peele wants a new idea for a conspiracy movie involving race, how about this one: Powerful liberals conspire to kill off black Americans and replace them with Mexicans by pushing lenient crime policies that put violent criminals into black neighborhoods, while simultaneously demanding open-borders immigration policies.

He can pick up some script ideas this Thursday, at the third Democratic presidential debate.

COPYRIGHT 2019 ANN COULTER

For fair educational use only, namely in response to an opinion professed on these talk pages to be valid that took the opposite view. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 02:01, 13 September 2019 (EDT)

Ahhh., I can't believe she left out this gem. I recall fondly debates I had with communists Clintonistas Democrats about "100,000 New Cops on the Streets," which they thought was wonderful, but only paid salaries for two years (til Clinton was re-elected of coarse), then dumped the permanent payroll cost and benefits on local communities who couldn't afford it.
And the "Violence Against Women Act", another Biden scam. Who could possibly oppose violence against women (other than the Supreme Court)? Coulter only tells half the story; after it was struck down, Biden re-wrote it to where it doesn't resemble anything like original or even address "violence against women." But the names sounds nice to boast about on the campaign stump - that's all that matters. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 03:47, 13 September 2019 (EDT)

Epstein appears to have used institute of technology media laboratory to launder ill-gotten gains from procuring means to sexual abuse offenses

Lol, what a geek. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 02:21, 13 September 2019 (EDT)

Magna Carta Day

When I lived in France, I took a ferry to Britain and drove around in a car with French plates. A gas station attendant looked at the plates and told me, "We are all one in the EU now." Maybe I don't look so American after all. With Britain (hopefully) leaving Europe and joining a U.S.-led trading block, it's time to create symbolism for a union of the English-speaking peoples, as Churchill would have put it. An obvious place to begin is "Magna Carta Day," June 15, 1215. By putting the monarchy under various laws, including habeas corpus, the Magna Carta Libertatum (Great Charter of Liberties) established the principle of rule of law. The charter was the English-speaking world's first constitution and created an independent English state (that is to say, an England independent of the Norman French). The holiday would make a great Johnson-Trump joint announcement. See "The Case for a British-American Trade Deal" by Daniel Hannan. PeterKa (talk) 03:34, 13 September 2019 (EDT)

What was remarkable was that the assemblage of lords somehow possessed this spark of political genius while they remained so uneducated. It's the worst-spelled document I know of. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 05:34, 13 September 2019 (EDT)

Gregory Cheadle

The guy Trump called, "my African-American [friend]" is leaving the GOP! Does this mean anything, or is the MSM overhyping it? Also, what's with all the RINOs?!

Did you read it in the MSM? Probably BS not worth listening to or following up. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:31, 15 September 2019 (EDT)

What does Trump want?

The know-it-alls with opinions and reputations of their own are gone: H.R. McMaster, Rex Tillerson, Jim Mattis, John Kelly, and now John Bolton. There was talk of policy differences between Trump and Bolton, but Robert O'Brien's views are not different from Bolton's in any obvious way. But as a fresh face, he's less likely to assert himself. That's apparently the way Trump likes it: "I make all the decisions. [The advisors] don’t have to work.” Will we bomb Iran? What will the gun control proposal contain? We are in a perpetual cliffhanger episode. Everyone is awaiting Trump's decision and no one has any idea what he might do next. After the hysterical level of coverage he received during the campaign and the Mueller investigation, you'd think Trump would want his life to settle down a bit. As he gets on in years, he's going have to learn to delegate. See "An unshackled Trump finally gets the presidency he always wanted."
When Obama was president, foreign policy was made by Ben Rhodes, an English major with no relevant qualifications. Cabinet positions were titles sold off to the highest bidder, who then monetized them. As for Obama himself, he spent his time watching ESPN and following celebrity gossip. The biggest difference is that Trump is a patriot. With Obama, you could never be sure whether he would side with the U.S. or Iran. PeterKa (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2019 (EDT)

What a pile garbage. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:44, 20 September 2019 (EDT)
After the Louisiana Purchase, Jefferson wanted Napoleon, whose forces, at the time, occupied Spain, while France kept up the pretense that Spain was still independent, to sell him the Floridas as well. Napoleon played on Jefferson and his State Department by using the presumed-impending sale to advance the conception that he was unpredictable, and that Jefferson would do well to quickly take any offer made, if the terms of any offer were made at all, before it was indefinitely withdrawn for an unknown duration. The strategy had other benefits as well:
With this avowal, which Turreau understood as a sort of pledge that Jefferson would lean toward war with England rather than with France, the French minister was obliged to content himself; while he pressed on his Government the assurance that both the President and the secretary wished more than all else to obtain the Floridas. Such reports were little calculated to change the Emperor's course. Human ingenuity discovered but one way to break Napoleon's will, and this single method was that of showing power to break his plans.
In due time Armstrong received his instructions of May 2, and wrote June 10 to Champagny a note declining the proposed alliance, and expressing the satisfaction which his Government felt at hearing the Emperor's approval of "a cautionary occupation of the Floridas." Napoleon, who was still at Bayonne in the flush of his power, no sooner read this reply than he wrote to Champagny—
"Answer the American minister that you do not know what he means about the occupation of the Floridas; and that the Americans, being at peace with the Spaniards, cannot occupy the Floridas without the permission or the request of the King of Spain."
Armstrong, a few days afterward, was astonished by receiving from Champagny a note denying positively that any suggestion had ever been made to warrant an American occupation of the Floridas without an express request from the King of Spain: "The Emperor has neither the right nor the wish to authorize an infraction of international law, contrary to the interests of an independent Power, his ally and his friend." When Napoleon chose to deny a fact, argument was thrown away; yet Armstrong could not do otherwise than recall Champagny's own words, which he did in a formal note, and there left the matter at rest, writing to his Government that the change in tone had "no doubt grown out of the new relations which the Floridas bear to this government since the abdication of Charles IV."
For once Armstrong was too charitable. He might safely have assumed that Napoleon was also continuing the same coarse game he had played since April, 1803,—snatching away the lure he loved to dangle before Jefferson's eyes, punishing the Americans for refusing his offer of alliance, and making them feel the constant pressure of his will. —Henry Adams
VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 12:18, 21 September 2019 (EDT)
There is a lot to learn from this whole incident - including the fact that the purchase was paid in gold. Nowadays we'd just print more money to pay for Greenland, and no one would feel or burden the cost. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:45, 21 September 2019 (EDT)
Wait. The story was about the Floridas, not the Louisiana Purchase. Napoleon never got around to selling the Floridas, and a few months later the Spaniards revolted and re-acquired their country from Napoleon's brother, who had been running things, and deprived Napoleon of his military access to any of the Spanish colonies. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 00:06, 22 September 2019 (EDT)