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


[edit] How will Wikipedia navigate the Trump era?

I stumbled upon this article about wikipedia's current challenges. Brave yourself, there is a picture of Andrew Schlafly in it: who could better exemplify the post-truth society!

A decade ago, conservative activist Andrew Schlafly, son of famed anti-Equal Rights Amendment campaigner Phyllis Schlafly, launched Conservapedia, a site very much intended to “fix it.” Conservapedia was modeled on Wikipedia, but its mission was to present an alternative to what Schlafly perceived to be the original site’s liberal bias. According to Schlafly, traffic to the site grew 50 percent over the course of 2016. He told Inverse that Conservapedia hosted 20 million visits in November (though the source cited for those figures was, inevitably, Conservapedia).

--larron (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Trump and his staff recognized that they do not pay a penalty with their base if they make up facts. Wikipedia insiders quickly learned that they only have to win a "wikilawyer" edit war to put their version of the truth into Wikipedia without regard for the "truth." There are three types of people editing CP now: (1) true believers who strive to synthesize and report facts from "fake news" and right wing websites; (2) parodists and editors currying favor with Andy who try to bend the truth as far as possible without having Andy step in; and (3) a very few editors who believe in the stated CP mission and try to maintain credibility.
This leads to strange results such as 1) the Trump Administration has many successes but no failures, 2) E = mc2 is false, 3) the "official name" of the Democratic Party is "Democrat Party", 3) Obama is a Muslim and 4) relativity is a liberal hoax.Hclodge (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Speaking of strange results; worth mentioning is that they're also working to separate out the "fake news" of ages past — undistorting world's biggest pinko liberal rag back into its original, clear and intended message. No, really. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
You are right Reverend, and I never had read that before. There is a unifying theme to all of this. God wrote a law or instruction manual for all of mankind in the Bible. The Bible was translated over generations into verses by theological scholars, and one cannot arbitrarily delete verses without leaving important gaps to mankind's detriment. Similarly, Congress wrote a book of laws (the United States Code) in broad general terms (e.g., keep pollution out of the water) and left it to generations of technocrats to write detailed rules (e.g., don't dump certain chemicals into streams) explaining each section (the Code of Federal Regulations). Now, President Trump has issued an Executive Order which requires government departments to delete two existing regulations for every one that is added. Each deleted regulation leaves a gap without repealing the underlying law or addressing what caused Congress to pass that law. So, Andy ordering the mindless deletion of verses in the CBP foreshadowed Trump ordering the mindless deletion of regulations. cp:Biblical scientific foreknowledge Hclodge (talk) 12:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Sweet Christmas, it's President Best-Of-The-Public. Semipenultimate (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
On behalf of all liberal Wikipedia editors and all cp:Lamestream media, I surrender in the face of united and overwhelming opposition. Hclodge (talk) 08:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

