User talk:Aschlafly

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Discussion: Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Trump administration saboteurs

Andy, I know you see an indirect link between Ted Cruz and some of the many saboteurs who infiltrated the Trump administration. But what about a direct link?

On multiple occasions, I’ve tried to edit articles related to this subject to emphasize the possible existence of such direct links, but those edits have been undone because some of the admins think this premise is outlandish. So, I want your opinion.

On a side note, what about Marco Rubio? Because neocon saboteurs Nikki Haley and Mike Pompeo both came from the Rubio camp, I have similar suspicions about him. What do you think?--Geopolitician (talk) 10:50, July 8, 2021 (EDT)

If I can insert my two cents here, it's pretty well covered in the SSCI article. We have an interesting test case now: let's see how Chairman Rubio reacts to the Tucker Carlson spy revelations. [1] RobSFree Kyle! 10:56, July 8, 2021 (EDT)
Geopolitician, you make an interesting point and I'd like to learn more about this. If have any examples or links handy that would be great to post. I started Trump's inept advisers, which m makes a similar point, though perhaps not as strong.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 17:12, July 8, 2021 (EDT)
I’ve got a ton of examples, but it will take me a few days to compile them all, given my current schedule.--Geopolitician (talk) 17:32, July 8, 2021 (EDT)


I'll start with the biggest saboteur of all, Steve Bannon. You read that right. Steve Bannon.

Bannon originally came from the Cruz camp. The connections are established here. Once Cruz's campaign collapsed, Bannon joined the Trump campaign. He was then rewarded with the unusual position of "Chief Strategist" following Trump's victory.

Once Bannon arrived in Washington, he proceeded to do as much damage as possible. He orchestrated a series of elaborate smear campaigns designed to sideline other Trump administration officials. Among those targeted were Jared Kushner, H.R. McMaster, Rex Tillerson, and Ivanka Trump.[2][3] He would leak inside information to various sources, most notably Breitbart, and coordinate with them to create twist the facts in order to incite the base into demanding that they be fired, and thus force Trump's hand. Trump eventually caught onto Bannon's antics and fired him. But that wasn't the end.

Even after his firing, Bannon continued to use his influence to pressure Trump into replacing Bannon's enemies in the White House. After several months of such pressure, Trump fired both McMaster and Tillerson, replacing them with arch-neocons John Bolton and Mike Pompeo. And we all know what happened from there. This New York Times article highlights Bannon's role in Bolton's hiring. The claims in that article are corraborated here, here, and here by former Breitbart writer Lee Stranahan.

In other words, Bannon bears a significant degree of responsibility for the subsequent sabotage inflicted by Bolton and Pompeo.

Bannon also played a role in supressing the DNC-Ukraine collusion story, repeatedly ignoring requests by people like Stranahan to forward relevant information to Trump.[4][5][6][7] Bannon's motive for suppressing this information is unconfirmed, but Stranahan strongly suspects that Bannon wanted Russiagate to inflict as much damage as possible without causing Trump's removal from office, so more of Bannon's enemies within MAGA would be taken out. I'm talking about people like Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, and perhaps even Michael Flynn.[8][9] In Stone's case, Bannon may have resorted to perjury as part of his efforts to incriminate him. And in Flynn's case, there's no hard evidence of Bannon's involvement but I do believe that Bannon had something to gain from Flynn's ouster, namely the removal of a pro-Turkish voice in the White House. Remember that Bannon considers Turkey to be part of the new "Axis of Evil," and our second-worst enemy only behind China.[10][11]

Bannon also intentionally misled Trump about the nature of the Saudi regime, prompting Trump to pursue a policy of cooperation as opposed to confrontation.[12] Out of that policy came the escalation of neocon policies in the Middle East. Note that I strongly disagree with Stranahan's take on Bannon's motivation for this specific act; I believe it had far more to do with the petrodollar than with Israel.

In sum, from the Cruz camp came Bannon, who sought to and perhaps succeeded in perverting the Trump agenda into an immoral, ideologically dishonest mess where both neocon and MAGA ideas buzzed around and regularly crashed into each other, causing much of the rest of the world to view America with contempt. If there's one thing we should learn from this, it's that there is to be no compromise between neoconservatism and MAGA. Any attempts to combine the two would only lead to disaster. Thus, we must do what we can to ensure neocon-MAGA hybrid candidates like Cruz, Cotton, and Pompeo do not get the nomination in 2024. MAGA will be destroyed from within if that happens. --Geopolitician (talk) 13:52, July 12, 2021 (EDT)

