Talk:Main Page/Archive index/175

The Washington Post is getting antsy about the Mueller report: "William Barr Should Release the Full Mueller Report As Soon As Possible." Hey, what's the rush? The media was only too happy to wait three years for Obama to release his long-form birth certificate. The report can be redacted to conform to DOJ regulations and released in due course. PeterKa (talk) 07:33, 30 March 2019 (EDT)

Obama never released his long-form birth certificate document. No document expert ever examined the so-called document either. There were some things posted on the internet by the Barack "you can keep your doctor and health care plan" Obama camp, but what was posted was disputed (see: New Problems Surface on Obama's Fake Birth Certificate! and Mike Zullo Connects Former Intelligence Officials to Obama Birth Certificate, Phony Narrative).

Given what was posted on the internet and Obama's track record of telling falsehoods and engaging in nefarious behavior, it would be foolish to believe what was posted on the internet was a copy of Obama's long-form birth certificate.

On top of this, the mainstream press certainly cannot be trusted to cover the Obama birth certificate matter. The mainstream press totally botched their coverage of the 2016 presidential election and then subsequently pushed a tin foil hat conspiracy theory of Trump-Russia collusion for 2 years at full throttle. Conservative (talk) 09:34, 30 March 2019 (EDT)

Given what happened in 2016 and subsequently, I am going to avoid reading the mainstream press as much as possible. And I know many people are now rightfully avoiding reading the mainstream press. Here is an interesting article: As Trust in Online Media Drops, Email Newsletters Drive Engagement.Conservative (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2019 (EDT)

Releasing the report goes against Departmental policy - this is after all what got Comey fired. They're not supposed to add to the innuendo about a person who has been cleared in an investigation. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 16:41, 31 March 2019 (EDT)

But Trump didn't release his tax returns, so he owes us some information. Trump isn't cool like Obama, so his behavior needs to be scrutinized by providing us this information one! last! time!, or it proves...that he's afraid. And liberals would totally not cherry-pick the information to use out-of-context chunks to harass Trump with, because they are sorry when this happened with other investigations in the recent past and will respect the special prosecutor this time. Really really sorry! This time it's different! Who's going to pay the consequences if it does happen? Because you can't sue members of the government when they're carrying out their tasks? Don't look at me! Wow, look at the time! Sorry, gotta go! VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 16:45, 2 April 2019 (EDT)

Watch my man di Genova clothesline, bodyslam, and bulldog a commie lib millennial Democrat punk journalist. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 14:28, 20 April 2019 (EDT)

If you go by the polls, Biden is the Democratic frontrunner and Bernie is his only serious competition. It's all a bit unreal in that both men are clearly too old to take on an eight-year job. The media wants a woman or a minority, preferable both. Now Biden has been metooed. See "The Knives are out for Biden" and "Joe Biden Is Done." Given all the videos out there of Biden feeling up various women, the amazing thing is that the media has treated him respectfully up to now. PeterKa (talk) 10:32, 31 March 2019 (EDT)

It was WaPo that gave him the nickname Creepy Uncle Joe. That would be hard to walk back. And there was a book published about female Secret Service Agents who were afraid to report his abuse because they would be demoted. In the Flores incident, his behavior is on a par with Al Franken, maybe even more innocuous. But I'm sure there is a steady stream of accusers lined up if he persists. The business I heard about this morning of an Amendment to curtail Roe vs. Wade is new, and needs to be pursued and slapped in his article. On the face of it, this appears to accrue to Beto, Klobuchar, and possibly Harris's benefit. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 16:35, 31 March 2019 (EDT)

Once we can put a fork in Biden, remember, the ticket likely will contain two of the remainders. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 16:36, 31 March 2019 (EDT)

Current polling is a function of name recognition, not popularity or support. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 16:38, 31 March 2019 (EDT)

Given the Russia/Trump collusion madness of leftists/liberals, the various anti-Trump rallies/disparagements of liberals/leftist and the various loony proposals that Democrats don't even take seriously like the Green New Deal (where the Democrats in the Senate merely voted present), there is a certain logic indicating that the next Democratic presidential candidate will be primarily anti-Trump and not a policy wonk. It is similar to just as there is Jesus Christ, there is an anti-Christ. Following this logic, the candidate will be a non-white woman who is fairly on the left, but not so far out to the left that the candidate still have a chance of defeating Trump (in the estimation of Democrats). Therefore, the obnoxious Kamala Harris is the frontrunner in terms of being "the one".

I know the above sounds a bit crazy, but Trump derangement syndrome is far more virulent than Bush derangement syndrome.Conservative (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2019 (EDT)

Biden may choose to not to run because he knows that he will face a gauntlet of legitimate sexual harassment allegations. And I wouldn't put it past some rival Democrats of manufacturing some sexual harassment allegations either duplicitously or due to being unreasonable people. Biden has been in politics long enough to know that he will not escape these sexual harassment allegations.

And with California moving up its primary date, this further cements that Kamala Harris is the candidate to most likely win the Democrat primary contest for the presidency.Conservative (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2019 (EDT)

If Kamala Harris runs, she will drone on and on about being "deeply concerned" and "deeply troubled" about Donald Trump's racial views, despite minority unemployment being at record lows under Trump due to his pro-growth economic policies. If Harris wins, she will be a one term president due to her lackluster economic policies among other things (And her economic policies could hurt minorities the most). In addition, since she is a far less likeable person than Obama, she could rev up white identity politics with her racial/gender grievance politics.Conservative (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2019 (EDT)

Democrats, given how much you have embraced me-too politics, I know it must so hard to have your front runner be creepy Joe Biden. I feel so sorry you. My deepest condolences.

By the way, 2020 is going to be a Trumpslide if the economy stays good.Conservative (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2019 (EDT)

The nomination is in Joe Biden's hands....Oh wait, is that really the best way put it? PeterKa (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2019 (EDT)

Biden's troubles might suggest that this is Sanders' time to shine. Sanders already leads in terms of crowd sizes and fundraising. Yet the media is focused on Beto and Warren, who I would consider to be long shots. It's a weird news blackout that allows even South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg to get more media attention than Bernie. Do reporters just assume that the system is rigged and that Bernie will of course get shafted again?[2] PeterKa (talk) 08:09, 3 April 2019 (EDT)

P.S. A Christian conservative age is rising

Christianity, Nationalism, Populism, and Traditionalism are the wave of the future. Let's go surfing now, everybody's learning how, come on a Christian, conservative, surfing safari with me! Conservative (talk) 06:14, 2 April 2019 (EDT)

I guess some feel we're due for another Beach Boys revival. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 23:21, 2 April 2019 (EDT)

Brexit and the 2016 US presidential election: "And coming off the line when the light turns green, well she blows them out of the water like you never seen. I get pushed out of shape and it's hard to steer, when I get rubber in all four gears. She's my little deuce coupe. You don't know what I got." :)Conservative (talk) 11:53, 3 April 2019 (EDT)

Here's something sad; surf-rocker Dick Dale died on March 16. I bought a copy of "Miserlou" a few years back but didn't know much about his career. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 00:16, 5 April 2019 (EDT)

If you remember, Rod Rosenstein rose to the position of Deputy Attorney General and was effectively the Attorney General for matters having to do with Robert S. Mueller's investigation because someone had illegal access to FISA surveillance reports and bluffed Attorney General Jeff Sessions into clumsily dodging a question about Trump, thinking the reports could only have come from lawfully subpoenaed documents as part of a criminal investigation.

So Sessions was forced to recuse himself from the investigation supposedly of whether Russian collusion had occurred (collusion which would never have been a violation of the law regardless) but was really a fishing expedition using the same strategy they used against Jeff Sessions and Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn as well.

Rosenstein took over, and Trump never said a bad word against him. Trump asked Rosenstein to ask Congress's relevant committees to ask the FISA court for highly classified reports on the activities of the members of the Deep State that he had dismissed. Rosenstein and the committees balked and Rob S. thinks that this was the high water mark for the Deep State.

But Rosenstein was too personally involved in Trump's rapport with the Deep State, from both sides, to ever escape unscathed. Rosenstein tried to leap back to the Deep State according to U.S. Attorney Joe diGenova who had worked in Washington DC for a long time:

So let's look at what Mueller concludes: no evidence of collusion. If that's the case, what evidence did Rod Rosenstein have when he appointed Bob Mueller? The answer: the firing of James Comey. Who recommended the firing of James Comey? Rod Rosenstein.

Listen, when the history of this is written, there will be one person who will come away from history with the most sullied reputation of anyone: Rod Rosenstein, a duplicitous, conniving, sniveling, subversive SOB.

Update: Mueller Report says Rosenstein didn't try to persuade Trump to fire Comey

While it's true that Rosenstein briefly considered helping to get members of Trump's cabinet to convene to consider Trump's removal (and Trump must have become aware of this when it was reported), the Mueller Report contradicts what Joe DiGenova said about him above.

The report stated that Trump had decided to fire Comey because Comey had told Trump that he wouldn't say publicly that he was not investigating Trump, even though Comey had told Trump privately that he wasn't on three different occasions. This was before it was revealed that the FBI was monitoring Trump on the pretext of monitoring someone else in Trump's purview within the Executive Branch, the authorization of which was based on faked FISA court data.

The report goes on to say that Trump went to Rosenstein and others to ask their advice in carrying out what he had decided to do (firing Comey), not to say that he was undecided. Rosenstein had said he thought it would be best if when the dismissal was announced, the White House should make a point of mentioning Comey's imposing himself in making decisions about reopening Hillary's case (and determining her guilt or innocence) with regard to her mishandling State Department emails—and his timing in doing it at the last stage of the election.

So, apparently even RobS's good friend diGenova isn't perfect, and diGenova may have to retract one or two of his adjectives. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 22:10, 12 May 2019 (EDT)

Rosenstein is allegedly helping Trump's new Attorney General Bill Barr to write a report from Trump for a change of pace from all the other reports about Trump. But what would prevent Rosenstein from leaking the contents of the report ahead of time and win the protection of Democrats to keep himself employed? Probably the fact that everyone would know that he had done it. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 07:28, 2 April 2019 (EDT)

Rosenstein original plan was to replace Comey with Mueller as FBI director. Rosenstein's wife is a Clinton lawyer and Hillary never forgave Comey for "shiving" her. Mueller as FBI director would have allowed Rosenstien to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest. Mueller interviewed for the job, but Trump rejected the idea of hiring him. So Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel.
What did McCabe have on Sessions that forced him to recuse? Previous recusals were limited to some specific matter presently before the courts. The very broad recusal Sessions issued was quite irregular. PeterKa (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2019 (EDT)

There are two theories being floated now about Rosenstein. While there is almost universal agreement Rosenstein's primary concern was protecting the integrity of the institution from exposure to the damage the Obama DOJ operatives did it, one theory states Rosenstein appointed Mueller in order to take the investigation away from the corrupt and partisan Acting FBI director, Andrew McCabe. The other theory states Rosenstein was part of the coup, evidenced by the timing of his indictment of 12 Russian ham sandwiches, who will never stand trial, in order to embarrass Trump during the June 2018 Helsinki Summit with Putin. Whatever the final narrative, we can only discover it through court proceedings in the dispute between McCabe and Rosenstein over "wearing a wire," or by a new Special Counsel.