It does not matter how Wikipedia navigates the Trump era, because it has millions in its bank and can spend it lavishly for more than the rest of Trump's term. Of greater concern is how Conservapedia navigates the Trump era. RobSmith is anti-Russian and can be expected to take a critical view of the Trump-Putin relationship. Andy is pro-life and has been critical of the nomination of Neil Gorsuch. Andy is also anti-Obamacare and will be disappointed when Trump "repairs" Obamacare rather than merely repealing it. Conventional Republicans have more popular alt-right websites to write for, and the recent active Conservapedia authors appear to be from Europe and are adding European content. It is mid-February and we still do not have articles on all of the members of Trump's cabinet, but we are getting articles on how the CIA built the European Union. Hclodge (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Andy likes Trump but he will never admit it. He is going off rail a little and taking snipes at Trump's lieutenants. Gorsuch is not suffiently conservative and Pence is a (100% pro life, pro gun, anti gay, anti health care) foul mouthed RINO. Andy did not endorse Trump until his mother did and before that he was leaning towards the since RINOd Ted Cruz. Confusing times for Andy now he no longer has his mum to point him in the right direction.--Mercian (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
If Andy is confused, imagine how that leaves his posse when they try to enforce his views on the CP editor corps. Which Trump people can we criticize? Michael Flynn? Putin? Are we allowed to discuss any of Trump's failures? Hclodge (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Clearly the answer will always be 'never!' until it becomes expedient for it to become 'always!' thanks to Andy's convoluted doublethink. But there is some hope with the whole 'Mike Pence did a bad swear' thing. I'd like to see someone try to add the same line to Trump's page on Conservapedia; shit, you could even link directly to the so-called POTUS twitter feed. Screenies and I'll even buy you a beer (offer not valid outside of the Thirty-Mile Zone). Semipenultimate (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Point of Order (since my name was used). Let me be clear, I'm not a Russophobe, I'm anti-commie. I believe the Russian Federation has legitimate concerns and claims in its Black Sea Near abroadWikipedia's W.svg; the Baltics sovereignty should be respected (despite Gingrich willing to sell them out); the Qawqaz (Caususes) and Abkhazia should be a negotiated settlement without Georgia joining NATO, unless NATO redefines its mission as protecting against Islamic encroachment rather than Russian, and a Russian-NATO alliance is forged to defend against the global jihad; the status of Kaliningrad should probably remain as a Russian "exclave", and there's no reason similiar solutions, like the Crimea, for other disputed territories in the Black Sea region cannot be applied. Obama hit the Russian Reset after the creation of the state of Abkhazia, essentially legitimizing what it later called "occupation of Georgia". The Baltics don't need a large or threatening NATO presence, or a missile defense system. What is needed is closer EU-Russian relations. Putin's opposition to gay marriage has nothing to do with my sympathies. Neither does a willingness to frighten and piss-off China scare me. Yes, I'm with the Russian proposals for a Yalta 2 Summit and Agreement. nobs 07:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and Kuril Islands should be returned to Japan, perhaps in exchange for help in defeating Daesh and defending against Chinese high-seas expansion. nobs 17:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry. Nobs sees the world as a three-dimensional chess board. Although there are excellent staff and Secretaries of Defense and State, Trump and Pence are still learning the names of all of the chess pieces. Meanwhile Andy is trying to find a role in the family organization and how to keep it relevant in the Trump era.
John Wesley Rawles could not support himself with his survival blog, and became a novelist. Eventhough she was 90, mom's reputation was poweful enough for a pro-Trump book deal. Andy is losing money on Conservapedia, cannot get enough scale on homeschool tutoring, and is nowhere near the leadership on the abortion fight. I don't see a secure economic future for Andy. This is similar to Jimmy Wales, who was around at a time to personally exploit Wikipedia for great personal gain, but who has not been able to invent a successful second act to follow it. Conservapedia has been a very clever concept and someone had to lead it, but it has not been well executed, and it is not a viable career path. Hclodge (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Hey Rob, what is your view on CP supporting self confessed Neo Nazis like Le Penn and Wilders? Neo Nazimism is a "liberal" philosophy according to Conservapedia, surely you are not going to stand for that!--Mercian (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Hlodge, I'm not so certain of that. You would be amazed at what's been accomplished so far already. It may very well be that the job Mike Flynn was brought in to do has been completed, and his departure is the beginning of a softening and reconciliation between Trump and the intelligence community. The Russian hacking fake news was never more than a cover for Clinton Foundation corruption, and as the Obama holdovers get rousted the intelligence community will get on board with Trump. Flynn's gone, so there should be no impediment. As to prosecutions of those involved in the coup, sure Trump's vindictive and a hot head, but it might set a bad precedent.
@Mercian, yes, an interesting point I'll look into. nobs 18:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

There are so many similarities between the Donald and Andy: they have this knack to find the right personal! The world would be better off if Donald Trump was just managing a website financed by his wife, but I have no doubt that he would have put his trust in TK and Bugler, too. --larron (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

We have a "pot calling the kettle black" credibility problem from both Trump and Andy. At Trump's first press conference, he warned about "very fake news" and predicted that the press would report that he was "ranting and raving." He was trying to launch a preemptive strike against his critics asking that his followers reject any counter-narrative. Similarly, Andy offers extensive criticism of RINOs, Wikipedia and the "lamestream media" hoping that his followers (a bunch of homeschooled students????) believe his narrative on evolution, relativity, the geometric growth of "Conservative words", etc rather than those other information sources. Does Trump's call to reject information from "the media" implicitly include CP? Does Andy's call to reject information from immoral people (who father children with three different wives and who grope women), from politicians (who seek to enrich themselves while holding pubic office), or from the media (who frequently just repeat "fake news" information issued by the White House) implicitly include Trump and the White House? Hclodge (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