Side note: Stranahan also claims that Bannon has spent time going around and stirring the pot on both sides, meeting with and trying to enlist the help of white supremacist groups and even Jeffrey Epstein.[13][14][15] But what else would you expect from a guy who is self-proclaimed to be and acts like a Leninist?[16] Or a guy who all but believes that WWIII is inevitable and thus America must behave according to such a fatalistic worldview?[17]
By the way, Stranahan undoubtedly has a wealth of additional information about Bannon's conduct and I suggest that you try to get more information from him directly, Andy.--Geopolitician (talk) 14:07, July 12, 2021 (EDT)
Didn't Stranahan used to work for Bannon? Isn't there some sort of personal issue there? RobSFree Kyle! 14:30, July 12, 2021 (EDT)`
Honestly, I watch more of Stranahan's youtube channel than Bannon's WarRoom Pandemic, and the first thing that jumps out is the quality of Stranahan's guests, which is virtually zero, compared to Bannon's. But honestly, both shows are very interesting. The one thing Geopolitician leave's out in all the cases he cites here (McMaster, Flynn, Manafort, Jared, Tillerson, Bolton, etc etc etc) are the truly guilty parties - Strzok, Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein, Mueller, et al having all Trump appointees under surveillance. Andy, pay Geo's blathering here no mind. 15:18, July 12, 2021 (EDT)
Daryl Cooper just wrote in Why Trump supporters don't trust anything, "Worse, collusion was used to scare people away from working in the administration. They knew their entire lives would be investigated. Many quit because they were being bankrupted by legal fees. The DoJ, press, & gov't destroyed lives and actively subverted an elected administration."
Geoplitican pretends he doesn't know that a FISA warrant grants the same authority for invasive surveillance against all of a targets email and phone contacts. This is, and was, to be expected - a focus on infighting while giving cover to the real subverters of the Trump administration. We've been hearing this line of attack now for 5 years already. RobSFree Kyle! 15:35, July 12, 2021 (EDT)
Yes, Stranahan did work for Bannon. He also worked with Andrew Breitbart. And Stranahan continued to contact Bannon directly even after Bannon began working in Washington. I don't know about you, RobS, but I think Stranahan of all people would know what went down behind the scenes on this matter and what didn't.
And of course Stranahan's show has lower quality guests. That's what happens when you get sidelined for calling out corruption within the MAGA movement and have to resort to literally working for the Russians in order to speak your mind on your own show. Because Stranahan is now working for the Russians, almost nobody within the MAGA wants to touch him with a ten-foot barge pole. Which is too bad, because they would actually benefit from doing so when the dust clears.
Meanwhile, Bannon, Bolton, and Pompeo all shared a common goal with Comey, McCabe, Mueller, Rosenstein, and Strzok. And that was to stop Trump from making the changes he wanted to make to American foreign policy. Sure, they adopted different tactics. But their missions were fundamentally the same. So why go after just some of them? Go after all of them.
Furthermore, the premise of Cooper's article is false. I wish it were true, but it isn't. The lies go much deeper than that. The biggest lie of all being the one where Saudi Arabia isn't just as big, if not an even bigger enemy than the CCP.[18]--Geopolitician (talk) 17:12, July 12, 2021 (EDT)
Oh, I get it. Pompeo is a CCP operative, too, huh? Or maybe Pompeo had no influence at all in shifting U.S. policy away from the PRC. Or maybe Pompeo corrupted Trump's pro-CCP views and shifted Trump into an anti-CCP stooge, is that your point? RobSFree Kyle! 17:57, July 12, 2021 (EDT)
Just imagine, Westpoint teaching things like patriotism and America first to a guy who finishes first in his class. Outrageous, huh? RobSFree Kyle! 18:36, July 12, 2021 (EDT)
"bu bu but Zbigniew....". C'mon now. You have to do better than that to make an argument. RobSFree Kyle! 18:39, July 12, 2021 (EDT)
Look, Stranahan obviously has been under some emotional stress with his recent divorce and moving out of D.C. to be closer to his kids in South Dakota. But I was somewhat disappointed to realize he knew much more about Alexandra Chalupa in 2018, and could have done much more to highlight what he knew two years earlier. Also, Stranahan was duped by Natalia Veselnitskaya, who ultimately meant the Trump team no goodwill, and he passed her off in his extended interview with her as some sort of whistleblower on team Mueller and team Clinton. RobSFree Kyle! 18:10, July 12, 2021 (EDT)

Mark Meadows would be ranked far higher in terms of anti-Trump infiltrators, in my opinion. Trump's political troubles in 2020 track closely with Meadows' rise to power among the inner Trump circle. See Trump's inept advisers.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:03, July 12, 2021 (EDT)

Andy, what Daryl Cooper wrote, "collusion was used to scare people away from working in the administration" limited the pool of people willing to work in the Trump administration. Trump could not persuade the best and the brightest to come work for him. It all comes back to FISA abuse. RobSFree Kyle! 19:15, July 12, 2021 (EDT)
Andy, it's pretty obvious what Geo is doing here. He's dangling bait with words like "neocon" hoping you'll take the bait to trash people like Pompeo, rather than lay the blame where it belongs - the Trump-Russia hoaxers. RobSFree Kyle! 19:30, July 12, 2021 (EDT)
Trump was forced to take on people like Meadows or Bolton - cause they were the only one's who could pass the security clearances. He never was free to choose his own appointees. We knew this before Flynn quit, when the CIA began denying clearances for Flynn's own appointments to staff. If you can't get the people to do the job, you yourself can't do your own job. All these Trump appointees were railroaded out, Schindler the police captain who delivered Comey's firing, Hope Hicks, Omarosa, etc etc etc because of FISA abuse. Strzok, and later Mueller & Andrew Weissmann, had complete control over Trump's hiring. After a few got fired, that is enough to scare away anyone else from even being asked to serve. Hence Trump was left with insiders who already had clearances, Grenell, Bolton, Meadows, Ratcliffe, etc. RobSFree Kyle! 19:44, July 12, 2021 (EDT)
(ec) Here's the full uncut interview: *Lee Stranahan interview with Natalia Veselnitskaya (uncut). of course, after unwittingly helping the coup against Trump, she sought to ingratiate herself back with the powers-that-be. But I don't see Stranahan following up on any of that, admitting he was duped. As much as I love the guy, it does seem that he's struggling to remain relevant since Andrew Briebart of Steve Bannon or whoever fired him.
And what stymies me is, since he works for Alexandra Chulupa's avowed enemy, Vladimir Putin, and he knew just what coffee shop Chalupa hung out in in 2016 when she was initiating the Russia hoax against Manafort & Trump, why did he wait two years until the Trump impeachment to joke about it and not inform us Trump-Russia hoax junkies earlier? RobSFree Kyle! 19:11, July 12, 2021 (EDT)
Stranahan knew about Chalupa in 2017, and contacted Bannon regarding the matter multiple times during his tenure at the White House. Bannon intentionally ignored him.
Meanwhile, Stranahan has mentioned Chalupa many, many, many times on social media since 2017, and nearly everybody who saw his tweets ignored him until it was too late.--Geopolitician (talk) 12:05, July 13, 2021 (EDT)
Pompeo is a neocon, and he was a saboteur. I laid this out in great detail in his article.
And here's a fact I left out in that article: he too was involved in supressing Ukrainegate. Just two months before the 2020 election, his State Department revoked the visa of Andrii Telizhenko, on the grounds of "election interference."[19]--Geopolitician (talk) 12:05, July 13, 2021 (EDT)
Oh, ok. So in addition to Pompeo being in bed with Hillary, the DNC, Christopher Steele, Strzok and the corrupt FBI, and the CCP, he's also in bed with Joe and Hunter Biden. And he deliberately sabotaged Ukrainegate so he could get himself fired by the Biden administration in January 2021. Makes perfect sense.
As noted, it looks like critical race theory and subversion of American politics and the military was being taught at Westpoint back in the 1980s when Pompeo graduated. RobSFree Kyle! 12:36, July 13, 2021 (EDT)
None of the above people you listed work for the CCP. They want war with China just as much as they want war with Russia and Iran.
And Pompeo wanted to sabotage Ukrainegate because he wanted to stop Trump from making peace with Russia. Because again, he’s a neocon who wants war with Russia.--Geopolitician (talk) 13:32, July 13, 2021 (EDT)
Your anti-neocon conspiracy theories are about a decade and a half out of date. RobSFree Kyle! 13:52, July 13, 2021 (EDT)


There's a lot of comedy here, but there's also a zillion other diffs in CP to support Geopolitician's pro-Iranian and pro-CCP sentiments.