As to Democrats' demand for the full report, that would entail Trump declassifying the original Five Eyes communication John Brennan claimed to have, which supposedly sparked the probable cause for Peter Strzok to begin a counterintelligence investigation. That will expose the entire investigation as being illegal from the git-go. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 14:26, 2 April 2019 (EDT)

As to William Barr, before anyone gets excited about getting to the truth of the matter, one should read this section of the Iran/Contra article in it's entire context (meaning some of the earlier subsections as well). I stand by the sourcing, and this was written prior to the 2016 election. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 14:53, 2 April 2019 (EDT)

Barr was part of Bush Sr's inner circle going back to his days at the CIA. Bush Sr. supposedly voted for Hillary in 2016.[3] Yet Barr just handed Trump a big win. The Bush dynasty's relationship to the Clintons and the Trumps is apparently a complex one. The media tries to make it sound like the Bushes just couldn't stand Trump's crudeness. But W.'s friendship with Bill predates Trump's election. He kept Clinton favorite George Tenet as head of the CIA. This decision is hard to explain in terms of Tenet's competence.
After Michael Cohen's office was raided, Trump had a lot of trouble finding an attorney willing to represent him. As long as McCain was alive, Lindsay Graham refused to consider a new attorney general. So Trump was stuck with Sessions. It seems to me that this dilemma could have been resolved by recusing Rosenstein. Rosenstein was obviously conflicted, as least with respect to the issue of investigating Comey's firing. If you have ever seen Rosenstein testify, he is quite a mousy guy. I don't see him saying "no" if the boss insists. I suspect the constitutional crisis of the last two years is all about Rosenstein not being able to stand up to his wife. PeterKa (talk) 10:36, 3 April 2019 (EDT)

It's the Deep State and Uniparty covering up for their own. I don't think Barr will appoint another Special Counsel to investigate Hillary, the DNC, Clinton Foundation, Obama etc cause the Clinton's got enough poop on Barr in the Mena/Contra scandal and Barr's involvement with Southern Air Transport. The best we can hope for is Barr willing to take up criminal referrals of Brennan, Susan Rice, Sally Yates, etc. Something has to be done Legislation is needed, too, to insure that the Patriot Act and FISA are not used against political opponents again. This will require bipartisanship. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 19:19, 3 April 2019 (EDT)

We need to have a serious discussion about Venezuela.

Right now, the situation is getting increasingly dangerous. Both Russia and China have deployed troops to the country, which means that any military intervention by the US runs the risk of sparking a Third World War. [4][5]

Now, keep in mind that President Trump actually has a strong case for military intervention, considering that what Russia and China are doing blatantly violates the Monroe Doctrine. But on the other hand, the US itself has been violating the Monroe Doctrine non-stop since 1945 with its strong military presence in the Eastern Hemisphere. No wonder Trump is getting very little sympathy from the "strict non-interventionist" crowd on the right.[6]

Knowing Putin, I don't believe he'll back down on Venezuela unless President Trump makes major concessions in the Eastern Hemisphere, particularly Syria. After all, he seems determined to enforce his own version of the Monroe Doctrine (actually, I would call it a "Putin Corollary" to the Monroe Doctrine).[7]

In light of this situation, what course of action should be done? Military intervention shouldn't be on the table, but "Peace Through Strength" and "Give x number of concessions" absolutely should be. --Geopolitician (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2019 (EDT)

Technically, the Monroe Doctrine only said no more colonization of the Americas by Europeans. It never said anything about whether we'd intervene in other countries, so I'm not sure those conflicts since 1945 are truly violations of the Monroe Doctrine.

Besides, look what happened in the 1930s when we adhered to strict non-interventionalism. That just was a disaster for us and for our allies with the Great Depression and all of that. We even bankrupted other nations by trying to take back loans only for us to be bankrupt as well. Pokeria1 (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2019 (EDT)

I think the Trump Administration is applying the Roosevelt Corollary, a later modification of the Monroe Doctrine. I'm not sure the taking back of loans during the Great Depression is a good example of non-interventionism -- one could say it was an act of interventionism to get involved in the business of giving out overseas loans (after WWI, I think) in the first place. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:10, 4 April 2019 (EDT)

Vox Day wrote: "As I observed last year, Syria was a major turning point and will likely mark the end of the global US empire. The fall of Libya and the near-expansion of NATO to Ukraine and Georgia forced the Russians and the Chinese to realize that the time for resistance had finally arrived, and their strategists recognized that the US military is too weak and overextended to be capable of enforcing the Monroe Doctrine. Since the US is almost certain to back down on Venezuela, where its chosen puppet has absolutely no popular support, it is safe to expect US retreats on other fronts as China and Russia start putting on the pressure elsewhere in South and Central America. Remember, China already controls the Panama Canal and has considerable influence on the west coast of Canada."[8]

The USA is overextended and has a massive national debt. "Despite recently closing hundreds of bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States still maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad—from giant “Little Americas” to small radar facilities. Britain, France and Russia, by contrast, have about 30 foreign bases combined."[9]

The size of the national debt and the size of the US military budget point to the USA being overextended.

"My research in Venezuela suggests otherwise. All credible polling in Venezuela says that most Venezuelans desperately want Maduro out. But that does not necessarily mean they are open to desperate measures. In November 2018, I worked with Datanálisis, one of Venezuela’s most respected polling companies, to add several questions about military intervention and potential negotiations to its nationwide tracking poll. When asked whether they would support “a foreign military intervention to remove President Maduro from his position,” only 35 percent said yes – hardly the warm welcome predicted by advocates. More than half – 54 percent – would reject such an operation. What Venezuelans want: Most Venezuelans blame their authoritarian president, Nicolás Maduro, for the country's humanitarian crisis and would like to see him removed from office. But a clear majority would reject a foreign military operation to oust him. The most popular way to restore democracy in Venezuela would be a negotiated settlement to depose Maduro."[10]

I have no idea how much popular support Maduro's main opposition has (referred to above by Vox Day as Washington's puppet).

One thing I do know. Before America gets involved with overthrowing corrupt governments, Hillary Clinton and Comey needs to be behind bars.Conservative (talk) 09:34, 5 April 2019 (EDT)

My personal objection to the idea of removing military bases is that it would lead directly to the kind of situation of the Great Depression, where we went total isolationist in an attempt to save what little funds we had left from the Stock Market Crash, and even took back several loans and left several allies to flounder, which ultimately resulted in Nazi Germany getting power, not to mention the Communists making inroads. Heck, cutting military funding was even what led to 9/11 and various other terror attacks such as the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, cuts made by Clinton in favor of welfare programs. I agree we should reduce the bloated government budget, and I also agree that Hillary Clinton and Comey need to be behind bars (heck, the Obamas as well, since they've done enough crimes that Clinton comes across as clean by comparison, and that isn't easy to say since she's quite the crook), but gutting the military is NOT the answer. And let me ask you this: Is it even worth gutting the military, calling for a retreat, not even sending arms to people, if it results in our neighbors and allies going communist, like in Vietnam when we did EXACTLY what you are proposing by gutting the military? And BTW, democracy is PRECISELY the reason Venezuela is in this mess in the first place, in fact, democracy should NEVER be sought after. Want to know what the true face of democracy is? Guillotines, gulags, and mob violence. That's what its true face is, ever since the French Revolution revived democracy since the days of Athens. Pokeria1 (talk) 10:36, 5 April 2019 (EDT)

Many governments need to pay the USA to have its troops so costs are covered. Trump is beginning to do that, but my guess is only part of the costs are being covered. Bottom line, the USA has to tackle its debt. After WWII, the USA started paying back its debt. Realistically, government programs need to be cut now and then once the elderly baby boomers go through the system, then the debt has to be cut back. In addition, the baby boomers should work as long as they can before they collect social security. The current system will probably see another Great Depression within 15 years. That would be extremely bad not only the USA, but for the world as a whole as well since the USA is such a big portion of the global economic system. Furthermore, one of the causes of WWII was poor economic conditions in Germany. Bad economic conditions can lead to war and violent/destruction revolutions. The French historian Fernand Braudel rightly pointed out that revolutions rarely achieve their aims and are usually destructive in nature.Conservative (talk) 12:20, 5 April 2019 (EDT)

I thought about the 2020 election more. Bernie Sanders will become the current frontrunner of the Democratic Party.

I think there will be a continual drip, drip, drip of women's accusations that Joe Biden will face and I don't think he will be able to turn things around. The MSM will be a mixed bag of defending Biden and slamming him.

BERNIE SANDERS IS BEATING KAMALA HARRIS 2-1 AMONG BLACK DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY VOTERS, NEW POLL FINDS.[11]

Sanders Tops Democratic Fundraising As O'Rourke, Harris And Buttigieg Draw Big Sums.[12]

I think the most likely scenario is Trump vs. Sanders in 2020.Conservative (talk) 01:05, 4 April 2019 (EDT)

Political odds websites now pick Sanders as the frontrunner.[13][14]Conservative (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2019 (EDT)

If you think of McGovern in 1972, Dukakis in 1984, and Kerry in 2004, nominating Sanders would fit a historic pattern: Oppose a Republican running for re-election with a leftist whose appeal is limited to white liberals. Of the major Dems in the race, recent polls suggest that Sanders gives Trump the least to worry about.[15]
The McGovern/Sanders parallel seems especially close. Even Hillary motivated blacks to vote more than Sanders does. Although he has had a long life with little in the way of outstanding accomplishments, Bernie's supporters don't see him as the best of a mediocre lot. He gets huge crowds and enthusiastic rallies. He's one of them and they are applauding themselves. PeterKa (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2019 (EDT)

Klobachar and Harris cannot be counted out. Klobuchar is hard to find concrete dirt on, and Harris has the fundraising power. Klobuchar would be harder to beat if she plays her cards right. Once a death blow is dealt to Sanders, and it likely will, Harris will become the beneficiary. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 23:10, 4 April 2019 (EDT)

Bernie's supporters got a little off-message when they found out that he was being out-polled by Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren—it was shown in a social media outreach worker's attempt at a new slogan: "women are objects—i don't respect them #Bernie2020". I don't know how they got so carried away as to attach themselves to such a wrong idea, but almost needless to say, after listening to the reaction of the very first female Twitter user that discovered it through its hashtag and immediately demanded a full retraction, they decided the slogan was...too disadvantageous relative to the benefits that might be expected from its propagation and was just as immediately scrapped. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 01:12, 5 April 2019 (EDT)

Clearer heads would note this doesn't help Trump with female voters, given he has far more women accusing him of significantly worse behaviour. But it's your MPR, so go nuts. JohnZ (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2019 (EDT)

During the primaries, the New York Times assigned two reporters to investigate Trump's sexual indiscretions. They came up with nothing.[16]
If you are talking about the group of women who accused Trump of various things just before the 2016 election, they were of course paid off by Hillary donors. We never heard from them again after the election. The famous "And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything" quote is not actually a confession to anything. When Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose any votes, that wasn't a confession to murder.
What are we left with? That Trump is guilty of using the "P" word? Don't forget that Bill Clinton was worse as a sexual predator than Trump and Biden combined. PeterKa (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2019 (EDT)

23 and counting. JohnZ (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2019 (EDT)

See "Exclusive: Prominent lawyer sought donor cash for two Trump accusers" and "Scheme To Pay Off Trump Accusers Emerges, One Woman Was Offered $750,000." That took me a whole five seconds to find. PeterKa (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2019 (EDT)

Aye. Shame you didn't read them first, though. JohnZ (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2019 (EDT)

There was no one accusing Trump of sexual harassment before Lisa Bloom started handing out money. Afterwards, there was a dozen. Here is a text message Bloom sent to one accuser: “My best estimate of what I could get for you would be $10-15,000 (less our 1/3 attorney fee)." PeterKa (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2019 (EDT)

Most sane people point to the Access Hollywood tape as the catalyst for the sudden slew of allegations. JohnZ (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2019 (EDT)

What, do you think things just happened like that? The leaked DNC emails shows media personalities tripping over themselves to please the Hillary campaign. The Access Hollywood tape and the payments to accusers were both part of an "October surprise" strategy. This sleazy strategy has a history of its own that goes back to Johnson's fake Vietnam peace breakthrough in 1968. PeterKa (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2019 (EDT)

John Z, Donald Trump hasn't been accused of inappropriately touching children. In the estimation of many people, there are videos/pictures of Joe Biden inappropriately touching children.

Are you familiar with poker? Some hands are stronger than others. Given the videos/pictures, the fact that we live in an internet and social media age and that Biden inappropriately touched women and children in the estimation of many, Biden's opponents have a straight flush and they are working on a royal flush. In an internet and social media age, Al Franken was politically doomed once that picture of him with his hands over a sleeping woman's breast was made public.

And the drip, drip, drip of more accusations of inappropriate touching is likely to occur for Biden.

JohnZ, once your protestation appeared, it was clear Conservapedia was right over the target. Planes that are over the target receive flak. And it is the dog that got hit by the stone that yelps the loudest. You are a secular leftist and you think Biden has the best chance of beating Trump. And there is much antipathy toward Donald Trump from secular leftists. See also: Donald Trump and American atheists (I realize you are from the UK). Conservative (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2019 (EDT)

Abandon all hope that Biden will survive his almost perfect storm of the Me Too Movement. Bernie Sanders is now the Democratic primary front runner.Conservative (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2019 (EDT)

Memes very much helped Donald Trump win the presidency. And THIS MEME is the Tsar Bomba of memes released against Joe Biden with the help of Donald Trump.Conservative (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2019 (EDT)

I actually think Biden's too old, and that Kamala Harris probably has the best chance of reuniting the Obama voting coalition. But feel free to keep playing psychic. JohnZ (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2019 (EDT)

JohnZ, In his "fourth bleat" against Bible critics, C.S. Lewis warned about the inability of critics to determine the various motivations of why someone wrote a text.[17]

I should have taken Lewis' advice.