You have to understand what Andy means by "conservative" and "liberal". A conservative is somebody who is clean, wholesome, and normal. Liberal's are pot smoking hippies and college professors. It has little to do with beliefs and ideology. So long as Trump doesn't smoke or drink and takes a shower once a day, he's a conservative. nobs 00:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
So in Andy's eyes "grabbing women by the pussy" is clean, conservative and wholesome? As a liberal I was not so concerned with that (The dressing room banter that is, I would deplore the action), at the time he was a private citizen with no desire for public office and I admit I have spoken in not too a disimilar about women in my younger years but I was 16 and not 60 at the time. But surely an ultra conservative like Andy would hate it?--Mercian (talk) 10:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Correction: In Andy's terms, a conservative is someone who agrees with him. A liberal is everyone else. Worm (talk) 11:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
If that were true, Andy wouldn't have any friends. So he is is willing to compromise. And he's sophisticated enough to see a conservative who "grabs 'em by the pussy" is victim of liberal hypocrisy. BTW, How did the Clinton's ever think they were dealt a winning hand with the "grab em by the pussy" video when they basically recruited Trump to play Hillary's foil and demonstrated how to survive such a crisis? nobs 15:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Nobs, there are so many people involved in a campaign. Although polling and media purchases are centralized, every state has an army of volunteers and paid staff. I can't believe that there was a massive conspiracy with thousands of participants able to keep a secret. How could the political party process end up with unpopular and flawed Trump and Clinton as the national candidates? If there is a need for reform, I would make Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) a requirement in every state's primary. Hclodge (talk) 12:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I understand you POV and, believe it or not, agree with it within how the US system works. The way you stated it means "federalizing elections", which is just never going to happen. For two reasons: (a) elections are run by states, meaning we have 50 different state laws governing both primary and general elections, and (b) primary elections are fundamentally private sector, non-governmental, party affairs. Some deem state law intervention in these already as a government overreach of power. nobs 23:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The basic criticism of Donald Trump's leadership style is that he is a narcissist who overvalues his own abilities, ignores facts inconsistent with his narrative, attacks his "enemies", and lacks an appreciation of the complexities of the problems that he must address. It is not surprising that neither Andy nor Jimbo Wales can see this, given their own track records in leading CP and WP. Hclodge (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Trump has to learn to be Reaganesque, reserved, rehearsed, disciplined. His improvisational style works in a campaign rally, but outside of that he needs to just shut up. He admires Reagan, and media-wise, the two are similiar. He has to re-invent himself now into President Trump.
Really, Trump, Reagan, & FDR's style of governance is very similiar; none of them are policy wonks (Hillary Clinton's big asset), they speak in broad outline, and delegate authority to others to work out the details.
Right now Trump has stumbled into the middle of a massive dispute within the national security and intelligence community, and it really is not of his making. But he aligned himself with a faction that was removed from power in the Obama years. Obama brought signigicant changes to US foreign policy, and it's the Obama appointees trying to hold on to those changes.
Trump has not aligned himself with the neocons - yet. But it could happen.
At root, the CIA has become involved in domestic politics - this is Obama's legacy. I don't see how the CIA thinks it can win, Congress and the American people will never allow it. It's why Bush was voted out of office and it's why Jeb never gained traction, and why Hillary lost.
I'd like to see Trump do what John Kennedy threatened, scatter the CIA to the four winds. nobs 08:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
He is going to have to change his style without the advice of Jeff Sessions. Talk about a House of Cards.--Mercian (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Think about it for a minute, if the biggest criticism of Trump from all quarters is, He is a narcacist and egotist not wedded to principal and ideology, it shouldn't be too hard. He after all, in his second career as a TV producer, is obsessed with manipulating TV ratings to serve his ego. nobs 17:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

To return to the question posed by this section, historically, people relied upon print media to deliver the factual news, but that news was biased. During the Revolutionary war, printers tried to inflame passions to favor independence. Later the press tried to incite the US to enter the Spanish American War. On the whole, print media had a conservative bias. Perhaps some people welcomed the Internet as a way around the corporate/conservative bias of the mainstream media. Yet, what happened was talk radio and some very conservative Tea Party bloggers on the far right as well as unconventional media on the left. Wikipedia bent over backwards to come up with rules as to what is acceptable media sources. Trump is trying to do the same thing - pushing people to reject information sources contrary to his narrative as "fake news." Wikipedia's challenge is whether to allow Trump to define what are reliable sources or to run the risk of being labeled a "fake news" source itself.