  • "after his firing, Bannon continued to use his influence" HAHAHA! FISA abuse, per Geo, had nothing to do with Bannon being railroaded out of the WH.
  • "in Flynn's case, there's no hard evidence of Bannon's involvement but I do believe that Bannon had something to gain" A HA! Bannon must've been part of the Hillary/FBI/Christopher Steele cabal, per Geo.
  • "the nature of the Saudi regime" - yah yah yah, we know. A disguised pro-Iranian reference. I have a thousand other diffs in CP from Geo that make the point more clearly.
  • "our second-worst enemy only behind China" and "a guy who all but believes that WWIII is inevitable" *Gasp!* It's hard to decipher if Geo is with Obama, who thought al Qaede was our biggest enemy while at the same time funding ISIS, or Romney who thought that Russia was. But the CCP certainly now is not the US's biggest threat, per Geo. RobSFree Kyle! 16:31, July 12, 2021 (EDT)
FISA didn't have anything to do with Bannon's ouster. Trump himself made that clear way back in January of 2018.
Bannon wasn't directly involved in Russiagate, but he did take advantage of it to ensue that his rivals went to prison.
I'm not pro-Iran, and I'm definitely not pro-CCP. I just believe that Iran is a (much) lesser evil than Saudi Arabia, and I believe the foreign policy establishment is deliberately exaggerating the scale of the CCP threat in order to create a justification for another regime change war. I mean, the establishment wants war with China just as much as any Trump supporter who is blazing mad over the CCP's alleged role in the creation of COVID-19. Why? Because China, like Iran and Russia, are standing in the way of the US controlling what Zbigniew Brzezinski called "the Eurasian Balkans." Take into account Halford MacKinder's "Heartland Theory," and its post-Cold War endorsement by both Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger (in their books The Grand Chessboard and Diplomacy, respectively) and it will all make much more sense.--Geopolitician (talk) 17:12, July 12, 2021 (EDT)
Thanks for the admission on your pro-Ayatollah views.
Basically, you do not understand what FISA is. RobSFree Kyle! 17:59, July 12, 2021 (EDT)
I know exactly what FISA is. And I also know that it had nothing to do with Bannon's ouster. Trump himself attested to that.--Geopolitician (talk) 12:05, July 13, 2021 (EDT)
Are you saying Bannon was not under FISA surveillance? Wow. He must be squeaky clean if they couldn't come up with anything (never mind his later indictment, we can cross that ridiculous bridge later when we get to it....).
And since Bannon's squeaky clean, why do you feel the need to trash him? RobSFree Kyle! 12:45, July 13, 2021 (EDT)
Sorry, but you really give yourself away as a commie subversive with this ridiculous statement: "the establishment wants war with China just as much as any Trump supporter who is blazing mad over the CCP's alleged role in the creation of COVID-19".
Yah, the establishment wants war with the CCP so bad over "the alleged role in the creation of COVID-19", they banned the President of the United States and anyone else from social media from talking about it. RobSFree Kyle! 12:57, July 13, 2021 (EDT)
What makes you think it's only Trump supporters who are "blazing mad over the CCP's alleged role in the creation of COVID-19"? Jon Stewart's not a Trump supporter. RobSFree Kyle! 13:00, July 13, 2021 (EDT)
I never said Bannon wasn’t under FISA surveillance. I just said that FISA or no FISA, his firing had nothing to do with it. And no, Bannon is not squeaky clean. Far from it.--Geopolitician (talk) 13:32, July 13, 2021 (EDT)
I stand by what I said about the establishment wanting war with China. It’s about, and always has been about, control of the Eurasian heartland. Both Brzezinski and Kissinger made it clear many years ago that our China policy ought to be centered around that premise. Do you seriously believe the establishment isn’t listening to them?--Geopolitician (talk) 13:32, July 13, 2021 (EDT)
The media only initially censored the Wuhan lab theory because Trump was promoting it. The plan was to get Biden in first, and only then make the theory more “mainstream.” And either way, the media is probably lying about the lab, even now. I’m personally convinced that the virus didn’t come from Wuhan, or even China. The real origin? Fort Detrick, Maryland.--Geopolitician (talk) 13:32, July 13, 2021 (EDT)
Ok, let's stop spinning our wheels. The Ft. Detrick QAnon/CCP conspiracy theory doesn't have much traction or currency. You have been consistent now over many months, if not years, on your belief that Saudi Arabia, not Russia, not Iran, not the Peoples Republic of China, not Antifa or BLM is the single biggest threat to American national security. Just make that clear to Andy, and let him decide. RobSFree Kyle! 13:58, July 13, 2021 (EDT)
And because Saudi Arabia is such a threat to the peace of the world, we need to mercilessly trash Republican Presidential advisors. RobSFree Kyle! 14:00, July 13, 2021 (EDT)
Saudi Arabia took control of our currency system through the 1974 petrodollar agreement, and it has been using its clout to blackmail our politicians into starting wars on its behalf ever since. Saudi Arabia was also behind 9/11, and the Bush neocons deliberately allowed Saudi Arabia to get away with it while also turning Afghanistan and Iraq into scapegoats ripe for invasion. They and their successors in the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations have since been targeting other countries as potential scapegoats such as Libya, Syria, Iran, Turkey, and Qatar. The entire "War on Terror" is a fraud meant to perpetuate the "Big Lie" concerning who is responsible for all the Islamist terror in the world. "Saudi Arabia is blameless, and everybody else is to blame," they say.
So yes, I do believe that Saudi Arabia and its appeasers in our government are the biggest threat to our national security. Because it's true. But hey, let's ignore that because it happens to be convenient for the GOP, right? Even though doing so would be just as convenient for the DNC.--Geopolitician (talk) 14:23, July 13, 2021 (EDT)
Ok Andy, there you have it. Saudi Arabia today has a bigger military budget than Russia cause it's recycled its petrodollars in the military-industrial complex. The US has never had a trade deficit with Saudi Arabia. Pompeo, who wants to destroy Russia, isn't smart enough to let Saudi Arabia do it after Biden has enriched both Saudi Arabia and Russia by killing the Keystone pipeline. Covid came out of the military-industrial complex and not the Wuhan lab. Bannon, Pompeo, and Bolton have been working with Peter Strzok, Rod Rosenstein, and Hillary Clinton to undermine Trump. And the CCP is an innocent victim of smears in all this. RobSFree Kyle! 15:00, July 13, 2021 (EDT)
Now, if Geo had said the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran, I think he may have a leg to stand on. But personally, I don't think he understands the Saudi ruling party any more than he understands the FISA Act. RobSFree Kyle! 15:07, July 13, 2021 (EDT)
The "Muslim Brotherhood and/or Iran did it" narrative is a total lie invented by the Deep State(s) to justify more wars. Stranahan talks about that in great detail here.--Geopolitician (talk) 16:01, July 13, 2021 (EDT)
I'll let you have the last word. I've taken it about as far as it can go, for now. RobSFree Kyle! 16:08, July 13, 2021 (EDT)
Alright, then. Here's my last word. Andy and RobSmith, please watch the video I linked to in my previous comment. It's about an hour long, and it puts a great alternative perspective on this issue. Also, keep in mind that at some point you'll hear Stranahan suddenly going off on a profanity-laced tangent about Assange. Don't mind that. He's just responding to a troll who had posted on his livestream feed an outrageous comment about how Assange supposedly faked his own arrest, "because Q."
And RobSmith, I just noticed you edited the Mike Pompeo article to remove the reference I made to his false claims regarding Iran's relationship with al-Qaeda. After watching the video, hopefully you'll see where I'm coming from here, and why I believe the district court's ruling assigning blame for 9/11 to Iran is absurd.--Geopolitician (talk) 17:25, July 13, 2021 (EDT)