I would point out there have been multiple editors of the User: Conservative account, and I do find the critics' armchair psychological analysis of User: Conservative account rather humorous. That there are multiple editors is obvious. For example, a member of an atheist/agnostic wiki noted the footnoting style difference of the Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals compared with other articles created under the User: Conservative account. It must be so frustrating to try the rebut the factually correct and well cited atheism articles at Conservapedia created using the User: Conservative account the without being able to resort to personal attacks. Conservative (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2019 (EDT)

(Sam's objections

JohnZ, In his "fourth bleat" against Bible critics, C.S. Lewis warned about the inability of critics to determine the various motivations of why someone wrote a text.[18]

I should have taken Lewis' advice.

I would point out there have been multiple editors of the User: Conservative account

Rubbish!!!! You've been trying to perpetrate this silly fantasy for years, perhaps as part of your "I'm a mysterious person, just like my hero Sun Tzu, and I sometimes write stuff in gibberish alphabets in pursuit of same" fantasy. No one believes it; for years no one has believed it. You really ought to stop that, and start behaving like a normal adult.

and I do find the critics' armchair psychological analysis of User: Conservative account rather humorous.

Yes, as one of those people, I can assure you that I find my armchair psychological analysis occasionally amusing, albeit sad. You could be doing good things in the world.

That there are multiple editors is obvious.

No it isn't. Not in the least.

For example, a member of an atheist/agnostic wiki noted the footnoting style difference of the Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals compared with other articles created under the User: Conservative account.

If memory serves, it was you, not the folks at RationalWiki, that have been pushing the "I use inconsistent footnoting styles, therefore I must be multiple people" nonsense. There is no reason for anyone other than you to push that fantasy. It's easy to use inconsistent footnoting styles; I (accidentally) do it myself on occasion. Why don't you stop that pointless fantasy, or else come up with a more convincing "proof" that you are multiple people. If you really have some friends who like to edit CP, and who share your rather unique style, why don't you have them get their own accounts?

It must be so frustrating to try the rebut the factually correct and well cited atheism articles

What? Have you read those articles? They are absolute garbage. There's no reason for anyone to try to rebut them.

at Conservapedia created using the User: Conservative account the without being able to resort to personal attacks.

Says the person who called JohnZ a "secular leftist" above. SamHB (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2019 (EDT)

Conservative (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2019 (EDT)
End of Sam's cruel objections)

My objections were serious, but no cruelty was intended. We're all reasonably thick-skinned here. VM, you sometimes baffle me with your choice of words. As in "withering patrician disdain for the untutored mind". More about this below. SamHB (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2019 (EDT)

SamHB, you are wrong. Most, if not all, the active Conservapedia admins know there is more than one User: Conservative editor. So does the owner of the website. On one or more occasions, I have received an email from one of the fellow admins saying, "Why did you do such and such?" I then explain it was one of the other editors of the User: Conservative account. And then I either reverse that co-editor of the User: Conservative account's decision or I explain his/her (I say his or her to keep the veil of mystery thicker) decision to my fellow admins. By the way, your objections are not cruel, they are just misguided and/or haughty/vain. Conservative (talk) 04:20, 5 April 2019 (EDT)

No, YOU are wrong.. Let's continue this debate on my user talk page. SamHB (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2019 (EDT)

Let's dispel with the notion that SamHB doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing. He's trying to hurt our feelings. And the more appreciative of the knowledge you pass along a person has, the more it hurts because he's slighting something that (after having discovered the depth of understanding you have) they allowed to shape their own understanding in a positive way. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 15:33, 5 April 2019 (EDT)

Yes, I usually do know what I'm doing. I don't "shoot from the hip"; I generally think carefully about what I'm going to say here at CP. That way, I don't make dozens of rapid-fire edits the way some people do. But I'm baffled by your claim that I am hurting anyone's feelings, or trying to hurt anyone's feelings. We're all pretty thick-skinned here. For example, I've been blocked about 20 times, once by you.

But, in all honesty, I can't figure out what you are talking about above. I'm not offended, just baffled.

• "The more appreciative of the knowledge you pass along a person has": are "you" and "a person" the same? Who is passing it along? And to whom? Antecedents are sometimes tricky to figure out, and I can't figure this out.
• "It hurts because he's slighting something": Who is being hurt? Who is doing the slighting? What is the "something"?
• "They allowed to shape their own understanding": Who allowed? And allowed whom? And whose understanding? Of what? SamHB (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2019 (EDT)

Maybe it's because you have a weak intellect. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 22:13, 7 April 2019 (EDT)

Oh, my! I'm not aware that anyone who knows me, or knows who I am in real life, has ever said such a thing about me. So I decided to refresh my memory about your intellectual attainments as exhibited on this site. I was quickly drawn to this page: Talk:Logical_Flaws_in_E=mc², though there are many others that exhibit the same problems, albeit less strongly.

Now I've been around for over 10 years, dealing with the relativity issue, and my "sycophancy alarm" is quite sensitive. Your writing, on the cited page and others, show a serious case of "relativity sycophancy", along with a profound ignorance of how science, both theoretical and experimental, works. This is illustrated particularly clearly by your statement that ".9900000 x .9900000 x .9900000 = .970299...", suggesting that this somehow weakens or dilutes the points that AugustO was making.

I suggest that you go to this section on my user page and follow my advice. SamHB (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2019 (EDT)

I think I'll pass. We're way past all of that. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 04:56, 10 April 2019 (EDT)

SamHB, I enabled other editors to use the User: Conservative account for these reasons: 1) Sun Tzu is considered by many as one of the greatest strategist/tacticians of all history. He said to be mysterious for various reasons. What could be more mysterious than multiple anonymous editors? 2) After TK passed away, his influence at this website obviously went down (I was never a fan of TK). It occurred to me that if a prominent editor has a "succession plan" in relation to his/her account, it would be a better thing for multiple reasons. 3) The amusement factor. Frankly, it is amusing to see people rail at the User: Conservative and construct armchair psychological analysis of the account when the fact is that the account has multiple editors which makes their foolish strategy of personal attacks rather impotent. Conservative (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2019 (EDT)

Biden's scandal harms the entire Democrat Party, and its leadership does not know what to do about it. If they defend him, then they implicate themselves; if they abandon him, then were does that leave the Obama legacy?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2019 (EDT)

For those who believe the Russians hacked the DNC server, one of the rationales given why Vladmir Putin hacked the DNC servers and dribbled out harmful information via Wikileaks is that he was attempting to show the Russian populace that the American system of government wasn't any better than the Russian system and to create disunity in the USA. For better or for worse, whataboutism is an effective strategy (If Russia did hack the DNC server, to a certain degree Putin was successful, but it wound up being a net harm to Russia due to tougher sanctions being imposed on Russia and Trump playing a large role in driving down the price of oil which is no doubt hurting the Russian which to a large degree is a petro-economy).

Pointing out the sexual foibles of Biden (who was the top Democrat for 8 years) in an effective way, is bound to have an effect on Biden and on the Democratic brand as a whole given Biden's high office in that party for a long period of time. It also embarrasses the media (a big ally of the Democratic Party) because Biden's misconduct has been hiding in plain sight for years.Conservative (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2019 (EDT)

PBS did a documentary of Donald Trump and they charge that Trump adopted a Hugh Hefner playboy philosophy. Newsweek ran a news story with the title THE PLAYBOY PRESIDENT: TRUMP AND HUGH HEFNER BONDED FOR DECADES OVER THEIR LOVE OF LICENTIOUSNESS, BUT THE RELATIONSHIP SOURED

If this is true, one could reasonably conjecture that the NYC liberal culture and the liberal, atheist Hugh Hefner (see: Atheism and pornography) had a bad effect on Trump. Similarly, one can argue that the evangelical Mike Pence, the evangelical pastors who support Trump and the other social conservatives surrounding Trump are having a reformative effect on Trump. Let's hope that Mike Pence remains Trump's VP for another 5 years!Conservative (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2019 (EDT)

Biden's downfall is more a reflection of the Millennial generation's impatience and rebellion against Boomers, Pelosi, Sanders, Trump, etc. They feel their time has come, and will coalesce around a younger candidate who speaks their language. Beto or somebody. Democrats always look for someone in their mid to late 40s. Hillary was the exception. GOP always takes somebody 55+. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 23:15, 4 April 2019 (EDT)

Bernie has a lot of young people support due to liberal/leftist indoctrination in schools and due to the fact that he promises a lot of free stuff to younger people. In addition, the baby boomers are being selfish. At this point, social security should be reformed and people should work as long as they can. If this doesn't happen, young people will have a crushing amount of national debt and/or the USA will eventually default on its debt and/or dissolve as a nation. The only way out of this not happening is if the current economic system became radically more productive via automation/robotics/artificial intelligence and the educational system were to radically improve so the human capital would become much more productive. This seems like a far fetched long shot though. I believe the USA will see another great depression within about 15 years.Conservative (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2019 (EDT)

Which reminds me, we're going to need a Long march through the institutions article since Socialism is going to be the a big issue. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 18:10, 6 April 2019 (EDT)

Why Biden's inappropriate touching is such a handicap to him

"In the 2016 election, men were 11 percentage points more likely than women to vote for Donald Trump (52% of men vs. 41% of women), according to the exit poll conducted by Edison Research."[19] Conservative (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2019 (EDT)

You guys lay off Biden. The Washington Post says he was just being "affectionate". VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 16:35, 5 April 2019 (EDT)

The YouTube video showing multiple publicly recorded examples of Biden's touching young girls is shocking. He's finished politically and should be investigated further for possible prosecution.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2019 (EDT)

Google Trump kissing baby and then get back to me on that one, eh? JohnZ (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2019 (EDT)

A politician kissing a baby. You are truly desperate. Trumpslide 2020!!!Conservative (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2019 (EDT)

Whoa. If you can't even trust the Washington Post to be truthful these days, who can you trust? VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 19:55, 5 April 2019 (EDT)

N.B.: This is rote sarcasticul. The character of the Washington Post's editorship these days, as every conservative ought to know, has been fair to poor. How they avoid the scrutiny that they themselves impose in a biased way on others escapes my understanding and has caused more than one quizzical look on my part. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 20:19, 5 April 2019 (EDT)

Vargas, WaPo gave Biden the moniker, "Creepy Uncle Joe" for being affectionate. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 16:03, 8 April 2019 (EDT)

RobS, there's gotta be a place where the two descriptions intersect. Or maybe it's just my horror of ambiguity, and they really are like skew lines, because one only has to do with adults and the other with children. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 01:37, 9 April 2019 (EDT)

I think most Democrats are just praying that Biden would retire with his reputation intact, cause everyone knows the party interests' come before the individual (as Flores his accuser said). At some point I'd expect Biden to say he decided not to run for family or health concerns. For all Biden's flaws, no one has ever accused him of having an ego or messiah complex, and at the age of 78 I doubt it would surface now (unless somehow Trump emerged mortally wounded). As of today I'd list the prospects in this order: Klobuchar, Beto, Bootyjig, Harris. Klobuchar is the one that scares me most. The rest make Dems & Republicans long for the bad old days of Barack Obama. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 13:19, 9 April 2019 (EDT)

What do you think of the Lott/Stossel election futures market? It has Klobuchar polling at 2.3% for the Democratic primary. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 23:23, 9 April 2019 (EDT)

Klobuchar is the only one largely scandal free at the moment, largely due to Minnesota's compliant local media that has never been interested in exposing anything and has bent over backwards since the 1980s promoting her. To find any dirt, it will have to come from the national media or outsiders. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 20:23, 11 April 2019 (EDT)

• To answer the question posed by the title of this section, being a liberal is all about feeling superior to Republicans. It would be harder to do that if the Democratic nominee was the subject of allegations of sexual impropriety that are both more serious and more credible than those made against Trump. Of course, the allegations against Bill Clinton are far more serious than those against either Trump or Biden. So I'm sure the Dems can figure out a work around either way. PeterKa (talk) 01:11, 8 April 2019 (EDT)

