Campaign!

G'day, fellow RationalWikians! Don't forget to visit the Campaign page of the 2016 Board of trustees election in order to make your voice heard. Suggested activities include:

  • Endorsing select candidates (lending a hand to your loyal henchmen and/or glorious overlords!)
  • Anti-endorsing select candidates (character-assassinating your hated opponents!)
  • Providing moar goat (please wipe afterwards)
  • Just asking questions to the candidates

Your participation might help other users better direct their votes. More importantly, it'll show the world that we've yet to go full Citizendium in terms of election hype!

from FuzzyCatPotato (Talk), group Site wide (urgent) at 00:24, 25 July 2016

Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

What is going on?

(talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)

As a point of etiquette, please use the [add section] tab above, or the "Add new section" link below, when adding a new topic, and the appropriate [edit] tab when commenting on existing topics. This will lessen the incidence of edit conflicts. Thank you.

When adding a link to Conservapedia that is not already on What is going on at CP? please place <capture></capture> around the link.


This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: Archive list

Contents

[edit] Brexit + stocks are down = Another Globalist Setback

Andy: Brexit! YEAH! Fuck yeah!!

Andy: Global markets are DOWN! Yeah! Eat it, Globalists!

User: Andy... Brexit caused this. Globalists didn't want Brexit.

Andy: You know what? You're right. But I'm also right because <fart noise>.