Background on clearances

At the time of Alger Hiss, each department did its own hiring and security background checks. After Hiss, security background checks were centralized in the FBI. One of the most famous cases is Clarence Thomas, whose FBI background check was leaked to force the Anita Hill hearings.

Since the Patriot Act Amendments of 2006, which expanded the IC and authority for surveillance, and the Obama administration, which filled those new spots in the IC, the left has taken over the function of background checks for govt employment. Now it is payback time, to deny security clearances and govt employment based on ideology, as the hard left had been screened out since the McCarthy era. That's what happened to Mike Flynn when he tried to hire a deputy, and that's what happened to President Trump from the day he took office. He could only hire people the FBI (Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Wray) said he could hire. RobSFree Kyle! 20:04, July 12, 2021 (EDT)

President Trump wanted Sheriff Darrell Clarke for DHS Secretary. In America, the people are free to elect their own sheriff or president, but a low-level bureaucrat like Peter Strzok has veto power over presidential appointments. If Trump is to be criticized for anything, it would be not realizing what was happening when he took office.

We recorded here in CP, in February 2017:

  • 11 February. National Security aide to National Security Advisor Michael Flynn is denied a security clearance, in effect, the CIA exercising veto power over the President's management of national security affairs. The action was unprecedented and without cause. Reports say the CIA did not like the aide's attitude toward the agency.[146] “They believe this is a hit job from inside the CIA on Flynn and the people close to him," because the aide "believes that the CIA doesn’t run the world.”[147][148]

Read the footnote included: "The artcle continues: "Since no one can take part in the formulation or execution of foreign or defense policy without a high-level security clearance, vetoing the president’s people by denying them clearances trumps the president....the persons who thus took for themselves the prerogative that the American people had entrusted to [President Trump] at the ballot box, chances are 100 percent that they will use that prerogative ever more frequently with regard to anyone else whom they regard as standing in the way of their preferred policies, as a threat to their reputation, or simply as partisan opponents... undermin[ing] nothing less than the self-evident heart of the Constitution’s Article II: The president is the executive branch. All of its employees draw their powers from him and answer to him, not the other way around."

Flynn was, unsurprisingly, ousted two days later (not for anything he did, but because he couldn't do his job and get his people in. "Six ways from Sunday"). Nothing that occurred after that Feb. 11, 2017 Washington Times article was surprising, at all. RobSFree Kyle! 23:29, July 12, 2021 (EDT)

To wit: Alexander Vindman's "interagency consensus" which trumped presidential prerogatives. By the time Impeachment 1.0 rolled around, Trump knew the rules the Deep State laid out for him, that he could only make appointments off a pre-approved list made out by the Deep State. Sure, Rick Grenell got the job of Acting DNI, but only cause he had the security clearances in a temporary position, but wouldn't pass Senate approval. Mark Meadows fit the bill cause (a) had the security clearance to read classified info, and (b) knew all the contacts on Capitol Hill that is the chief-of-staff's job to negotiate with. And (c) most importantly, was willing to take the job knowing he had the Deep State CIA, FBI, etc., and a hostile press, breathing down his back. Forget policy considerations. Trump had to work with what he could get.

And with the election cases now currently on the docket, there's no movement in Congress to improve oversight abilities of the IC. Think about this carefully. A second Trump term will face the same problems as the first. And a DeSantis presidency will face the same problems, unless DeSantis makes moves to negotiate and compromise with the Deep State. RobSFree Kyle! 02:20, July 13, 2021 (EDT)

You want to take on the Deep State? You need F-15s and nuclear bombs. RobSFree Kyle! 02:28, July 13, 2021 (EDT)

Add Bill Barr to that pre-approved list. His qualifications consisted of (a) holding the requisite clearances; (b) most importantly, willing to take the job; (c) thought it was rather undignified of the Deep State to treat the president like a hamster on a wheel or leaving him wondering about a carnival funhouse of mirrors. Agreeing with Trump or the Trump agenda, or policy considerations, had absolutely nothing to do with his appointment. Like Meadows or Bolton, he was the best Trump could find who was willing to take the job. RobSFree Kyle! 09:06, July 13, 2021 (EDT)

Does pi contain "every other number"?