• The uproar over inappropriate touching has not noticeably affected Biden's poll numbers. He is still slightly ahead of Bernie in both Iowa and New Hamphire.[20] With the other Dems positioning themselves as the wokest of woke, Biden could be in his own "lane." That is to say, he has a natural constituency among the 50 percent of Dems who tell pollsters that they just aren't that into political correctness.[21] PeterKa (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2019 (EDT)

Mexico is monetizing America's immigration crisis. It issues "humanitarian" visas to those who want to join the caravans -- and not just to Central Americans either.[22] The U.S. suspended the right to apply for asylum during previous immigration crises involving Haiti and Cuba.[23] Trump needs to start acting like he's president. PeterKa (talk) 11:31, 5 April 2019 (EDT)

Later that Friday, President Trump caved to Peter Ka's influence and "declared America 'full' as he warned illegal immigrants and asylum seekers to turn back from the southern border amid a surge in arrivals... He told a meeting of military officers and local officials: 'Our country is full. Our area is full. The sector is full.' Whether it was illegal immigrants or asylum seekers, the message was the same, he added. 'Can't take you anymore. I'm sorry,' he added. 'Can't happen. So turn around. That's the way it is.'" VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 02:40, 10 April 2019 (EDT)

Update: Trump later said he changed his mind and was giving the implementation of the immigration moratorium a year's notice to allow Mexico the time to adjust their own policies accordingly. So April 5, 2020 it is. Trump said "I'm calling it Peter Ka day since he's the one who gave me the boost." VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 10:51, 26 April 2019 (EDT)

Rep. Nunes to send eight criminal referrals to DOJ concerning leaks, conspiracy amid Russia probe. They're not memos I guess, but to some, perhaps, they're unwelcome reminders. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 22:58, 7 April 2019 (EDT)

Ok. Name the eight. Here's my list: Brennan, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, James Baker (DOJ), and Lisa Page. Others should be on the list, like Sally Yates, Susan Rice, etc, but they didn't testify before Congress. Baker & Lisa Page were somewhat cooperative in House investigations, but they nevertheless did participate in a criminal conspiracy. Perhaps their cooperation will lead to indictments of others.

Here's where commie Dems screwed up: if they let Muellergate die, it would be the end of the story. But they want full disclosure. If full disclosure is what they want, full disclosure is what they will get, although it may take another two years and 35 more indictments. In this case, there will not be a Special Counsel, cause the DOJ won't be investigating itself. Most of these accused criminals have already been rooted out of government. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 15:55, 8 April 2019 (EDT)

Attorney General Barr reportedly forming team to review FBI's actions in Trump campaign probe. Now this would still be the DOJ investigating itself, wouldn't it? VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 00:10, 10 April 2019 (EDT)

In a limited sense; the big players, Comey, Yates, John Carlin, etc are already out, but not immune from criminal prosecution. Although given the precedent set in the J. Robert Oppenheimer case, removing them from national security affairs might be enough, however the 1978 FISA Act, Patriot Act and Amendments will need major overhaul. The FISA Court itself may be scrapped in the long run. Don't expect resolution anytime soon. And Barr's review will lead him outside DOJ, to CIA, the State Department and elsewhere.

This will be a major 2020 presidential election issue. Anything Democrats or media say about Trump will be suspect as either illegal election interference or fake news. That's where Barr's review is headed. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 20:31, 11 April 2019 (EDT)

Some Black holes have been known to be super-massive for sometime now - they have never been considered to be uniformly small and compact. Might want to change the final sentence. JohnSelway (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2019 (EDT)

Oh and pictures of stellar objects are often enhanced using a technique called 'false colour'. It is used to highlight images which emit non-visible parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. It isn't 'photoshoped' - it's common practice. JohnSelway (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2019 (EDT)

The image was obtained using radio telescopes observing in the microwave/infrared portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Andrew Schlafly would presumably have no objection if the image was presented using inks or monitors that emit only 230 GHz radiation (a wavelength of 1.3 mm, on the border between infrared and microwave). Such an image would of course be invisible to a human observer, since we can only see wavelengths in the range of 400 to 750 nm. This is also not an image of the singularity of the black hole, which can be considered to be tiny; it is an image of the event horizon, which is expected to be quite large for a black hole as massive as the one in M87.--Brossa (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2019 (EDT)

The above criticisms conflict with each other: the first insists that black holes were "never considered to be uniformly small and compact," while the last comment correctly admits that they were. A black hole (or even its event horizon) that is 24 Billion (not million) miles wide is fanciful indeed.

As to the doctoring of the photo, it is misleading and not disclosed as prominently as it should be. Indeed, it is not a real photo at all.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2019 (EDT)

You have misrepresented my comment; I do not 'admit' that black holes were considered to be uniformly small and compact, I did not say it, and I did not imply it. It is misleading to claim so. The size of the event horizon of a black hole, the Schwarzschild radius, is directly related to its mass, and this has been known since 1916. A black hole with a mass of 6x10^9 solar masses has a Schwarzschild radius orders of magnitude larger than one with one solar mass.--Brossa (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2019 (EDT)

I think you are getting confused. A BLack Hole begins with it's event horizon, that's the boundary that separates a black hole from it's surrounds and they can be truly staggering in size - this has been known for some time. The singularity in the center is tiny yes but the boundary of a BLack Hole is immense and has been known for decades if not since they were first proposed. Secondly false colour photos are extremely common, many images of the universe are false colour because we cannot see the wavelengths photographed. It is extremely common practice and unless you have some citations to show otherwise the main-page should be updated because no-one believes black holes to be uniformly tiny and false colour images are extremely common - it isn't 'photoshopped' as you indicate - the electromagnetic wavelength has simply been highlighted to show where the boundaries are. JohnSelway (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2019 (EDT)

As stated here: The measurements are taken at a wavelength the human eye cannot see, so the astronomers added colour to the image. - https://www.stuff.co.nz/science/111936604/the-first-photo-of-a-black-hole-may-be-revealed-and-it-could-be-mindblowing. And here: To see the black hole’s boundary between light and dark, the astrophysicists captured radio waves—light 1.3 millimeters in wavelength, invisible to the human eye—emitted by the gas swirling around the black hole. The gas emits light of all different wavelengths, including visible light, but the researchers chose this particular wavelength because it can sail through entire galaxies and even Earth’s own atmosphere without being absorbed. https://www.wired.com/story/scientists-reveal-the-first-picture-of-a-black-hole/. It's a very common practice because other wavelengths, unlike light, are much less likely to be broken up and scattered by earths atmosphere. JohnSelway (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2019 (EDT)

If the sun were a black hole, then its event horizon would be less than 4 miles in diameter. Claims of an event horizon 24 billion miles wide is Star Trek stuff. People have a right to believe what they want, of course, but it's very fanciful.

As to the image, it's fake news to present it as an untouched photo as many liberal news outlets are doing. It's clickbait.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2019 (EDT)

If the sun were a black hole, then its event horizon would be less than 4 miles in diameter do you have a link for that (remembering also that the stars that collapse into black holes and many, many times larger than the sun). And what are you basing your conclusions on?

Many news outlets have said it is a touched up photo. It is common practice because projects like this don't search for visible light, they look for infrared or the like. All they are doing is adding a visual colour to a light wavelength invisible to the naked eye. This is all very straight forward so I'm not sure what your problem is with it all given what you have said is completely unsupported and innaccurate. JohnSelway (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2019 (EDT)

Maybe they should “release the data” -JohnLedski (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2019 (EDT)

Notice how quickly defenders of the fanciful 24-billion-mile-wide black hole (or event horizon) resort to disparaging putdowns of a critic. Compare with evolution syndrome, where the style of crass ridicule is referenced. I've been respectful and again emphasize that anyone is free to believe in a 24-billion-mile-wide black hole if he likes. But I don't any benefits or even falsifiability, a fundamental requirement of science, to such a belief.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:35, 10 April 2019 (EDT)

I'm not putting you down - I'm pointing out two errors: No one believes all Black Holes are small and compact and false colour images are used to highlight the wavelengths invisible to the eye. You've yet to cite anything to the contrary. Why are these two things a problem? What is your issue with the size of the Black Hole? Why can't it be that big and what are you basing it on? I'm confused as to why you are so wedded to these false position so an explanation would help. JohnSelway (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2019 (EDT)

John, the traditional view is that black holes are small and compact, containing nearly infinite density. I'd previously observed this understanding in other entries here without objection. See, e.g., infinity. I'm surprised you take such offense at it. Search on "infinite density" "black hole" and see more than 11 million entries retrieved.

As to your second point, the "false color" gives the impression of visible light, which it is not. Commonly done? That's another issue. It could be more honestly done in this case.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2019 (EDT)

I have answered that one already - the size of the black hole includes its Event Horizon. A singularity is the heart of the black hole but it's event horizon is included in it's size - just as the core of the sun is relatively small compared to the gas which makes up the majority of it' mass.

False colour is frequently used in astronomy as visible light is broken up massively by our atmosphere so we look for infrared or other wavelengths which are not broken up in the atmosphere or by passing through dust clouds etc. This image has only had the electromagnetic light filled in (otherwise it'd just be a black picture!). So the mainpage post is still incorrect. JohnSelway (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2019 (EDT)

Also it is highly likely you would be able to see a black-hole with your own eyes if you neared one due to the extreme heat and radiation caused by the velocity in which particles are streaming round the edge. It gives off a huge amount of friction. JohnSelway (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2019 (EDT)

this image is false colour. JohnSelway (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2019 (EDT)

CNN headline: "This is the first photo of a black hole." The Guardian: "Astronomers reveal first-ever picture of a black hole." Both headlines and accompanying images are misleading in the style of fake news, as designed to be clickbait. As to the other point, how big is the alleged black hole itself, if not 24 billion miles wide? You might have a hard time finding the implausible answer, despite all the stories about this.

By the way, "No Black Holes Exist, Says Stephen Hawking—At Least Not Like We Think. Black holes do not have "event horizons" beyond which there is no return, according to renowned physicist."--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2019 (EDT)

It ‘’is’’ a picture of a black hole in the same way the Pillars of Creation I linked to is a picture of a nebula. You’re just splitting hairs - it is still a picture in which the electromagnetic wavelength has been filled in with colour. This is an extremely common process which doesn’t change the fact it is still a picture. Event horizons ‘’do’’ exist and you haven’t defined why you are objecting to the size. Why does it matter to you? The headline is demonstrably wrong and you’ve shown nothing to prove otherwise. Your objections make no sense. JohnSelway (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2019 (EDT)

(edit conflict)

The literature on the subject of black holes has stated that the term "event horizon" is incorrect. It has been replaced with a different theoretical construct mechanism. Yet we have John Selway still using it, and the name of the project contains the phrase "event horizon", which, while fairly embarrassing, doesn't match the embarrassment of their refusing to change it.