Shakedangle (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The Assfly schadenfreude is at a maximum, as always? :3 Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Andy's "rebuttal" is just a Palinesque word salad. I can't glean any meaning from it. Anyone take a gander? Shakedangle (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Well yah. Trump is anti-globalist; Brexit win is anti-globalist. So the globalists took their money and went home, causing global markets to drop. Now after the globalists clean out all the small investors they can buy back their stock at bargain basement prices. nobsBern baby bern 19:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
How can an anti-globalist run an international business group and condemn globalism while making a speech at a new international golf course? -MasterofLogic (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Interational? Does Canada count as international? nobsBern baby bern 20:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Is this an inside joke I don't get? -MasterofLogic (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
You're talking about Trump I presume; from the links above I got the impression Andy's running scared Trump may loose and when the votes were counted, the anti-globalists who voted for BREXIT won. Seems like Andy's peddling some global anti-global movement sweeping the globe. nobsBern baby bern 21:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Let me assure you Rob those who voted for brexit almost to a person didn't do so from anti-globalist motives. In fact the only people I know who did that are members of the Communist Party of Great Britain who are hardline stalinist. Some voted because they genuinely believed the lies repeatedly told by anti-eu people, like the curved banana myth. Some voted out because they have a little Britain mindset, kind of like your stereo-typical 'texan' mindset I guess you may be able to describe it. Some voted out because they thought the UK government would 'gain control over migration'. And a lot of them voted out because they are racists. It's no coincidence there has been a more than 50% rise in incidents of racial harassment since last Friday. Now I know nuanced thought is a struggle for Andy but I thought even he wouldn't align himself with the communist party. I was wrong of course, andy doesn't do complex thoughts does he. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
That's helpful. The Julian Assange interview I thought was prety good, too. Would it be safe to say the whole BREXIT vote, then, was primarily a reaction to the refugee crisis? nobsBern baby bern 19:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
That would be slightly simplistic to be honest. The refugee crisis, without question, had and has an effect on EU and UK politics and a SODDING large one. Now I hesitate to use these terms but I will. Possibly equally important for the 'working class' in the UK was the perceived influx of EU nationals who were accused of 'taking British peoples jobs' although the two issues, that of refugees and EU migrants, were often conflated. That was, and is, an incredibly simplistic approach - the EU migrants are the ones who pick out fruit and veg from the fields and keep the NHS functioning - but it is one that many people took. Now of course these are only my views, a pro-exiter will no doubt have a different view. But that is mine and I think we've interacted enough for you to know I'm not a knee-jerker but someone who thinks things through. And I'm now trusting you, these are my views only. Don't go and say 'A Brit told me.......', but rather say a Brit I was talking to had this viewpoint. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
So, right now a worker from Poland can enter and the exit the country without a passport, correct? but if the UK leaves the EU, Britain would have to adopt some sort of guest worker program? nobsBern baby bern 21:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
No. As Britain is not a member of Schengen you have to show some ID to get into Britain even if you are an EU citizen. However, the free movement of labor according to EU rules allows you to live and work there just like any local citizen would. However, members of the EEA (European Economic Area) and EFTA (European Free Trade Agreement) like Norway or Iceland have an agreement that also gives them free movement of labor, so an Icelander can work in the EU without a permit and EU citizens don't need a permit for immigration to Iceland. Almost all people in the Brexit debate have either said they want to keep being in the EU or want a deal similar to Iceland or Norway. However, if Article 50 is triggered and the UK has to leave the EU after two years with no new agreement, the only one to decide who can and cannot live and work in the UK is Westminster. This is not likely, but it might happen. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
All this is very informative and appreciated. Now, the citizen vote itself is non-binding, IOW, simply advisory to parliment that would have to formalize withdrawl. The Tories simply have to elect a new leader w/o a dissolving parliament. Is this correct? nobsBern baby bern 02:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Jeez Rob, you want a course in the, famously unwritten, British constitution? I'm not a constitutional lawyer so all of this is my understandings, some are accurate, some are simply as I understand things and are likely incorrect. But. All referendum in the UK are advisory only. No government is bound by them in any way at all legally. It is unclear whether a vote is required in Parliament to trigger invocation of Article 50, but if one is not taken then it is also highly likely that people will seek judicial review of that decision. As for dissolotuion of Parliament. That's also slightly complex now. Strictly speaking the monarch dissolves parliament, the PM asks her to do so and she always agrees but she 'could' technically say no. she won't. However to dissolve the parliament there need to be one of 3 tings. One is the fixed term off 5 years expires. We had an election last year, so that would mean a 4 year wait. Secondly there can be a vote in the lower house where 75% of all votes must be cast in favour, this includes those votes applying to currently empty seats, where no mp is in place. Not likely to happen imo as many of the NI mp's, all the Scottish MP's and a lot of English and Welsh MP's are likely to vote no. Thirdly there is a vote of no-confidence in the government and no government is formed within 14 days that can command the confidence of the house. This IS possible but would almost certainly raise the rather bizzare situation where the opposition, Labout, Scot Nats ect will be voting in favour of the Government, whilst the government, the tories, would be voting no confidence in themselves. Including all ministers voting that they have no confidence in the job they are doing and, presumably, want to carry on doing after any election. Basically the entire situation is a cluster-fuck of the highest proportions. Oldusgitus (talk) 05:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Losing a no confidence vote on purpose to dissolve parliament is not so unusual. It has happened quite some times in other countries, but Britain has thus far had no need of it because until a change in law quite recently the PM could dissolve parliament just like that. As for what happens with the "advisory" referendum... Juncker and many other EU figures say they want Art. 50 triggered sooner rather than later. Most Brexiteers are of the opposite opinion (which just goes to show how Bullshit this "the EU does not respect the will of the people" line is). It is possible that whoever gets into 10 Downing come October will try to get some deal with the EU for the case 50 is triggered and then put that to a referendum with the alternative(s) either stay as is, leave without that deal or both on the ballot. However, it may well be that the EU has just about had it with scheming by Britain and may reject any negotiation that give the UK yet more opt outs. An interesting question is whether the EU can throw out Britain if Britain somehow never triggers Article 50... another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 12:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