... for remembering me! I had difficulties logging in for quite a time, but I never lost CP out of sight. Therefore, I'm back to nitpicking: In the article on <math>\pi</math>, you wrote:

'"The infinite length of ostensibly random decimal points in means that it contains the equivalent of every book ever written, every birthday, and every other number."'

"Every other number" sounds like "every number like <math>\pi</math>", and that's obviously nonsense. Could you elaborate on the normality of <math>\pi</math>? --AugustO (talk) 17:29, July 18, 2021 (EDT)

Check the "Keep me logged in" box, and that should help with your log in problems. RobSFree Kyle! 17:33, July 18, 2021 (EDT)
Thanks! --AugustO (talk) 17:47, July 18, 2021 (EDT)
The statement is startling, but true: pi as a random sequence of never-ending digits contains every other number somewhere in its sequence.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 17:58, July 18, 2021 (EDT)

You will not find <math>\sqrt{2}</math> in <math>\pi</math>! --AugustO (talk) 18:14, July 18, 2021 (EDT)

Are you sure about that? As an infinite sequence of non-ordered digits, I think <math>\pi</math> would have it somewhere if you look long enough!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:27, July 18, 2021simulta (EDT)
Yep, I'm sure. Normalcy is about finite sequences, <math>\sqrt{2}</math> is famously an infinite non-repeating number.... --AugustO (talk) 18:30, July 18, 2021 (EDT)
I did some looking on the internet and found some discussion without a definitive answer to this. Intuitively it seems that you may be right only as to infinite non-repeating numbers, but infinity has different types and I'm not sure this is resolved. "Obviously nonsense"??? No, I don't think so.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:51, July 18, 2021 (EDT)
"Obviously", because if a section of π resembled, √2 than all but a finite string of digits would be identical to √2 - and there would be no place for √3 left.
--AugustO (talk) 02:15, July 19, 2021 (EDT)
I have (just) placed nowiki tags around the math tags in this section because the invocations of '\pi' and '\sqrt(2)' seem to have been causing rendering errors like:-
A database query error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software.
   SELECT math_inputhash,math_mathml,math_tex,math_svg,math_input FROM `mathoid` WHERE math_inputhash = 'O��ۦ=���\"�,z��m' LIMIT 1
   Function: MathRenderer::readFromDatabase
   Error: 1146 Table 'cptransi_wiki.mathoid' doesn't exist (localhost)
#0 /home/conserv8/public_html/includes/db/Database.php(1182): DatabaseBase->reportQueryError('Table 'cptransi...', 1146, 'SELECT  math_in...', 'MathRenderer::r...', false)
#1 /home/conserv8/public_html/includes/db/Database.php(1650): DatabaseBase->query('SELECT  math_in...', 'MathRenderer::r...')
#2 /home/conserv8/public_html/includes/db/Database.php(1739): DatabaseBase->select('mathoid', Array, Array, 'MathRenderer::r...', Array, Array)
#3 /home/conserv8/public_html/extensions/Math/MathRenderer.php(269): DatabaseBase->selectRow('mathoid', Array, Array, 'MathRenderer::r...')
#4 /home/conserv8/public_html/extensions/Math/MathRenderer.php(623): MathRenderer->readFromDatabase()
#5 /home/conserv8/public_html/extensions/Math/MathMathML.php(107): MathRenderer->isInDatabase()
#6 /home/conserv8/public_html/extensions/Math/MathMathML.php(90): MathMathML->renderingRequired()
#7 /home/conserv8/public_html/extensions/Math/Math.hooks.php(122): MathMathML->render()
#8 [internal function]: MathHooks::mathTagHook('\\pi', Array, Object(Parser), Object(PPFrame_DOM))

I wish I knew how to debug this, but if there was a software upgrade in the last few days that's where I'd start looking. Best of luck, -J Psircleback (talk) 03:31, July 19, 2021 (EDT)

I haven't seen those errors on my browser (Chrome). Perhaps it is an update issue with a browser?
As to the substantive issue of mathematics, AugustO, you haven't withdrawn your putdown of "obviously nonsense," yet cite nothing in support of your position. You write "and there would be no place ... left," but that's usually not a problem for an infinite sequence.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:21, July 19, 2021 (EDT)
Let's try this: one ninth (1/9) as a decimal is 0.111111... An infinitely long, never-ending string of ones and only ones after the decimal point. Whatever else pi contains numbers-wise, it clearly can't contain an infinite string of only ones after the decimal point, as is blindingly obvious from the first few digits. ConwayIII (talk) 13:30, July 19, 2021 (EDT)
What he said. --AugustO (talk) 13:36, July 19, 2021 (EDT)
Can you find any citation in support of your position? An infinite series can contain as a subset an infinite series, I think.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:18, July 19, 2021 (EDT)
Who needs a citation? The first three digits of pi and 1/9 suffice as irrefutable proof of my position. Nobody is saying you can't make some cool claims about pi. Your (and everyone else's) phone number and birth date are almost certainly in there somewhere, and that is indeed pretty cool, and should enthuse plenty of students. There's no need to try and dress it up as something more remarkable than that by claiming (incorrectly) it contains "every other" number. ConwayIII (talk) 14:40, July 19, 2021 (EDT)
You don't address my point: an infinite series can contain as a subset another infinite series. Your position is not obviously correct and the lack of any citation to support it raises some healthy skepticism. It's possible the answer is not known.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:56, July 19, 2021 (EDT)
  • I applaud our newfound interest in citations! I will get back on this in the future
  • But here, you do not need one: Yes, an infinite series can contain another one as a subset. You could take the number 1234567890/9999999999, and say: "see, if I take only every tenth digit, then 1/9 is contained in it". That does not make 123457890/9999999999 anyhow interesting.
  • That is different from finding your birthday in π: here, you expect consecutive digits, e.g., 042761 occurs at position 214768 of the decimal representation of π

--AugustO (talk) 15:17, July 19, 2021 (EDT)