The popular literature on black holes, and I don't relish it, is all over the map. First they said that it was indirectly proven that there was a black hole in the center of our galaxy. Then years later they said that the conditions probably weren't right for a black hole to exist in our universe at all, an opinion shared by Stephen Hawking. Then references to black holes started appearing again by shame-faced scientists with no explanation as to what had changed. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 00:38, 11 April 2019 (EDT)

That’s amazing - it’s almost as if people can change their opinions as new and better information comes to hand.... JohnSelway (talk) 01:28, 11 April 2019 (EDT)

• You go away for a few hours, and look what happens. Where to begin? Try this: The object creating the black hole at the center of M87 has been measured at 7 billion times the mass of the Sun. There are many "super-massive" black holes like this. This one just happens to be close enough to be chosen for the observation.
• To say that "If the sun were a black hole, then its event horizon would be less than 4 miles in diameter" is very misleading. The Sun isn't a black hole; it's nowhere near dense enough. The correct statement would be that the Sun's Schwarzschild radius (sometimes called the "gravitating radius") is is 3km, so the diameter is 6km, or 3.8 miles. For the Earth it's 2cm. This is the diameter that, if the object were entirely inside that diameter, it would be a black hole. Of course, the Sun and the Earth are both way bigger than their Schwarzschild diameters, so they are not black holes. In order for something to lie inside its Schwarzschild diameter, it would have to be compressed to enormous (not infinite, just enormous) density. Only the gravitational force on extremely large objects can achieve this compression.
• The formula for the Schwarzschild radius is , where G is Newton's constant of gravitation, M is the mass of the object, and c is the speed of light. Plugging that into the mass of the M87 object, one gets a diameter of 4 x 10¹³ meters, or 24 billion miles. Not all black holes are small.
• One can choose to believe that size to be "fanciful" or fake if one wishes. One can choose not to believe any of relativity or the many observations that underlie it.
• Relativity, and its many manifestations, are as falsifiable as can be. Falsifiable means that one could design, or perhaps imagine, an experiment or observation that is contrary to the theory. It could easily have happened that the Michelson-Morley experiment got a non-null result, showing that there was an "ether breeze" after all. It could easily have happened that the Pound-Rebka experiment was got a null result. It could easily have happened that the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, after accounting for the effects of other planets, was zero. It could easily have happened that the GPS system requires no correction for relativistic timing anomalies. It could easily have happened that the atomic masses of all isotopes are exactly the sums of their constituent particles, with no correction for binding energy, so that, for example, the atomic mass of Radioum-226 is exactly 226.000. But these phenomena are all observable. SamHB (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2019 (EDT)

John, your quick resort to non-substantive sarcasm is unpersuasive. Was Hawking wrong in rejecting black holes? If so, why? The theory of an event horizon contradicts quantum mechanics which no one credibly doubts. Also, how big are you claiming this new black hole, supposedly having nearly infinite mass density, to be?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:34, 11 April 2019 (EDT)

Hawking's theory about the behavior of black holes (not a rejection of their existence in the colloquial sense) is one of many competing theories that seek to harmonize relativity, which no one credibly doubts, with quantum mechanics, which no one credibly doubts either. It will take a new theory to combine both regimes, and if and when we develop that theory we will see whether Hawking's version is correct or not. The black hole in M87 (it isn't new; it's been there for quite a long time) has a mass of 6.5 billion solar masses, and an event horizon about forty billion kilometers across. Once the mass of any object has been compressed below its Swartzschild radius, there is no known force that will prevent gravity from collapsing it further and further, until it approaches a singularity with infinite mass density. This is what our current understanding of gravity and quantum mechanics suggests; perhaps other forces arise under these extreme conditions, but we would never be able to observe this directly. However, another way to look at the situation is to say that the density of a black hole is the volume contained by its event horizon divided by its mass, in which case the density of the M87 black hole is closer to the density of air than anything else. Stating that the black hole has an event horizon 40 billion kilometers across does not mean that that entire volume is occupied by material of infinite density; it means that there is a singularity there that contains 6.5 billion solar masses, such that at a distance of 20 billion kilometers away the escape velocity from the singularity is the speed of light.--Brossa (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2019 (EDT)

Stephen Hawking: "There Are No Black Holes." [24] As to your suggestion that a singularity causes an event horizon 24 BILLION miles wide, it is beyond fanciful (in addition not being falsifiable, and thus not really science). And it contradicts quantum mechanics. Religious belief are far more plausible.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2019 (EDT)

Once again I can't figure out why you are so hung-up on the size. You have given no reasoning as to why it can't be the size it is. Why do you have such a problem with it? You know the universe is absolutely massive and is filled with things even bigger than this black hole is. What part of Quantum Mechanics disproves this? You have just asserted without any reasoning. If this isn't a black hole then what do you think it is and what do you base it on? JohnSelway (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2019 (EDT)

Asking about the size of the black hole is an obvious question. If you have no idea, then you can say so. You can believe whatever you like, including a belief in a 24 Billion mile-wide black hole somewhere. It contradicts quantum mechanics, as Stephen Hawking has explained and as can be easily learned by searches on the internet. How does belief in a massive black hole help anyone? Does it help us alleviate poverty? No, but religion does. Does it help us lose weight or become more productive? No, but religion does.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2019 (EDT)

Firstly you are getting confused about what Hawking said. He said the event horizon wasn't what we previously thought it was but that has nothing to do with size. There is still a point in which light and matter cannot escape and that is the event horizon, or "apparent horizon" as Hawking put it. It says nothing about size and neither does Hawking. Regardless of what you call it - Event Horizon or Apparent Horizon is doesn't mean it isn't as big as they say and you have yet to explain why you are so against it being as big as they say. As to your other comments - how does the sun being as large as it is help anyone? Does the size of Jupiter help alleviate poverty? Does the size of the galaxy help us lose weight or become more productive? You see how silly that sounds? Why are you so against it being so large? You've given no reason. JohnSelway (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2019 (EDT)

My take on this: we needed some evidence that black holes exist, and this latest image indicates that they do. I took a course in remote sensing, which is used on earth to look for water, look at the results of damage from flooding, look for hidden man-made structures, and so on, all by using various wavelengths of light to get the results; astronomers do pretty much the same thing. They will look at the entire light spectrum to find that which is normally invisible to the naked eye.

As to this "24 billion wide" thing, that could be overly optimistic. Does that mean the whole image, including the yellow ring? Or is there an object in the center which is much smaller?

The things about it I don't agree with involves the science fiction part of it; they are not time tunnels; you go in, you don't come out, and you'd probably get squished! The light thing is a problem as well, for it implies light is matter with substance, and these scientists have never demonstrated that light can be bent and pulled in by one in the same manner that they can pull in rocks or planets or a dummy in a spacecraft. And then there's the Einstein worship. He may have postulated the original theories predicting them, but it's kind of disgusting to see a bunch of astronomers slobbering over the guy as if he was the greatest thing since the wheel. Karajou (talk) 02:45, 11 April 2019 (EDT)

Thanks Karajou. For the second time you've come in and provided some balance to what I was saying. You are absolutely right re: different wavelengths. Yes the center is much smaller but a Black Hole, in totality, encompasses its range of influence - which is the event horizon. Just like the center of the sun is much smaller than it's gravitational influence. JohnSelway (talk) 03:04, 11 April 2019 (EDT)

Here are three addresses, see if anything stands out to you.(I'll number them below) First, here is the address of the church in Chicago that hosted Elvira Arellano. Second, here is the address of Pueblo Sin Fronteras, the primary group coordinating the migrants coming across the southern border. Third, here is the address of the group Familia Latina Unida, the group that Arellano was President of.

1: Adalberto UMC: 2716 W. Division St. Chicago, IL. 60622

2: Pueblo Sin Frt: 2716 W. Division St. Chicago, IL. 60622

3: Familia L. Uni.: 2716 W. Division St. Chicago, IL. 60622

Is it just me or is that one heck of a crowded church? Progressingamerica (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2019 (EDT)

Speaking of Arellano, I took the liberty of noting how she was a Communist on her article since other than the category such wasn't really indicated. May need some work though. Pokeria1 (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2019 (EDT)

I appreciate that. I did not previously go very far looking into CASA, but it does look like that is Lozano who was a member as was her brother Rudy. She founded PSF. Progressingamerica (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2019 (EDT)

Continuation of this discussion Question Evolution book for middle school students is given below.

"The obvious answer to why the book hasn't been published..." - Semipenultimate.

Is it true that a Question Evolution book for middle school students has not been published? Exactly how do you know this? You don't know this.

By the way, is creationism and intelligent being taught in public schools, charter schools and private religious by teachers without evolutionists being aware of it?

New York Times: "Teaching creationism in public schools has consistently been ruled unconstitutional in federal courts, but according to a national survey of more than 900 public high school biology teachers, it continues to flourish in the nation’s classrooms. Researchers found that only 28 percent of biology teachers consistently follow the recommendations of the National Research Council to describe straightforwardly the evidence for evolution and explain the ways in which it is a unifying theme in all of biology. At the other extreme, 13 percent explicitly advocate creationism, and spend at least an hour of class time presenting it in a positive light. That leaves what the authors call “the cautious 60 percent,” who avoid controversy by endorsing neither evolution nor its unscientific alternatives. In various ways, they compromise."[25]

Semipenultimate, you are not omniscient. Stop pretending to be.

"Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate." - Sun Tzu Conservative (talk) 12:07, 12 April 2019 (EDT)

Ace wrote: "the easiest way to know there is no booklet is the fact that if there was one...[he] would never shut up about it."

Ace, evolutionism is a key supply line for atheism. Ace, the atheist movement is dead (see: Decline of the atheist movement). In February of 2007, I became an editor of Conservapedia and by July 2011 the atheist movement was already deathly ill.

While there may be some setbacks along the way for Christendom in terms of the atheism vs. Christianity ideological conflict, the irrevocable collapsing of atheistic ideology and the atheist population will continue. By June of 2019, there will be about a net loss of 300,0000 atheists in the world during a 12 month time span (see: Global atheism statistics and Status of Global Atheism/Christianity/other religions, 2019, in the Context of 1900–2050 and Status of Global Atheism/Christianity/other religions, 2018, in the Context of 1900–2050). Meanwhile the number of Christians is expanding in the world. See also: Future of Christianity.

And with Europe/China experiencing a growth of creationism and religious fundamentalism and with Europe/USA/West headed to begin to experience very significant desecularization starting sometime between 2021 - 2050, evolutionism is doomed. In a world of globabalization, below replacement fertility of native populations and religious immigrants, global/NZ atheism/evolutionism is doomed. I feel no great need to loudly and incessantly trumpet the launching of any particular creationist book.

Trump and American evangelicals ascending power in 2016 is one of the birthpangs of things to come. :)Conservative (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2019 (EDT)

Ace wrote: "Who do you think you’re kidding here?"

Ace, in 2017 Aron Ra admitted that the atheist movement is dead amidst many reports on social media indicating that the atheist movement is dead.[26][27]

On top of this, key allies of the formerly alive atheist movement are collapsing (trust in media falling, newspapers closing, right-wing populism is ascendant in the USA/Europe/Latin America while secular leftism is facing defeat after defeat, Trump is forcing China to bargaining table and they are bound to make their system more capitalistic, etc. etc.). See also: Decline of the secular left and Atheism and the media

And there are many causes of desecularization that are not going away.

Furthermore, religious fundamentalism is growing in the world and the pace of this growth is expected to accelerate due to demographic/fertility rate factors and other factors (see: Growth of religious fundamentalism) which means creationism is growing in the world at a faster and faster rate. And these are very much long term trends.

Now I realize that you are delusional and have a hard time seeing why New Zealand with its sub-replacement fertility rate and religious immigrants will become desecularized (on top of this the global market share of atheism is shrinking), but I am a realist. There is so much writing on the wall that atheism/evolutionism are doomed. Bottom line: Unlike you, I don't double-down when I am deluged with signs that I am supporting a lost cause. There are times in life where its obvious you have to cut your losses and move on. Question: Why are some bitter ender, secular leftists so reluctant to admit defeat? Is it pride? See: Atheism and arrogance.

By the way, when David Silverman gave his "atheists are acting like whipped, defeated and despairing puppies speech" in 2018 that was a gravestone put on the grave of the American atheist movement. Have you seen THIS EXCERPT OF THE SPEECH?

Ace, ponder this 2018 quote from the atheist and evolutionist PZ Myers: "It’s quite depressing that movement Atheism has turned into such a joke. I valued it so much once."[28]

Ace, I repeat: I feel no great need to loudly and incessantly trumpet the launching of any particular creationist book.

As Bible believers and creationists rack up victory after victory after victory against atheists/evolutionists, the importance of any one particular battle diminishes. Evolutionism is doomed and there is no shortage of evidence that atheists/leftists/evolutionists are losing the levers of power that stifled dissent against their false narratives and revisionist history.Conservative (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2019 (EDT)

Ace, watch this video: Evolutionism vs. Religious fundamentalism and creationism in the 21st century.

I trust this video clarified my position for you.Conservative (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2019 (EDT)

Ace wrote: "What happened to the booklet...".

Ace, if I haven't made it abundantly clear already, I have developed an appreciation of many of the things Sun Tzu wrote including the use of stealth. You may never know if the book was published or if it will be published. If you do find out, it certainly will not be because of me even if I knew. You want to know if the book was published and that is exactly why I will not tell you if it has been published or will be published even if I knew.

