User talk:Mr. Nationalist

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome!
Welcome sign.jpg

Hello, Mr. Nationalist, and welcome to Conservapedia!

I am a contributor named DavidB4. I just want to say hello and offer any assistance you might need! Also, we have some guides which might help you get started and learn your way around if you need them.

Useful links

Please take a look at our rules when you get the chance. You also might want to look at the Guidelines of editing and collaborating here.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me! Also we have a community portal where you can ask general questions, introduce yourself, or just comment. If you do post messages, please sign them by placing "~~~~" at the end of each one.
Thanks for joining our community, Mr. Nationalist! We look forward to working with you!
--DavidB4 (TALK) 14:38, 23 July 2020 (EDT)


Thank you for all your edits so far!

Hi Mr. Nationalist, I saw some of your edits, and I appreciate your contributions to the Conservapedia mainspace! I want to note that while it's good to use more politically incorrect terms such as "pro-abortion" rather than "pro-choice" (as you have done), "pro-choice" may be better suited in certain contexts. Sorry to revert your edit here; as for Neil Gorsuch, I would think that "pro-choice" would sound better for now as compared to "pro-abortion", as I believe he did make some more pro-life rulings while on the Court; please correct me if you're right and I'm wrong. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Wednesday, 13:38, 5 August 2020 (EDT)

Oh. So does that mean there is a difference between being pro-abortion and pro-choice? I thought both were technically the same thing, with pro-choice being the term abortionists and feminists use to describe their beliefs. -Mr. Nationalist (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2020 (EDT)

Okay, I see your point. I felt "pro-choice" was a better choice of words for that specific context, largely because the term might sometimes be associated with a lower degree of supporting abortion than "pro-abortion". For instance, some left-leaning moderates may support abortion only in the first trimester but oppose any afterwards. In that type of a situation, using "pro-choice" might sound more accurate than "pro-abortion" because most people that are "pro-abortion" are much more supportive of it than opposed. And since Gorsuch arguably hasn't held a mostly pro-abortion tenure so far, I thought that it would've been better to stick with "pro-choice". Maybe you can put quotation marks around the term in the page, since it is a misnomer anyways. Does that sound like a good idea to you? —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Wednesday, 14:07, 5 August 2020 (EDT)
While it's true that "pro-choice" means the same as pro-abortion, I would think that it's better to use the terms in such a way that differentiates the degree of supporting abortion. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Wednesday, 14:10, 5 August 2020 (EDT)

Ah. Thank you. That does sound like a good idea to me. -Mr. Nationalist (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2020 (EDT)

Okay, awesome! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Wednesday, 14:19, 5 August 2020 (EDT)

Utilizing {{reflist}}, etc.

Hi Mr. Nationalist, thank you for all your edits to improve/add on to quite a few CP pages so far! I just want to note, looking at your edit here followed by your reverting here, I believe you were trying to put the source that was under a <ref></ref> in a "References" section but didn't manage to do so (correct me if I'm wrong). If that's what you were attempting to do, it's important to always put either <references/>, {{reflist}}, or {{reflist|2}} right under the "References" section. Thank you!
LiberaltearsMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Friday, 22:30, 17 September 2020 (EDT)

Thank you! I noticed one source was under the external links section, so I thought adding a references section would fix it. However, it failed, so I decided to revert it and come back to it later when I had time. -Mr. Nationalist (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2020 (EDT)

I'm more than happy to help whenever I can!
LiberaltearsMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Friday, 22:50, 17 September 2020 (EDT)

Troll IP

Read this: User:United States/Troll IP. If trolls cause me to get autoblocked, I will meet you in Wikipedia. Thanks! --United States (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2020 (EST)

Federal Reserve

Please keep your Jewish bankers' conspiracy theories to yourself, next time. Thanks. [1] RobSFree Kyle! 08:40, 1 May 2021 (EDT)

That was not a Jewish bankers' conspiracy. Dice simply discussed the corrupt origins of the Federal Reserve and did not even mention the Jews. There is nothing wrong with saying that elitists control it. That is entirely different from a conspiracy theory. -Mr. Nationalist (talk) 17:31, June 2, 2021 (EDT)