Great catch about finding my birthday in pi! Note that multiple mathematicians agree with me, and disagree with you (and certainly with your exclamation of "obviously nonsense"), on the StackExchange discussion about this. I've added denial of the breadth and power of infinity (here, the scope of the infinite sequence in pi to include pi itself) to liberal denial.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 15:48, July 19, 2021 (EDT)
With respect, you don't have a point to address. The bare fact that pi contains digits other than one necessarily precludes pi from ever containing an infinite string of nothing but ones. Thanks for the SkipCaptcha, though. ConwayIII (talk) 15:56, July 19, 2021 (EDT)

@Aschlafly: close, but no cigar: The discussions are about whether π could be replicate itself as a consecutive string of numbers from some point in the digital expansion, i.e., whether one special number is contained in π. Your claim states that "every other number" is contained in π Obviously 1/9 and 2/9 cannot be contained as a consecutive string of digits in π at the same time. --AugustO (talk) 17:02, July 19, 2021 (EDT)

Aaargh! Boy, do I ever owe y'all an apology: I clean forgot that I'd switched the math rendering from PNG to MathML (ie SVG, which ought to be more efficient) in my preferences. So it IS a server-side issue, but the dialogue does indeed warn that the feature is 'experimental' - duh! Obviously it's slightly embarrassing that so simple a construction as '\pi' is sufficient to crash the blasted thing, but it's nobody's fault and nobody's problem, at least not here; is it worth my raising it over at MediaWiki, do you think? Oh, and on the subject of 'obviously', for my two-penn'orth I do think a mild apology is due: remember J.R. Partington's anecdote about the very famous mathematician G. H. Hardy, who in a lecture said about some detail in a proof: “This is obvious.” After a pause, he went on: “Hmm, is it really obvious?” After another pause he left the room to consider the point, returning twenty minutes later with the verdict: “Yes, I was right, it is obvious.” The claim about pi wasn't obvious to me: it's only obvious if you immediately think about it in the right way. Which means AugustO is very clever, but civil, too? Not so much. I got there, eventually, by reasoning as follows: the claim implies that for all transcendental numbers P,Q there would exist natural powers of ten N,M such that the fractional parts of PxN and QxM are equal, which cannot be true unless P and Q were equal in the first place. (A specific counter-example would be pi and e.) I say 'eventually' because I tried and failed to make a diagonalization disproof work for as long as it took me to trim my hedge yesterday. The hedge looks great, which proves either that I'm a helluva ditz, or that little is 'obvious' when one is reasoning about infinite sequences. (Although, of course, both can be true.) -J Psircleback (talk) 10:46, July 20, 2021 (EDT)
Sorry, some of my civility may get lost in translation. But:
  • Isn't it obvious that the decimal representation of π contains (at best) a countable number of consecutive infinite subsections, each represented by its starting point? We can give those numbers a fancy name - like piable numbers!
  • As there are more than countable infinite "numbers like π", some (i.e., almost all) of these numbers cannot be piable - which answers the original question.
  • For an example: While it is not obvious whether e,√2, or even π itself are piable, it is obvious that 0.11111.... and 0.22222.... cannot be simultaneously piable.
--AugustO (talk) 12:03, July 20, 2021 (EDT)
Indeed. To put it another way, let's imagine that - at some point, trillions of digits down the line - pi suddenly starts chucking out an infinite series of ones. Memories of basic pen & paper arthimetic should remind us that, in order to do this, the underlying ratio / division would have to start generating identical remainders (and thus identical recurring digits). Those memories should further remind us that it is now impossible for the calculation to generate a different digit. This is immediately and intuitively obvious to all but the very youngest or dimmest of pupils. Once locked in that pattern, you're stuck, and no amount of hand-waving about infinity could possibly justify imagining otherwise. ConwayIII (talk) 14:46, July 20, 2021 (EDT)
I'm unsorry to persever in my impious stubbornness that "not so much" is 'obvious' when reasoning about infinite sequences, because one always has to be cautious, careful, in these realms, these regions, no? Hence my "it's only obvious if you immediately think about it in the right way," which I entirely stand by. Here's why: From that, ex post your very well-chosen examples - for which I entirely commend your mathematical intelligence and insight, good Sirrah - it is (perhaps) "immediately and intuitively obvious to all but the very youngest or dimmest of pupils" that the claim made is true, it does not follow that ex ante such examples, all but the youngest, dimmest pupils will instantly intuit its veracity. But perhaps we can agree to differ on that point? Fine by me; see you around, -J Psircleback (talk) 15:38, July 20, 2021 (EDT)
I suppose we can agree that obvious and trivial can be the most obnoxious terms in mathematics. How did all this start? I had (and have) a problem with the following statement at pi:
"The infinite length of ostensibly random decimal points in π means that it contains the equivalent of every book ever written, every birthday, and every other number."
There is difference between the finite sequences of every book ever written and every birthday on the one hand side, and every other number on the other. Whether this is obviously problematic is in the eye of the beholder.
--AugustO (talk) 17:22, July 20, 2021 (EDT)
Infinity denial prevents many of us from reaching our full potential! Can't an infinite sequence of numbers include both an infinite sequence of 1s and an infinite sequence of 9s?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:19, July 20, 2021 (EDT)
No. No, it can't. Please stop. My most charitable interpretation at this point is that you're getting horribly mixed up between the idea of an infinite set and an infinite sequence. It's perfectly possible to imagine a set with an infinite amount of ones and nines, or even an infinite recurring sequence like 0.19191919..., but you can not have a mathematical sequence generating an infinitely recurring string of ones which then suddenly switches to generating infinite nines, for reasons clearly explained above. Indeed, even allowing such a thing was possible, in the transition from ones to nines, your recurring string of ones would have ceased to be infinite!
If you still don't believe me, then dig out a pen and a lot of paper, and start manually dividing one by nine. Please feel free to keep going for as long as it takes to come to your senses. ConwayIII (talk) 21:40, July 20, 2021 (EDT)
Do you agree that this can be done in the limit? If it can be done in the limit for arbitrarily small epsilons, then it is true. I wonder if your denial might be a type of infinity denial. Do you think that infinite food is impossible?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:04, July 20, 2021 (EDT)
You can knock it off with the infinity hand-waving, thanks. And no amount of higher maths theory is coming to your rescue here. Pen. Paper. One divided by nine. A whole lotta 0.1111111... Get back to me once you discover a plausible mechanism for those identical remainders to start spontaneously generating other digits. ConwayIII (talk) 22:20, July 20, 2021 (EDT)
There is almost no substance to your arguments, and you don't rebut or even answer mine. You cite no references in support of your position. That's fine, but you haven't persuaded.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:24, July 20, 2021 (EDT)