"The spot where we intend to fight must not be made known; for then the enemy will have to prepare against a possible attack at several different points; and his forces being thus distributed in many directions, the numbers we shall have to face at any given point will be proportionately few. For should the enemy strengthen his van, he will weaken his rear; should he strengthen his rear, he will weaken his van; should he strengthen his left, he will weaken his right; should he strengthen his right, he will weaken his left. If he sends reinforcements everywhere, he will everywhere be weak. Numerical weakness comes from having to prepare against possible attacks; numerical strength, from compelling our adversary to make these preparations against us." - Sun Tzu[29]

"...when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near." - Sun TzuConservative (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2019 (EDT)

By the way, have you read: Essay: Ace McWicked, read this essay and start uncontrollably weeping?

It's high time you licked your atheist/evolutionist wounds and admit that evolutionism faces a bleak future.Conservative (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2019 (EDT)

Ace, a quick question for you: How are those satisfactory answers to the 15 questions for evolutionists coming?Conservative (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2019 (EDT)

Ace, you wrote: "I’m comfortable in my beliefs...". We both know that you and your cohorts are far more obsessed with Conservapedia than Conservapedians care about your atheist/agnostic wiki. Who do you think you are kidding? "Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist there is no God." - Heywood Broun

Next, would I spend time addressing "15 questions for gravitationalists?". Absolutely not. Gravity is a fact and I absolutely know it's a fact. Live Science published an article reporting that Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling .[30]. Feelings go up and down. The reason you felt compelled to try to satisfactorily the 15 questions for evolutionists is because evolutionism is a castle in the air with no solid foundation. And because you could not satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists, you desperately hope a Question Evolution! booklet for middle school students was not published or will not be published in order for yourself to "achieve" some small, cheap, meaningless victory. Now imagine for a moment the satisfaction I may be experiencing if such a book was published (or will be published) and I was watching foolish evolutionists repeatedly gloat over their nonexistent victory. Of course, you may not ever know if such gloating occurred given that I am a Sun Tzu aficionado who has an appreciation of the value of stealth/secrecy.Conservative (talk) 04:38, 14 April 2019 (EDT)

Ace, did I tell at least one Conservapedian if such a book was published? If so, if only you and your cohorts were not banished or largely banished from Conservapedia (there may be sockpuppet account(s) ). If this were the case, then you might finally know for certain if the book was published, not published or is expected to be published. But now you are in utter darkness about this matter.Conservative (talk) 04:54, 14 April 2019 (EDT)

Personally, I really don't care whether or not such a booklet has been printed. The very fact that this website has to audacity to question evolution at all has driven Ace and the opposition nuts beyond belief for years, to which I say that's just too bad. Deal with it. Karajou (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2019 (EDT)

Ace, you wrote: "All you do is post gibberish one to a website that I am sure I alone read, for my own amusement."

Setting aside the poor wording of your post (I hope you have a good editor for your upcoming book. And I assume you meant to write: All you do is post gibberish to one website that I am sure I alone read, for my own amusement.). First, you don't know how many websites I post to nor do you know what I do off wiki. Second, atheists/agnostics have admitted that my articles are well sourced, factual and I make some good points (Essay: A British atheist on Conservapedia's atheism articles and Essay: British agnostic acknowledges the reasonableness of a User: Conservative editor). Third, if you convinced yourself that you alone read my articles, you are far more delusion than I ever imagined! One of the most common fallacies of atheists is the fallacy of exclusion See also: Atheism and logical fallacies.Conservative (talk) 05:58, 14 April 2019 (EDT)

By the way, given that the User: Conservative account is made up of more than one editors, your tactic of mounting a personal attack was rather lame. :) Also, have you noticed that User: Karajou, who commonly uses check user, has never disputed the notion that more than one editor has used (or uses) the User: Conservative account?Conservative (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2019 (EDT)

Karajou, I saw your comment indicating: "The very fact that this website has to audacity to question evolution at all has driven Ace and the opposition nuts beyond belief for years, to which I say that's just too bad. Deal with it."

Karajou, Ace posted at an atheist/agnostic wiki: "Oh and BTW [User: Conservative], I have been reading through some CP archives during my downtime in the office and I am wondering about this comment of yours...". Karajou, how many times have you combed through a certain atheist/agnostic wiki's archives while you were at work? Is the answer, never? How many times have you heard of other Conservapedians combing through a certain atheist/agnostic wiki's archives while they were at work? Again, is the answer, never? Karajou, it is very clear that I am a bee in Ace's bonnet! Ace is very comfortable with his beliefs? I doubt this very much!Conservative (talk) 06:29, 14 April 2019 (EDT)

Otisburg is a joke. We know it, the scientific community knows it, the entire internet knows it. And deep down inside they know it too. Karajou (talk) 06:36, 14 April 2019 (EDT)

Ace, wrote: "I am tall, dark and handsome - I’ve been compared to James Dean." Please see my response at: Essay: Ace McWicked, vanity of vanities!.Conservative (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2019 (EDT)

Ace wrote: "Then you'd have at least something to show for 2 years babbling about the QE! Campaign."

My response: 1) You haven't shown that the QE! book for middle school students book was not published or will not soon be published. For all you know, I could laughing at you for claiming the book was not published or will soon be published. In short, this certainly could be another case of you being a egotistical/narcissistic blowhard who doesn't know what he is talking about. 2) Before the QE! campaign, Alexa showed indicated that ICR.org was a more popular website than Creation.com. Post campaign, the reverse is true. Duane Gish wrote: “As one who has debated over 300 evolutionists, I am delighted to see this Question Evolution campaign under way."[31] Shockofgod's question and the QE! Campaign's 15 questions for evolutionists were both successes and their fans promoting them helped them be successful. 3) You still have not satisfactorily answered the 15 questions for evolutionists.Conservative (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2019 (EDT)

"With the exception of FISA warrants, the use of human intelligence assets, the use of national security letters, & the unprecedented abuse of the unmasking process, the liberal media is absolutely correct, there’s 'no evidence' for Obama administration spying. Thx guys, great job" — Dan Bongino VargasMilan (talk) Saturday 18:37, 13 April 2019 (EDT)

It is not so much that the media disputes that the surveillance happened. They just don't think it should be called "spying." There was none of this semantic quibbling when Bush was president and the people being spied on were jihadis.[32] In mediaspeak, if you don't immediately adopt their approved terminology, you are a "conspiracy theorist." PeterKa (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2019 (EDT)

The issue succinctly is this: Peter Strzok began the official FBI investigation on July 31, 2016; What was the probable cause that led to Stefan Halper, Joseph Mifsud, and Alexander Downer's acting as "oconus lures" (outside the continental United States, see Obamagate timeline 2015 late December), prior to July 31, 2016, and the in the case of Halper being a paid informant as early as May 2016? RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 00:59, 15 April 2019 (EDT)

Once again RobS has zeroed in on the next logical question, and Peter, yes, if you use the "wrong" words the media calls you a conspiracy theorist, until the evidence shows the situation to be true, and then it's your fault for not dealing with the problem for which they laughed at and discredited you, and with which they refused to help you. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 02:03, 15 April 2019 (EDT)

"Ilhan Omar is a walking advertisement for more restrictive immigration and refugee policies

"Nothing about her public statements indicates that she has any meaningful allegiance to this country or its people

"Her politics are sectarian

"Not American"

—Will Chamberlain

VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 20:47, 13 April 2019 (EDT)

The USA fertility rate was 1.80 births per woman (2016) and the USA has an aging population.

Feminism, consumerism, evolutionism, abortion, poor public policy concerning college education, a bloated federal government and pro-homosexuality policies are causing fertility rates to drop in the developed world. People have to have the right mindset and the finances to have larger families.

Until fertility rates rise in developed countries, there will be an incentive for businesses/governments to push immigration.Conservative (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2019 (EDT)

For example, why is the USA federal government funding students with poor college majors with limited employment possibilities via government backed loans, grants, etc. During their prime time for forming families, they will be heavy under debt and have poor income prospects in many cases.Conservative (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2019 (EDT)

Sadly, Omar is all too American. She is a pro-abortion SJW with a headscarf.[33] Try that act out in Saudi. PeterKa (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2019 (EDT)

I think fertility rates would rise if American workers were paid more. But businesses were greedy and paid non-citizens with little financial responsibilities, but instead were a financial liability to the community. At one time they had the excuse that everybody was doing it, and they had to compete, and that there was an embargo on immigrant population statistics, so they couldn't see the extent of the problem. But now they have the opportunity to right the wrongs to their fellow citizens, and many are still pushing politicians to sell out their country for cheap labor. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 23:24, 13 April 2019 (EDT)

I'd avoid discussing fertility rates. That is the New Zealand mosque shooting perpetrator's opening lines, "It's the birthrates! It's the birthrates! It's the birthrates!" RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 01:08, 15 April 2019 (EDT)

So if he says we should not bury ourselves under massive deficits, we should avoid talking about that too? If you ask me, the mosque shooter's only goal was payback and employing contradictory rhetoric for the purpose of preventing the media from using him to smear conservatives like they did with Anders Breivik. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 01:28, 15 April 2019 (EDT)

The shooter raises an interesting point: he claims the white population of the earth at 800 million is bloated by babyboomers in Western countries who will die off between 2028-2038, then the 2 billion Muslims will take over the earth. I doubt killing a few dozen now will make much difference, if anything, when they do take over the planet, they may be a little more intolerant of Europeans and whites if everybody started whacking Muslims while they are praying. And birthrates probably can't catch up in 10 years anyways. If global warming doesn't kill us by 2030, we'll all be praying to Mecca 5 times a day. So what difference does any of it make? RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 02:19, 15 April 2019 (EDT)

There's room for hope even in the dark midnight of the soul. The percentage of Christians in the world has remained at 33% for the past twenty-five years prior to 2015 and 78% in the United States as of 2015. Donald Trump has called a halt to immigration, and is hiring Kris Kobach and Stephen Miller—two competent advisors to deal with the issues, one in the field of administration, the other in the field of communication and mastery of policy. Demographically, hispanics are indistinguishable from other whites in opposing illegal immigration. It's becoming clearer to young people that many here reject American values, but freely take American financial benefits. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 02:59, 15 April 2019 (EDT)

This Trump tweet should be on MPR. It is a response to Ilhan Omar describing 9/11 as "some people did some thing." Omar's supporters complain that Trump took this quote out of context. The context is her talking about Muslims being America's victims. I certainly hope that there is an innocent explanation of some kind. But it sure sounds to me like she is a Truther. She is no longer the black sheep of the Democratic Party either. The leadership is all-in this time around.[34] PeterKa (talk) 10:52, 15 April 2019 (EDT)

A good way to respond to creeping political correctness might be: "Everyone doesn't believe in the conceptual categories you are implying, like me, and since reasonable minds can differ, I will apply reason on my end in saying it places an undue burden on me to speak or respond as if I do believe in those categories.

"To make that into 'hate' would be a histrionic leap on your part bearing a political convenience that is suspicious. Further, it may even be liable to the encouraging of personal abrasiveness as a means of bringing in from outside a negative reaction for the purpose of confusing it with whatever kind of intolerance that is being attempted to be proved.

"And while I like to be polite, what you are asking for is for me to automatically respond to special pleading with special treatment. Out of charity, I have in the past, but unfortunately too many people have somehow taken that acquiescence and strangely distorted it into an admission of some kind of guilt, so, to be fair to myself, that treatment can no longer be automatic." VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 16:41, 15 April 2019 (EDT)

See "Twelve French churches attacked, vandalized in one week" by Dr. Thomas D. Williams, Breitbart website, Wednesday, 20 March, 2019.

If we don't want to end up like France (with worse expected to come and for at least as long as Arabic descent is classified as a religion by the United States government), "the United States must act decisively to remove the Arab minority from within its borders...[which]...could be accomplished by initially offering encouragement and incentives to Arabs to leave of their own accord." — New York Times editorial prior to September 11, 2001 (with one political term replaced). VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 12:00, 17 April 2019 (EDT)

If you feel that Arabs should be encouraged to leave the United States, then make that statement in your own voice rather than presenting an altered quotation with incorrect attribution and a misleading date. The statement that you misquoted was from a letter to the editor of the New York Times, not a Times editorial. The original quote, from Baruch Goldstein of Brooklyn, was "The harsh reality is: if Israel is to avert facing the kinds of problems found in Northern Ireland today, it must act decisively to remove the Arab minority from within its borders. This could be accomplished by initially offering encouragement and incentives to Arabs to leave of their own accord, just as the Jewish population of many Arab countries has been persuaded to leave, one way or another." The letter to the editor was from June of 1981. --Brossa (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2019 (EDT)

You are grasping at straws. It's common usage for a reader to say they wrote an editorial if it appears on the editorial page. And as for the date, I believe the Arabs were still Arabs, and the New York Times still the New York Times and America now much like Israel in 1981. And you don't seem to grasp that even Notre Dame aside, these church burnings are worse than any vandalism that occurred in Northern Ireland. Even liberals have encouraged Muslims to co-exist, and they instead have escalated their discontent to a point where we are having to ask how exactly they were involved in a barbarism of world-historical proportions. That I repurposed a "letter to the editor" about Israel's or Northern Ireland's distress to such a design is hardly act of exaggeration.