So this is what I gleen from all this: (1) the Tories can change leadership without a nationwide election for the House of Commons; (2) with 2 million signatures for another non-binding referendum, it is possible Commons can have their own non-binding resolution on the results of the first national referendum - essentially saying, 'now that the people have spoken what are we gonna do about it?'. If Britain has a new Prime Minister by that time everything changes. Commons could vote to move to the next step of appointing a commission to study the results of the national referendum and make further recommendations, or it could say let the second referendum proceed if it seems likely to overturn the first, or it could say, 'fuck it, the mob is crazy, and we're just going to wait til the next general election and let a new House of Commons deal with it then'. nobsBern baby bern 19:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
1. Yes. 2. Yes, but unlikely. 3. Yes, but personally I doubt they will hold a second referendum. If you think world markets are in turmoil no I dread to think what would happen if we now start fucking round with the result. And I also dread to think what would happen on the streets in that case as well. I think the last option is the most likely. The government will somehow find a way of kicking this can so far down the road that whoever comes into the next government will end up dealing with it. After all, that is why Cameron resigned. He is quoted as saying 'why should I have to do all the hard work and deal with all the shit just to let those wankers walk in and take the credit' so he's left it to his successor to crawl through the rivers of shit that boris and the leave campaign have created. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
You didn't answer how an anti-globalist can be the head of an international global tourist and sales business as well as their clownish mascot? What does Canada have to do with anything? -MasterofLogic (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
You're speaking of Trump, I think. Well, what countries does he operate in? nobsBern baby bern 21:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I am, I don't know who Andy is. Seriously? He made the speech about the Brexit from his golf course in Scotland and had a damning report about a property in Dubai using virtual slaves. Besides foreign investors in other properties made possible by globalism. -MasterofLogic (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Slavery doesn't have anything to do with globalism; it's an old-fashioned Christian value! Trump is bringing the good old days back! --Ymir (talk) 05:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
It was a public report about a part of the business that was international. nobs asked what parts of the business were international... -MasterofLogic (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
So the point is Trump has business interests in a Dubai golf coarse. I'm assuming it would be impossible (which I'm 99.98% certain) for a kufr like Trump to own land there. But he could franchise the Trump name-brand on a golf coarse. But I don't think Trump has been involved in conflicts of interest for approving weapons sales to benefit of the U.S. military industrial complex, nor accepted money for an alleged non-profit organization from arms purchasers or sellers, nor is under FBI investigation for any of his international globalist business dealings. If I've oversimplified, let me know. nobsBern baby bern 02:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Do you know what a globalist is? It is not just another word for arms dealer. -MasterofLogic (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Rob, this is not Conservapedia and the internet is not just an echo chamber. You can use it to find out who can buy property in Dubai in a couple of seconds.
Trump has business in different countries and, like everyone who has business in different countries, he wants lower barriers to transnational investment and trade. The rest is spin for the plebs who trot out to vote every few years then go back to their TV. And let's npt start on the frankly psychedelic idea that the Tories who led the Brexit campaign aren't globalists. London Grump (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
If a non-Muslim can buy land in Dubia, I'll eat my dirty socks with some tobasaco sauce. 19:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
isnt that what shell companies are for?, like nature in jurassic park, money finds a way 20:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Rob,seeing as you struggle with the concept of looking things up on the internet, allow me to type "who can buy property in Dubai?" into a search engine on your behalf. Search time: 0.73 seconds. Let's see. How about This from the UK government?. Not clear enough for a Conservapedian? Let's try "Can Jews own land in Dubai?". 0.72 seconds gives us this. Like I said, Rob, this isn't Conservapedia. As for your socks, nobody believed you anyway. London Grump (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Should I link some tutorials how to use Google and the internet for new users like Rob? -MasterofLogic (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
No need. People can get what they want to hear over at the Trustworthy Encyclopedia. London Grump (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
is it possible rob is confusing saudi arabia with uae? AMassiveGay (talk) 09:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
It's possible. I doubt your average Conservapedian has a grasp of such nuanced differences. After all, they all look the same. London Grump (talk) 07:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Someone may need to bring this to Andy's attention

Apparently Trump used money donated for charity to buy himself a football helmet signed by St Tebow. Vulpius (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Could there be any part of this story to make it even more hilarious and right wing bashing by its very nature? At this point it doesn't even need a male sex worker... another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Dallas shootings, It's Facebook's fault.

[1].— Unsigned, by: Mercian / talk / contribs

[edit] Ken starts a new blog

After manning the helm of the Question Evolution! Blog (which curiously he has deleted all reference to) Ken decided to start another. I present Combating Atheism - A Ken DeMyer joint. Acei9 20:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

That would be the one that London Grump mentioned on WIGO a week ago? :-) Oldusgitus (talk) 13:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not here or there very often anymore. Acei9 21:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
The first post of the blog invokes D-meyers law.[2] in the comments section.

Michael HaggerstromFebruary 5, 2016 at 4:30 AM

Glad to see the members of the User: Conservative account are blogging again! Don't mind hateful comments from anonymous sourpuss trolls like "Mark Mark" here. You're fighting the good fight! Olé olé olé! --Mercian (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Since my last posting the above comment has been deleted.--Mercian (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

That's right, Ken. Keep shitting into a cup and calling it chocolate soft-serve. Maybe one day, when you praise the taste, you'll actually believe it. Semipenultimate (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] CP vs RW: Here's what a domain search engine thinks

RWvsCP.png

It looks like Godaddy is liberally biased. Or perhaps it just understands English better than they do (or whoever wrote Trusworthy). TeslaK20 (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Personal tools

Variants
Actions
Navigation
support
Community
Tools