<----I'm citing no references because they are completely unnecessary here, and I'm deliberately ignoring your attempts to derail this discussion. This isn't a courtroom and there is no jury to befuddle with silly talk of well-what-about-working-under-a-limit?!! It is impossible for one divided by nine to ever return a recurring digit other than one. It's impossible because at no point can the underlying ratio ever change. You're always dividing by nine, and you always generate a remainder (and recurring digit) of one:

  • 1 / 9 = 0 r1 (0._____)
  • 10 / 9 = 1 r1 (0.1_____)
  • 10 / 9 = 1 r1 (0.11____)
  • 10 / 9 = 1 r1 (0.111___)

I honestly don't know how to state this more plainly. ConwayIII (talk) 09:49, July 21, 2021 (EDT)

This thread is getting to be like a sore tooth: I can't stop touching it. Whether or not Andy's "you [ConwayIII] don't rebut or even answer mine" is entirely fair, I'm going to have a crack at answering his "Can't an infinite sequence of numbers include both an infinite sequence of 1s and an infinite sequence of 9s?" I'm sure we all agree that an infinite sequence of decimal digits can potentially include both an arbitrarily long sequence of 1s and an arbitrarily long sequence of 9s. Probably we all agree that Pi does, in fact, contain arbitrarily long sequences of all ten decimal digits (although I'd hate to have to prove it). Sticking with the example, this means that for all natural N there exists a natural power of ten M such that the first N digits of the fractional part of MxPi are all 1s. To repeat: that's true for all N. Now, I'd take a breath here because that's already a pretty amazing fact. OK. But Andy's question seems to want to go further, accommodating not just arbitrarily long sequences but infinite sequences. All I have to offer here is an intuition that no single infinite sequence can in the general case contain two (distinct) arbitrarily defined infinite subsequences. If Andy doesn't share that intuition, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Pax, -J Psircleback (talk) 11:08, July 21, 2021 (EDT) PS: If our definition of inclusion/containment was expanded to encompsss taking every Nth digit, say, then that would - to put it mildly - complicate the question somewhat. But I think it's safe to assume that by 'include' Andy had consecutive digit sequences in mind; my 'contain' back there, on the other hand, could perhaps be interpreted more loosely (thereby making the claim stronger).
Take a very long series of "1"s and append them to a very long series of "9"s. Then add infinitely long 1s and 9s to each substring, and you have an infinitely long decimal that contains both. Pi includes that.
The flaw in reasoning otherwise is in limiting what infinity is, and incorrectly denying that an infinite string of numbers somehow cannot include infinite substrings.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:43, July 21, 2021 (EDT)
No. That's not a mathematical sequence. It's just an arbitrary string of numbers you've defined into existence. I can do the same by writing "19" and adding ones and nines to the left and right, respectively:
  • 19
  • 1199
  • 111999
  • 11119999
Let this process continue forever, and hey presto, I've got an infinite string of ones and nines. There's nothing mathematically useful or interesting about it, though. And, no, such a string could not be found in pi for obvious reasons I'm tired of repeating. ConwayIII (talk) 15:25, July 21, 2021 (EDT)
A long string of 1s is 1/9th, and yes the above string is found in pi. If your position were so obviously correct then you should be able to explain why you think some patterns cannot be found anywhere in pi. I don't see anyone agreeing with you about this.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 17:23, July 21, 2021 (EDT)

<----Once more unto the breach...

  1. Pi is a ratio.
  2. Its decimal form is obtained by repeated division.
  3. For the sake of argument, it's logically possible that - at some point - those repeated divisions will stop generating random digits and start generating an infinitely recurring single digit.
  4. In order for 3) to happen, the repeated divisions must start generating identical remainders.
  5. Once that happens, it is impossible for either the remainder or recurring digit to change in any subsequent iteration. (The amount you're dividing by was always the same, and now the remainder has become fixed as well.)
  6. This means pi might ultimately terminate in, say, infinite ones, but then all other infinitely recurring single digit strings are necessarily excluded as possibilities.
  7. The truth of 4) and 5) are simple matters of basic arithmetic, and should be self-evident to anyone who is vaguely numerate and has ever performed a pen & paper division generating an infinitely recurring single digit. 6) follows naturally from 4) and 5).

If you're actually trying to argue in good faith, then I'd appreciate it if you'd stop hand-waving, and make some (any!) serious attempt to address 4) and 5). Thanks. ConwayIII (talk) 19:11, July 21, 2021 (EDT)

I thought everyone here (and elsewhere) agreed that pi includes every possible series of finite numeric sequences. But any limit on such a sequence would be arbitrary. Surely you're not saying, for example, that a string of 2500 "1"s can be found in pi, but not a string of 2501 consecutive "1"s.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:26, July 21, 2021 (EDT)
This discussion is quite clearly about infinitely recurring single digits within pi. Stay on topic, please, and address 4) and 5). ConwayIII (talk) 19:36, July 21, 2021 (EDT)
You don't address my points, but I'll address yours: pi is not a rational number, so it's unhelpful to assume that it is a "ratio" (your premise).--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:22, July 21, 2021 (EDT)
That's quite the gambit, but it doesn't help you any. I'm happy to substitute any wording you like for 1) that accurately captures pi as expressing the relationship between a circle's circumference and diameter. If you don't want to call that a "ratio", then you can call it "Mary Shelley" for all I care.
Assuming, then, that you're OK with pi still having something to do with circles, are you going to attempt to deny 2) as well? If so, I'd be very keen to hear how you think we derive its decimal form. Thank you, at least, though, for starting to engage with the argument. I genuinely appreciate that. ConwayIII (talk) 21:15, July 21, 2021 (EDT)
I don't think your second assumption (2) is correct either, and I don't know what the basis for it as a premise is.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:21, July 21, 2021 (EDT)
Great stuff. How do you propose we derive its decimal form, then? Do you further deny that it can be obtained by dividing a circle's circumference by its diameter? ConwayIII (talk) 21:40, July 21, 2021 (EDT)
Let's not make the mistake of circular reasoning, pun intended. Pi is not calculated by dividing a physical circle by its diameter.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:17, July 21, 2021 (EDT)
Since we hardly need an efficient series, how about we go with that Pi is half the sum for all natural N of the reciprocals of N(N+1)+0.1875? -J Psircleback (talk) 11:05, July 22, 2021 (EDT) PS: 0.1875 is three sixteenths, btw.
Leaving such a lousy series for Pi unaccompanied - even on a talk page - sticks in my craw, so by way of apology I'll assert that the fractional part of Pi is precisely six times the sum for all positive (ie nonzero) even squares V of the reciprocals of V(4V-5)+1. Ain't she beautiful? (Who said God only made the natural numbers, huh?) By way of explanation, or if you'd prefer to contemplate a properly-normalised, natural series (and if you don't object to lambda abstraction - but what aesthete could?), Pi is three more than six times the sum for all natural N of the reciprocals of (\FY.F(YxY)) (\Y.Yx(4xY - 5) + 1) (2x(N+1)). (This is Nilakantha's series with the terms paired-up by cross-multiplication, btw. Took me all morning haha - but I did overindulge slightly at a barbeque last night. So someone else had better test it, I guess.) Best wishes to all, -J Psircleback (talk) 14:50, July 23, 2021 (EDT)