Conservapedia also faces similar challenges. CP has openly adopted a pro-Trump bias (replacing its pro-Conservative anti-bias stance). Since the Trump viewpoint is delivered by Twitter, and Twitter is not a "reliable source" how does a WP or CP editor accurately reflect the Trump viewpoint? Hclodge (talk) 11:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Very briefly, WP should not use the Washington Post because of the CIA/Bezos conflict of interest scandal. nobs 13:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Nobs is assuming that WP wants to have correct unbiased content. In fact, most edits to WP are paid by publicists. What difference does it make whether some toothpaste company is using WP to promote its product without disclosure or the CIA is funding content that is refactored by WP to spread without disclosure? Hclodge (talk) 08:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I laid out my position to Andy in plain English even Andy should be able to understand. His efforts to undermine the Trump agenda are Putinesque, and if Trump turns out to be a failure (which we'll know by June), it's backstabbing and second guessing by Deep State stooges like Andy that subverted him. nobs 13:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Guys, I've got it - every time nobs says 'Deep State', donate $20 to your favorite freedom-supporting charity. I'm cycling between Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, the SPLC, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, and the Sierra Club. Go Rob, go! Semipenultimate (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
It's interesting read. Amazingly Conservative's contributions to the discussion are lucid, well reasoned even --Mercian (talk) 05:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC).

There are a number of well-visited articles that undermine Conservapedia's credibility with the general public, and many of them deal with the over-board attacks on Barack Obama. One would hope that now that Obama is out of office, these articles could be refactored to reflect reality. However, now that Trump is officially adopting the tactic of blaming his predecessor (much like Stalin blamed Lenin and Nikita Khrushchev blamed Stalin) there may be a new emphasis at CP on over-the-top attacks on Obama. Hclodge (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Obama's name is shit now, for plotting the Deep State coup. And his treasonous, anti-American activities exposed for future generations. nobs 01:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I guess that is better than judging him by his "religion." When I compare cp:Barack Obama's religion to cp:Donald Trump's religious views, I am amazed. I am told that Obama is a muslim, but that the star of the Access Holywood tape is a devout Christian. More to the point, between Trump and Obama, who has studied and respects the Constitution? Hclodge (talk) 08:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The fundamental problem of the Trump era is that the public gets a raw Twitter feed directly from the source. All secondary sources, including WP and CP should be dismissed as "fake news" under a new broader definition. Why should anyone read anything other than Twitter? nobs has a very dark view. Hclodge (talk) 09:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

We're long form. And RW is brilliant at snarky attention getters. Twitters is just for pointing you to the longform source. Then it's a matter of reading trends, demographic targets in Twitter etc. Most important is timing. When the average American thinks, 'What's Allepo', you need a current stock of material to toss out there. nobs 10:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Andy Schlafly on Neil Gorsuch