But tell me, how did it occur to you to choose to play the informer on a conservative website? VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 15:04, 17 April 2019 (EDT)

Informer is a very strong word: it suggests untrustworthiness on both sides. He's corrected a point of fact - one big enough to burn a hole in a dissertation. When I'm corrected on a point of fact, I double check and - if I was wrong - I thank the person who put me right. Call me old fashioned. Rafael (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2019 (EDT)

Tu quoque ought to be in your vocabulary, but evidently it isn't, and it's a literary technique (the giveaway was "with one political term replaced"—journalist double standards concerning Israel and the United States [*cough* wall] isn't uncommon knowledge to my audience at Conservapedia,—and I've done a tu quoque before) you've evidently never studied seeing your reply which could mean almost anything, but I'll take a stab at it. I didn't mention the advice to deport was conditional upon the premise of Israel not wanting to be like Northern Ireland, but lo and behold! It's having the same problem of theirs we stand to face in the United States that we don't want to share nor did Israel—terrorism! The Irish Republican Army in 1981 and world-historical barbarians, the Arabic-script-atta-boyed likely Muslim church burners in 2019! Eerie parallel, huh? Even the years match! Wow what a scandal—I bet the remnants of ISIS feel smugly superior about me for my use of journalistic abbreviation! VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 00:22, 18 April 2019 (EDT)

Qui non est tu quoque. QED. Rafael (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2019 (EDT)

Hey, Rafael, what's up with the phony Galileo quote that you called "most influentual"? Was that really such a blow for science, or did you just like the fact that he insulted the pope, who at the time was familiar with and didn't condemn Copernicus? VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 21:07, 18 April 2019 (EDT)

It's about conviction and truth. Two concepts central to conservatism. Was that a genuine question or are you trying to pick a quarrel? Rafael (talk) 09:04, 19 April 2019 (EDT)

Conviction? Lol, he avoided punishment by insisting his book didn't teach heliocentrism, which it clearly did. And historical research cast serious doubt on the claim that he said the phrase (he who asserts must prove!) by the very nature of his "defense". VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 12:27, 19 April 2019 (EDT)

And Galileo showed that he was picking a pretty big quarrel with the Pope by putting his position in a simple-minded way in the mouth of one Simplicio, a participant in the fictional astronomical dialogue presented in Galileo's book. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 12:47, 19 April 2019 (EDT)

Let's talk about it on the relevant talk page. This is not the place. Rafael (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2019 (EDT)

Further up on this page, Pokeria and Conservative were discussing the effect of defense spending on the world's economy and international stability in general. I was wondering if they had seen the exact figures of the proportion of yearly defense spending to yearly Gross Domestic Product, and if they hadn't, whether they think any differently after having seen them, or anyone else does for that matter.

My only comment is that after the Soviet Union dissolved during George Bush's administration there was a lot of talk about what was called the "peace dividend", which were funds that took the form of lowered taxes and re-prioritized spending as nearly everybody agreed that defense spending would be lowered. But the records show that the spending wasn't that high to begin with—a maximum of 6.0% 1977 and afterwards. On the other hand, I guess year after year it does add up.

The Gross domestic product of the United States is the amount of goods and services produced in a year by the United States.

VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 05:31, 19 April 2019 (EDT)

Jake Sullivan [1] to Hillary Clinton: Al Qaeda is on our side.

Comment: The declines from 1977-1979 is the post-Vietnam "build down." The 1980-1986 is the "Reagan era build up," actually begun under Carter as a response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Note: the chart is a remarkable view of political consensus priorities; 1982 for example was a recession year, yet saw the biggest year-over-year jump of .6% (more than 10% of the Defense budget) rather than money pored into welfare relief efforts. Obama colluded with the KGB at this time to further Russian foreign policy interests against the United States in an essay entitled Breaking The War Mentality.[35]

The declines after 1986 is the good faith response to the Fall of the Berlin Wall. 2002 marks the War on Terror, which rises until Jake Sullivan announces "Al Qaeda is on our side," and culminates in the burning of Notre Dame cathedral, per the 2005 Zawahiri interview with Der Spiegel.

Defense spending levels are a function of the Legislative Branch, which controls the purse, and not any particular administration. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 10:43, 19 April 2019 (EDT)

But what about the 1921 Budget and Accounting Act which mandates that the President prepare a budget? VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 23:17, 19 April 2019 (EDT)

The President proposes, the Congress disposes. The declines in funding since 2010 was a Republican congress. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 00:08, 20 April 2019 (EDT)

Thank you for calling my chart remarkable. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 00:39, 20 April 2019 (EDT)

References

Obama and the Mueller report JohnSelway (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2019 (EDT)

Great suggestion. The story is excellent and very credible. Posted, thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2019 (EDT)

Judicial Watch got the FBI to hand over some papers under the Freedom of Information Act concerning the bureau's efforts to protect Hillary Clinton in 2016. It seems that treason gets a smiley face from the FBI and a yawn from the mainstream media: “It’s all part of the Hilary coverup operation. 😊”[36] The name of the FBI agent who made this comment is redacted. PeterKa (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2019 (EDT)

LifeSiteNews published an article yesterday asking a question I had also been asking since the fire: [37] Will the French government rebuild the cathedral as a fully Christian/Roman Catholic cathedral as it had been before, or whether the government will promote secular values in the rebuilding designs. The fire could easily have been accidental (which I think is the most likely cause right now), but it's hard to be sure, especially with this in mind. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2019 (EDT)

Personally, I don't believe it was an accident. Demographic changes in France and anti-discrimination laws give a high probability at least one construction worker was non-Christian. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 00:14, 20 April 2019 (EDT)

Actually, much more than just one worker -- as of 2016, only half of French people even claim to be Christian, and that number is probably even lower in Paris. Probably less than 10% of the French (I'm guessing) attend church. So, many of the construction workers likely are not Christians. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2019 (EDT)

Notre Dame was a such well-known fire hazard that the firefighters had practiced for almost exactly the scenario that actually occurred. See "Notre-Dame Attic Was Known as ‘the Forest.’ And It Burned Like One." The attic was full of beams that had been drying since Middle Ages. There was flammable material on site because of restoration work. The article above lists two other fires in France in recent years that were linked to restoration work. PeterKa (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2019 (EDT)

Hmmm. Whose the source of that article? The French government? Mainstream media? the NYT? Think anybody believes it? RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 00:44, 20 April 2019 (EDT)

This is from The Times. Investigating a run-of-the-mill house fire takes about four weeks. If there is evidence of arson, it can take even longer. Until we have a report, there is no way to know what happened. PeterKa (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2019 (EDT)

Notre Dame Cathedral was the subject of an architecture study in which every square inch of it was mapped using lasers. So they can restore it exactly the way it was if they wish to and can employ the needed skill. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 04:00, 20 April 2019 (EDT)

Arabic and English speakers mocked the destruction of Notre Dame Cathedral on Facebook. If I were a Frenchman I would see to it that the tongue would be pulled out of anyone reckless enough to abuse the French language through the act of taking the opportunity of this downfall to vilify the Virgin Mary’s Cathedral with their spoken words. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 04:12, 20 April 2019 (EDT)

C'mon, we all know Crowdstrike blew up the Afghan Buddhas, faked Obama's birth certificate, killed Seth Rich and probably burnt down Notre Dame cathedral. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 09:37, 20 April 2019 (EDT)

Wow, it all started with a rich Ukrainian donor to the Clinton Foundation—and they got Hillary too to discredit Russia! VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 14:16, 20 April 2019 (EDT)

• Confirmation: "Modernists Want Glass Roof, Steel Spire, or Minaret for Notre Dame" --1990'sguy (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2019 (EDT)

"Call it weed, marijuana or cannabis: 420 is a time to celebrate the growing acceptance of its healing pleasures: More states are welcoming pot with open arms. Legalization is coming, despite the remaining anti-science moralizers."

How about that? According to the corporation NBC's Hot Take, now it's the pleasures themselves that are healing, not just the alleged—and conveniently alleged—many superior medicinal properties. Who would have thought that that subtle change would suddenly be introduced?

Sorry, no time to talk about that. At any rate cheering not only its use (for pleasure), but the increase of its use (for pleasure) suggests to me that the bloom is off the rose after having taken conservatives into their counsels to weigh its narrowly defined medicinal use under the cloak of their respectability—and whose opinions haven't changed otherwise—because someone suddenly stood up and said "I have an idea for a new way of doing things! After having helped us, let's exclude conservatives from our counsels and ignore them altogether when we discuss it in public!" Wow! Say, how've these kinds of new ideas of the socialist brand by our lately socialist-infused liberals worked out in the past?

Well, let's see then—I guess we're at the mercy of these strangely political-action-shackling non sequiturs of the liberal practices of social co-operation, so it's up to us to helplessly cope with the proven side effects rather than exercise a share in its regulation, side effects such as: gateway drug to our fatality-strewn opium epidemic and syndromes of other dangerous drugs, [lung cancer,] venereal disease (especially deadly for men), low motivation (at length endangering self-esteem), organized crime (do the police want to risk their lives to protect your ability to do nothing?)

At this point, we have to confess the epithet Nothing But Cannabis turned out to be too strong—in favorability. All unfolded, it's got nothing to do with pharmaceutical science. It's really Nothing But Crap. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 12:06, 20 April 2019 (EDT)

420? Pot smokers are celebrating Hitler's birthday? it figures. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 17:18, 20 April 2019 (EDT)

The two holiest days on the liberal calendar are Hitler's birthday on April 20 and Lenin's birthday on April 22 (Earth Day). PeterKa (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2019 (EDT)

If Biden announces on Wednesday, as the famously indecisive former vice president may or may not do, he will become the twentieth Democrat to enter the overcrowded 2020 race. It's almost a year away from the first primary and interest in 2020 is already at election day levels. My YouTube feed is already full of political ads, as if campaign season was in full swing. Hey, I watch Ben Shapiro, Ten Minute Bible Hour, and astronomy videos. They must have money to burn.
We've seen the rise and fall of Warren, Harris, and Beto. The latest polls are dominated by Biden and Bernie, with Biden edging out Bernie by about five points. Buttigieg, last week's savior, has slipped to fifth place. [38]
Warren's campaign collapsed when it was revealed that she is not in fact an American Indian. But the others rose and fell for no obvious reason. Perhaps there is a circle of power brokers that designates one candidate or the other to be flavor of the week. I'm not sure what to make of this behavior. Why doesn't the media just cover the frontrunners, like in a normal campaign? Of course, if they did we would complain about "horse race coverage."
Eighty two percent of Dem women say they don't care that Biden feels up women. Last year, Biden joined the anti-Kavanaugh mob. Now he benefits from the fact that the country is fed up with Me-Tooism. PeterKa (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2019 (EDT)

Biden has to answer these charges, directly related to Hillary-Ukraine collusion to interfere in the 2016 elections and American democracy currently under investigation by Barr and the FBI. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 13:38, 20 April 2019 (EDT)

John Lott's British futures market has Sanders 19.1% in the lead, not Biden 16.8%, Harris 16.3%, not Buttigieg 13.8% but O'Rourke 8.0% as the fifth place no-hoper and sixth-place Warren even less at 3.9%. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 13:42, 20 April 2019 (EDT)

I won't keep doing this, but just to show the volatility, now it's Sanders 20.4%, Harris 16.3%, Biden 15.9%, Buttigieg 13.3%, O'Rourke 8.2% and Warren in 7th place at 3.8%. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 04:51, 21 April 2019 (EDT)

In an age of the internet, Biden will not be able withstand the torrent of Biden groping women/children videos/memes. The battle is over before it has begun.