<----Once again, full marks for tactical chutzpah (seriously), but 0/10 for strategic thought. It doesn't matter if there are other methods of calculating pi, or even if those other methods are more commonly used, especially by those crunching pi to extreme numbers of digits. For the purposes of argument, it suffices that pi could be calculated by C / d, and given optimal measurements as input, produces an accurate result for pi to any number of digits. Seeing as 3) is merely restating your very own speculation, would you finally care to get to the heart of the matter, and start addressing 4) and 5)? ConwayIII (talk) 11:25, July 22, 2021 (EDT)

Pi is an irrational number, so it would not help to view it as a division when considering whether pi contains pi.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:31, July 23, 2021 (EDT)
Indeed. Pi is, by definition, the ratio of two geometric objects, but this dispute is about numeric objects - geometric ratios don't have digits in the first place. Furthermore, because Pi is transcendental you can't evade a series of some kind. If no-one thinks much of the two I've offered so far, then as close as you're likely to get to the conceptual (ie geometric) definition is that Pi is the least positive real x for which [Ed: commented out what failed to parse] is zero, based on the power series for cosines (and that the cosine of is zero of course). -J Psircleback (talk) 10:53, July 24, 2021 (EDT)
@Andy: What's your point? The irrationality of certain numbers is literally the failure of maths to fully capture and describe all the real numbers. Any expression of an irrational number is necessarily imperfect, whichever way it's derived. Whether that imperfection is obtained by division, or some other method, is neither here nor there.
We do know, however, that some rational numbers like 1/9 produce infinitely recurring single digit strings. We also know those strings are the result of divisions generating identical remainders, and that once locked in this pattern, it's impossible to escape. We further know, by definition, that such strings are not a feature of irrational numbers.
In short, you lose either way. You can agree with the established proofs of pi's irrationality, in which case ending with an infinite periodic string is forbidden, or you can go to Crazytown and claim pi is rational, in which case we know that, even if it suddenly started churning out, say, infinite ones, those ones could never switch to a different digit. ConwayIII (talk) 18:12, July 24, 2021 (EDT)

That is all very interesting. When I write here at CP, I have a (bright?) high-school pupil or (interested?) layman in mind. I updated the article on pi and created an article on normal numbers with this readership in mind. Perhaps all the clever minds above would like to improve these articles?

I'm often accused of nit-picking, but I think that there are a lot of interesting nits to pick (see 's-Hertogenbosch). So, the concept of normal numbers may have no real-world application, but it is an approachable concept. It could even be interesting.... --AugustO (talk) 17:18, July 24, 2021 (EDT)

Yes, I for one would certainly be very happy to contribute. But, in order to do that, it would surely help if I first understand why the markup <math>\frac{\pi}{2}</math> yields , but the frighteningly similar <math>\frac{2}{\pi}</math>, which works just fine in the MediaWiki sandbox, viz: [[20]], results in Failed to parse (Missing <code>texvc</code> executable. Please see math/README to configure.):
which was driving me mad until I read the bit of the documentation (eg at [[21]]) that says the PNG renderer caches bits of math markup that have already been generated. So I think it's not my fault. For once. -J Psircleback (talk) 13:14, July 25, 2021 (EDT)

Infobox Image for Sasha Obama

Are there any fair use images on the internet? --Yeschayi (talk) 18:08, July 18, 2021 (EDT)

I dunno; unlike Malia, she didn't show up on Hunter Biden's laptop. Try Wikicommons.
BTW, I did find misinformation about Malia on Hunter's Biden's laptop. Malia was born in 1998, so according to the metadata on the laptop, she was 19 and 11 months, not one-month underage, as alleged. So Hunter is exonerated of pedophilia, in that regard. Not so much in the case of his 14-year-old niece, and others. RobSFree Kyle! 18:27, July 18, 2021 (EDT)
Is this fair use --Yeschayi (talk) 19:18, July 18, 2021 (EDT)
I think so. Can't we find anything more recent, rather than this Obama-era propaganda pic? RobSFree Kyle! 19:45, July 18, 2021 (EDT)
In my personal opinion, the Obama era was a nightmare for our readers, and our readers may get offended by recycling Obama-era propaganda, passing off the Obama klan a normal American family. RobSFree Kyle! 19:48, July 18, 2021 (EDT)

Well well well...

Warning: DFTT

Hi Andy, RobSmith has told me that he isn't even going to bother deleting the log details on Special:RecentChanges that contain racial slurs. Seeing that I have nearly 20,000 edits to Conservapedia, I ask for sysop powers to maintain these responsibilities RobSmith is abdicating. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Monday, 21:57, July 18, 2021 (EDT)

Larry Sanger (Tucker Carlson Tonight, Thursday July 22nd)

Hi Andy, did you see Larry Sanger interviewed on Fox last night? What did you think? Would you like to see Conservapedia included in the kind of 'omnipedia' Sanger seems to be envisaging? Best wishes, -J Psircleback (talk) 02:04, July 23, 2021 (EDT)