Did anyone else see LifeSiteNews quoting Andy Schlafly on Neil Gorsuch? For once I hope Schlafly is actually right about something. (((Zack Martin))) 06:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I have now. What we see on Conservapedia is Andy the buffoon, mad but essentially harmeless. These articles show he is somewhat nastier and darker. Fuck democracy, human rights and common decency, he just wants to impose his own insane dogma on America and it's people. Thanks for posting.--Mercian (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
LifeSiteNews are completely loony. Some of the Disqus commentators there were complaining about Scalia being a liberal – because he said he was guided as a Supreme Court justice by his interpretation of the US constitution not by the teachings of the Catholic Church – that's the heresy of Americanism, to put secular law ahead of the Church's teachings. And Scalia said that while he personally disagreed with abortion and wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade so states could ban abortion if they wanted to, he believed that states that wanted to allow legal abortion had the constitutional right to do so – a True Conservative(TM) would recognise a right to life for the unborn in the constitution so abortion would constitutionally banned nationwide. But, if Andy is right and Gorsuch is a closet liberal (or even just not as extremely conservative as many of his GOP backers hope) – that'd be a good thing. I hope Andy's right on that front. (((Zack Martin))) 21:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Right, I misunderstood. I agree, If I were a democratic congressman I think I would not appose Gorsuch.--Mercian (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
ahh, democratic senator. House members have no say. Senators must approve appointments and treaties. Since the 1840s a 2/3 majority was needed, but thanks to Harry Reid, who destroyed a 175 year tradition of bipartisanship and compromise, the Senate operates like House where a simple majority rules.nobs 03:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, but you also believe that the Clintons personally murdered 40+ people and run a billion dollar pedophilia ring out of a DC pizza parlor. Republican tactics have paid off in spades, nobs; you'll never need a trial or a jury to convict anyone, ever again. Just assassinate their character, lie loudly and forever and consistently, and you end up with tens of millions of people falsely believing that, say, Planned Parenthood is buying gold-plated toilets with all that sweet sweet baby parts money. Semipenultimate (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
You say that like trial by character assassination is a recent phenomenon. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The thoroughness and scope is new. A large swath of the population is willing to believe a presidential candidate was a baby-eating Satan worshiper because the nice men on the radio keep screaming about it. The right are the ones that cried 'treason' at any mention that Iraq War 2 was an illegitimate war of choice. The right are the ones that believe anyone who thinks abortion should be legal are murderers worse than Manson and ISIS. The right are the Oath Keepers screaming at the Trump rally in Arizona today that they can't wait for the liberal genocide to start. The crusaders that can't wait to start the holy war and stack Muslim heads a hundred high? They're all on the right, guys. Semipenultimate (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
There is no left left. It's been thoroughly discredited globally. Welcome to the mainstream, if you want to be heard or taken seriously. nobs 01:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Rob, you consider the centre right, corporatist Hilary Clinton as left. If not you personally then many of your fellow conservatives do. The far right at the moment is like a star going supernova. It is making a lot of noise and causing a lot of instability but what happens to a star after a supernova? It dies and turns into a remnant. That is the far right at the moment.--Mercian (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
The far right pretty well died with the Hitler Youth, squashed under Russian tank tracks. The far left has had many victories since then, China in 1949, North Korea in 1950, Cuba in 1959, Obama in 2008; but it becomes victimized by its own success and transforms itself into conservative reactionaries trying to hold onto its inglorious past - as we're seeing now in the streets of America - afraid of the future. nobs 04:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Obama far left? I tell you what far left is. Far left is growing up in 70s Britain not knowing if you are going to have electricity because some communist infiltrated union decides to go on strike for some petty reason. Or rubbish not collected for weeks on end because the collectors demand a 50% pay rise. Or an entire car plant being shut down because a supervisor dared to bollock a union member for being late back from his dinner break. Or non union members being harrased and assaulted because they dare to go to work to support their families.Obama far left indeed.--Mercian (talk) 04:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok, you got me there. Winter of DiscontentWikipedia's W.svg has long been one of my favorite WP articles where WP tells it straight from the shoulder.
But by American standards, FDR & LBJ were not far leftists, who did more for liberalism than Obama, who was certainly, in principal, ideologically, more to the left than they were. nobs 05:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Believe me Rob, I may be a liberal but I despise the far left as much as I do the far right. That is why is really riles me when some people suggest I am a supporter of Mao, Stalin or Kim Jong Un because I happen to be slightly left of centre.--Mercian (talk) 05:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
It's a typical far-left or far-right tactic, intended to rile you, not to pursuade. This has caused the demise of the American Democratic party, overuse of racist and fascist pejoratives causing most people to dismiss the party establishment as extreme.
Now some may argue, Wouldn't this allow genuine racists to sneak in under the radar undetected? In a limited sense, yes. It was Hillary Clinton who gave birth to Deplorables, who wear it as a badge of honor. But here now, self-policing within the GOP and the mainstream at large, is necessary. What's unfortunate is the Democratic party has excluded itself from protecting the public from genuine racists, cause nobody trusts them on this issue anymore.nobs 05:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Let's look momentarily at two fairly "mainstream" liberals comments made in just recent days:

Now I know the niche market they are talking to, but do these people, who at one time were respected Moderates, understand how this is being viewed and recieved in the mainstream? Can you find anyone with a public stature equal to theirs, Trump included, who remotely has spoken like this bout their fellow countrymen in the past two years?nobs 05:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