"Every battle is won before it’s ever fought.” - Sun Tzu.Conservative (talk) 07:18, 21 April 2019 (EDT)

Harris, Butigieg, and Klobuchar are the only viable candidates, with an outside chance to Beto. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 11:27, 21 April 2019 (EDT)

Watch Harris and Klobuchar. By keeping quiet, they make no mistakes, just raking in donor cash right now. The challenge is to keep quiet for 9 months while building name exposure. It's unlikely we'd see an all female ticket, and Beto & Buttigieg bring no experience to the ticket (Beto could be a viable VP pick to make Texas competitive). We can learn much from the rise and fall of Buttigieg, who being the express image of Marxist glory, will eventually crash and burn. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 11:52, 21 April 2019 (EDT)

If Bernie wants the nomination, he'll have to go through Neera Tanden and the Clinton loyalists.[39] Rosenstein cleared Clinton on both Whitewater and Uranium One. He still runs the FBI, albeit subject to Barr's supervision now. Barr might not care who wins the Democratic nomination. The FBI is already investigating Bernie for bank fraud.[40] The 2016 election was the bureau's first foray into presidential politics since Watergate. They won't make so many mistakes this time around. PeterKa (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2019 (EDT)

I think Peter is being ironic—Peter Strozk in 2016 was the very essence of a corrupt, non-accidental mishandler of a criminal case during the Hillary illegal e-mail server scandal. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 03:26, 22 April 2019 (EDT)

I meant that compared to Mark Felt, Strzok and McCabe were amateurs. Felt not only took Nixon down, but he kept his name out of the media until after he died. PeterKa (talk) 12:47, 22 April 2019 (EDT)

There's definitely gonna be a shake-up at DOJ. Right now we're waiting on Horowitz's FISA abuse report. Meantime, Mueller is scheduled to testify to the Senate May 2 (don't know if it'll be public) which is mandatory, and the House invited him May 22. From what I see, Mueller would be crazy to testify in public.

Andrew Weissmann wrote the report. Andrew Wiesmmann, the lead prosecutor, knew (a) the bogus evidence to start the investigation came from Hillary Clinton; (b) the bogus evidence was used to commit fraud against the FISA court; (c) the FBI continued to use Christopher Steele as a source (through Bruce Ohr) after the FBI fired Steele as an informant for breaking bureau rules; (d) collusion was a hoax; (e) the entire Mueller probe was a cover-up for FBI & DOJ illegal activity; (f) Mueller appointed Weissmann as lead prosecutor to aid in the cover-up. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 14:24, 22 April 2019 (EDT)

Looks like it's over. Biden is the DNC establishment pick. In 1991 Biden referred to Bill Barr as "a heck of an honorable guy"[41] after Barr covered up Bush/Clinton collusion in the Iran/Contra scandal. A similar deal is needed now. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 16:32, 23 April 2019 (EDT)

A decade I would have conceded the power of the Dem Establishment. Not so sure today.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2019 (EDT)

The Dem establishment now is going through with the Democratic Socialists what the RNC went through with the Tea Party a few years ago. They loosened Superdelagate control to give insurgent candidates a chance But Biden is the establishment pick, as Jeb and Hillary were. Harris, Klobuchar, Warren, even Beto are establishment candidates. Bernie is an insurgent. Buttigieg appears to be an establishment candidate, but he's young enough to flip and fight the establishment.

Beto is running for VP to make Texas competitive. It's highly unlikely the Dems will run two white males. A misstep by Biden could open the door for a female candidate to surge. But right now, Biden appears to have the establishment behind him. Can the Democratic Socialists finally take over the establishment, their main objective, this cycle? RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 06:26, 24 April 2019 (EDT)

Biden's first ad

While the Sanders campaign emphasizes the freebies that he is going to give you, Biden's first ad is all about reviving old fake news.[42] The ad is an extended discussion of Charlottesville, but neglects to mention that at the time Confederate statutes were considered to be the central issue. Tearing down statutes didn't poll well, so the left has revised history to emphasize the role of anti-Semitism. Trump is the most pro-Israel president in American history and he has Jewish grandchildren. Until Biden condemns Ilhan Omar, he's a fraud in the "more pro-Jewish than thou" sweepstakes. PeterKa (talk) 06:33, 26 April 2019 (EDT)

Biden's playing the race card. He hired Bernie's old press aide, an African American woman who donated to Buttigieg just a month ago. Biden needs to motivate Blacks to the polls in a way Hilary could not. The difference is, While Hillary wanted to toss Superpredators in jail, Biden wrote the law that did just that.

The good news is, Biden sucks all the air out of the room and campaign donations while others tread water. In the long run, he gets beat in the primaries, if he makes it that far. Candace Owens is right, Blacks aren't stupid. Whoever emerges to beat Biden has to motivate Blacks to the polls better than Biden is trying. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 09:13, 26 April 2019 (EDT)

At the beginning of the ad, Biden waxes nostalgic about what race relations were like before Trump came along and ruined everything. Ah yes, the golden age of Obama/Biden when we had a president who wasn't afraid to egg on rioters in Ferguson and Baltimore and tour with Al Sharpton. Black Lives Matter encouraged police shootings in Dallas and elsewhere as Obama invited their leaders to the White House.PeterKa (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2019 (EDT)

This article says it better than I did: "Joe Biden is running on the media's Charlottesville lie about Trump." Biden treats the unfortunate phrase "both sides" as a window into Trump's soul. A reporter at the press conference used this phrase in his question. Trump repeated it in his answer to show that he had heard the question and was responding it. Trump meant both sides of the Confederate statue question, but Biden interprets it mean both sides of the neo-Nazi question. It's a cautionary tale on Trump's willingness to comment on any subject in the news and respond to any question. There are two words he needs to add to his vocabulary: "No comment." PeterKa (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2019 (EDT)

Biden's a racist. We have more than enough evidence. I doubt he'll even make it to when the voting begins. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 00:03, 27 April 2019 (EDT)

When he was 29, Biden was eager to sell himself and his politics out to the highest bidder. But the bigwigs told him, "Come back when you're 40." Now that he is over 40, he's eagerly selling out. You can see the Biden's jaw dropping candor for yourself on this Jimmy Dore video. PeterKa (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2019 (EDT)

The leftist rag Jacobin sums up Biden's life and career:

"It’s not as if Biden didn’t know what he was doing.... He just didn’t care. Biden had made a calculated decision that the elections he would win were worth the damage he inflicted.... the rank cynicism and callousness involved in his two-decade-long championing of carceral policies should be more than enough to give anyone pause about his qualities as a leader, let alone a progressive one.

I doubt anyone can top that or add to it before we hear the last of Joe Biden. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 02:14, 27 April 2019 (EDT)

N.B. "Carceral policies" means criminal sentencing or prison policies

Contest: what will the G.O.P. cave on next?

Coulter, Ann (May 13, 2015)

Sen. Ted Cruz—along with lickspittle Paul—wants to end mandatory minimum sentencing. Yes, remember how much we trust judges to use their discretion wisely? The precise reason the public demanded mandatory minimums in the first place was because so many liberal judges had their own ideas about "alternatives to prison"—such as, again, not prison.

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee suggests that, instead of prison, the government should "address character."

Huckabee, for example, addressed the character of Maurice Clemmons—a career criminal who said he was deeply remorseful and was trying to be a good Christian—by granting him clemency. This allowed Maurice to rape a child and slaughter four police officers execution-style, in "the largest number of law enforcement officers killed by one man in a single incident in U.S. history," at least according to Wikipedia.

(On the bright side, releasing Maurice saved Arkansas taxpayers all sorts of money—just as [Gov. Rick] Perry predicted!)

Before sucking up to The New York Times, it would be really great if Republicans would read, so they'd know stuff.

Contrary to the a**holery being pushed nonstop by the left, for example:

(1) No one is in prison just for possessing a joint; and

(2) So-called "non-violent" drug crimes that result in prison are generally committed by violent criminals.

Evidently, Americans need to patiently explain to elected Republicans—who are too busy hanging out with their Chamber of Commerce friends to have any idea how the world works—that no judge is going to waste prison space on a guy selling a joint.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, only 0.7 percent of all state inmates are behind bars for marijuana possession alone. Carnegie Mellon's Jonathan Caulkins puts the figure at less than half a percent.

And these are the convictions of record.

Our pro-criminal media invariably cite the conviction of record, as if that's the worst crime committed by the defendant. But, as the Times itself reports: "97 percent of federal cases and 94 percent of state cases end in plea bargains."

Do you think criminals are pleading guilty to the most serous offenses they're actually guilty of?

Defense attorney: The prosecutors want to charge you with murder one, menacing, drug possession and distribution.

Criminal: OK, I'll plead to murder one.

Defense attorney: No! We'll offer to plead to possession of marijuana.

Criminal: Oh! OK, OK, I see—yes, you're right

Show me all the wonderful fellows in prison just because they had a single joint. I want three examples—and I want their names, so I can find out what they really did.

For years—in fact, to this very day—the left's poster boy for the monstrous injustice of the war on drugs was DeMarcus Sanders, whose life was ruined, so the legend goes, just because police found a single marijuana seed in his car.

And then you run a basic Google search and find out that DeMarcus was a known gang member who had already served time for shooting a rival gang member. After that conviction, DeMarcus was arrested again, for who knows what—but copped a plea to possession of marijuana, the only charge we ever hear about in connection with his name.

Just a few months ago, DeMarcus was again sentenced to prison, this time after taking a plea to being "a prohibited person in possession of a firearm and ammunition," as the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier (Iowa) reports. (Incidentally, I thought we all agreed that known felons shouldn't be allowed to have guns.)

The reason so many plea bargains involve firearms and drugs isn't that those are the perp's main crime: It's because guns and drugs aren't human beings who can make lousy witnesses, leave the jurisdiction, die or be intimidated out of testifying. Possession offenses are the very least the prosecutor can demand in a plea bargain and the quickest way to get bad guys off the street.

Prosecutors know who the defendants are, and know what they really did. That's why those in prison for "mere" drug possession actually have a higher arrest rate for violent crimes than those in prison for burglary, robbery or even drug trafficking, according to innumerable studies, including one in the Journal of the American Statistical Association.

You know what would be really great? Instead of Republicans impressing the media by taking "surprising" positions on crime, how about Republicans try surprising us by taking a position against Wall Street or the Chamber of Commerce and on the side of ordinary Americans?

True, it wouldn't be celebrated as a "kumbaya" moment by Bloomberg News. But on the plus side, a lot fewer Americans would be murdered, crippled, raped and robbed. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 19:26, 27 April 2019 (EDT)

Democrats control Wall Street, everyone knows that. The Chamber of Commerce is a big player in the Deep State/Uniparty. Opposing the Chamber of Commerce globalist agenda is what Trumpism is all about. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 20:07, 27 April 2019 (EDT)

These are large corporations and a big group that favors lots of unskilled labor to be let into the country, in case your readers didn't see what was hidden in your links. Unfortunately, Trump has only built 26 miles of fence, so Trump seems to be unsure about what Trumpism is "all about". But that was really a side issue that Coulter briefly mentioned. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 21:04, 27 April 2019 (EDT)

It's the economy, stupid. The Democrats are the party of big business, the Republicans are the party of the common man (yes, transgenders are not common). Everone knows this, accept the fake news mainstream media. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 22:00, 27 April 2019 (EDT)

"It's the economy, stupid" was a slogan from twenty-five years ago among inside baseball U.S. Federal Government political strategists that made it into the public mainstream expressing the answer they came up with after they wondered which issues voters cared about the most.

RobS sometimes makes these cryptic replies that nevertheless express a deeper understanding of politics than the rest of us. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 23:29, 27 April 2019 (EDT)

"The economy, stupid" was a slogan strategist James Carville put on a sign he mounted at the Clinton campaign headquarters in 1992. At that time, there were still a lot of voters who had experienced the Great Depression. They needed to be reassured that we were not sliding into another one. Based on the last few elections, you could say "It's the health care, stupid." We need to put the brakes on health care costs with medical savings accounts or some other market mechanism. PeterKa (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2019 (EDT)

Thank you. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 00:50, 13 May 2019 (EDT)

"Cory, your illegal immigrant friend just pick-pocketed that laborer, disappeared into a gang, and they all walked off laughing! What's up with that?"

Cory: [sits up, leans forward] "[angrily] Listen, America is a [clenches fist] strong [relaxes fist] country and a wealthy nation!"

VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 05:30, 21 April 2019 (EDT)