Oh, so now you've openly gone over to Hamas? RobSFree Kyle! 19:06, June 2, 2021 (EDT)

No, but I've become less pro-Israel over time as I have become more isolationist. I mean I favor them over Palestine, but we have given them billions and funded their defense when they openly sell our tech to China, our #1 enemy. Also, I learned that Zionism is sort of a neocon talking point, and saying I support Israel could imply I want a more interventionist foreign policy in favor of them. Pat Buchanan holds those very same sentiments, (in fact he is arguably harsher) and we would not say he likes Hamas, right? Plus Israel can take out Hamas on their own easily without our help or anybody's help. That is why I removed that userbox today. But this itself has nothing to do with that. Dice's video on the Federal Reserve was interesting and educational, so I included it. I assure you, I have no Anti-Semitic intentions. -Mr. Nationalist (talk) 19:27, June 2, 2021 (EDT)

So why do you pose as one? RobSFree Kyle! 20:02, June 2, 2021 (EDT)

I don't. Again, not all criticisms of the Federal Reserve and its origins are Anti-Semitic. If I have done something that made you think I were trying to pose as one, I again assure you that it was not and I apologize. -Mr. Nationalist (talk) 20:06, June 2, 2021 (EDT)

If supporting Zionism is a neoconservative trait/talking point, then why was it Trump who finally moved the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and not someone like Bush, who made that a campaign promise in 2000? [2][3][4] There's also McCain acolyte/Lincoln Project co-founder Steve Schmidt having bashed Trump for moving the embassy, plus Bill Kristol being silent as as Israel's attacked with rockets. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Thursday, 20:56, June 2, 2021 (EDT)

True, but I'm talking in terms of things like foreign aid, intervention, etc. I myself am not a "free Palestine" person, I think they are terrible and I do not really hold anything against Israel and believe they have a right to self-defense, but generally, Zionism is regarded as less of a paleoconservative belief and more of a neoconservative one. I could see the Republican establishment spitting on Israel when they defend themselves against Palestine, but people like Dan Crenshaw and Nikki Haley (both neocons) have fought for Israel and want increased funding to Israel. Also, in regards to Trump moving the embassy to Jersusalem, it should be noted Jared Kushner had a lot to do with it and the aforementioned Nikki Haley strongly backed it while UN ambassador, so it could go both ways there. I personally believe that Jersusalem should be Israel's capital, though it's not really a high priority for me as a conservative. So yes, emphasization of Zionism is a neoconservative trait, and I personally think that is why the GOP establishment has been going crazy over the Israel-Hamas fight when we had the gas shortage a few weeks ago, which was a much more important priority to our country than that. I just find Zionism inconsistent with an "America First" foreign policy approach, which is why I am against it. -Mr. Nationalist (talk) 21:24, June 2, 2021 (EDT)

So neocons are Nazis. Okay, got it. RobSFree Kyle! 08:26, June 4, 2021 (EDT)
As to Nixon, so MSM and liberals determine what corruption is, huh? RobSFree Kyle! 08:28, June 4, 2021 (EDT)
As to the Illuminati, only conservatives believe in conspiracy theories, huh? RobSFree Kyle! 08:29, June 4, 2021 (EDT)

1. No, neocons are not Nazis. I did not say that. One is a group of former Old Left intellectuals and another is a group of white supremacists who have very bigoted goals.

2. No, they do not. Nonetheless, because he decided to cover up the small scandal of Watergate that he did not know about, he unfortunately is corrupt because of that, simply because it constituted an impeachment offense and was a scandal. The break-in was the least important part of the scandal and this was more about a battle between the president and the press, but his small mistake technically ruined it all, though Watergate is definitely only a small stain on Nixon's legacy.

3. I put that because liberals apparently do not believe the Illunimati caused the French Revolution. It is an example of liberal denialism and it is pretty clear to me that the Illuminati caused the Revolution, but since liberals love to sweep that one under the rug I felt forced to say that.

-Mr. Nationalist (talk) 18:29, June 4, 2021 (EDT)

Special invite

I started a Discord server for Conservapedia; if you're interested in joining, here's the invite. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Sunday, 21:04, July 10, 2021 (EDT)