A, that Oprah quote is not new, it's from November 2013, speaking with respect to how bigots like my father never accepted Obama as an American, let alone their President. It is being trated as new by fake news media in order to distract from the uncovering of Trump's server that only talks to a bank in Russia. B, the whole 'Loretta Lynch called for bloody death' is double-standard framing bullshit and you _know_ it; every Tea Party douche has been screaming 'TREE OF LIBERTY! BLOOD OF PATRIOTS AND TYRANTS!' for the last eight years. Here is the exact quote, so please tell me what specifically you find so vile about it?
“It has been people, individuals who have banded together, ordinary people who simply saw what needed to be done and came together and supported those ideals who have made the difference. They’ve marched, they’ve bled and yes, some of them died. This is hard. Every good thing is. We have done this before. We can do this again.”
C, "Can you find anyone with a public stature equal to theirs, Trump included, who remotely has spoken like this bout their fellow countrymen in the past two years?" Well since talk radio jocks and televangelists are the Oprah of the right, let's look at some gross shit they've said in the last 2 years; most of the items are just since January. Way, way more where this came from:
To sum up: A satanic child-murdering cabal is leading a coup, an imprecatory prayer for god to kill judges who are really secret witches, the so-called POTUS alleging vast conspiracies without any evidence, the push by evangelical preachers to cast the opposition as the very embodiment of evil, some casual anti-semitism, allegations of treason, some paranoid bullshit from a sitting Congressman / talking penis, more treason, more conspiracies, more satanic bullshit, and this is just five minutes of googling 'Obama devil man'.
So yes, nobs, I fucking well can. Not to mention how one of your 'new' items was four years old and the other was taken wildly out of context by some fake news double-standards bullshit operation. Semipenultimate (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I misspoke on 'recent days,', sorry. (1) Most of those people I never heard of, Klingenschmidt, Engle, Joyner, Wiles, Jacobs, hardly of the stature of a billionaire richer than Trump who fancies herself as president someday - Oprah Winfrey - or a cabinet Secretary and chief fundraiser for Senate Democrats. And we're not talking about over-the-top rhetoric. (2) While Trump, Robertson, and Gohmert might have high stature, where do any of those you provided suggest bloodshed and death in a struggle with their fellow citizens? or in the case of Oprah, suggest people of a different race "just need to die"? nobs 18:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
"or in the case of Oprah, suggest [old, powerful racist bigots who've been racist their whole lives] "just need to die"?" - fixed that for you. Otherwise people might've thought she was talking about -all- white people, which I am presuming was the intent of the quote mining. Semipenultimate (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I didn't want this discussion to get too far afield. I know who she's talking to. But a woman whose made billions off of white people in broadcasting certainly would understand what she said, and how it be recieved in the mainstream. I was shocked, cause frankly I see a tinge of racism and hate there, unless the woman doesn't know what racism is, which would be her only excuse to deny it. nobs 00:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Engles makes a reference to bloodshed of Hamanites while calling Trump a King Cyrus, but I can't find any data on the size of his audience. For comparison one could check Engles' Alexa ratings against, I suppose.
  • Wiles. Another local broadcaster. More interesting, here's a Chicana who seems very troubled that Wiles told his listeners to stop listening to Alex Jones, and she's more inclined to give up on Wiles instead. She also has a Catholic crucifix hanging on the wall. So this video pretty well destroys the myth that conservatives and the Christian right are made up of angry white males & WASP's suffering from white privilege. And do all the mean, nasty things said about Wiles & Jones' listeners transfer over to an Hispanic female residing in Texas, where I'm assuming this video is from? nobs 20:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Klingenschmidt, a former state legislator is innocuous and a non-starter to this discussion. nobs 20:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Cindy Jacobs. What's the point here? nobs 20:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Rick Joyner. His allegations seem equally as absurd as Russian hackers. In fact, I had difficulty discerning his allegations from the same evidence against the Trump administration so far. Again, no suggestion of violence, blood, and death of persons of a particular race or political opponents. nobs 20:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Trump & Savage on the death of Scalia. What's the point here? That Trump and Savage read the Washington Post? nobs 20:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Gohmert. Again, relevance? And is wrong, Loretta Lynch has discussed taking legal action against 'climate deniers'. nobs 21:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Pat Robertson. Opinions about Satanism, including the right to worship Satan, are protected by the First and Second Amendments. nobs 21:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Trump on Obama: No call for bloodshed or death of American citizens of any race. nobs 21:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
The point of all of it is that the central presumption on the right is that the opposition are motivated by the fucking _Devil_, nobs. And that it is hammered home in churches large and small and over talk radio every day. Every one of Gordon K's talking points, for example, is dutifully regurgitated by Rush, Savage etc. in the right-wing echo chamber. And if the other side is absolute evil, then nothing you do to them can possibly be wrong. That is the point of ALL of this - to pretend powerlessness in the face of 'evil' so that when the real persecution begins, it will look to the Trumpists like self-defense. Worked in Germany in the 30s with the Jews, homosexuals and foreigners, working right now in the USA with the 'liberals', homosexuals and foreigners. Semipenultimate (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Respectfully, I wouldn't know where to begin picking apart the flaws in your argument, it's just a flim-flam pile of verbiage that says Trump=Nazi. My argument can be summarized as that's why you lost and that's why you will continue to loose in the US & Europe, and the gains of Trump, Le Pen, Wilders, and AfD have as much to do with arguments like that as with merits of anyone on the list just cited. And I myself can testify - I'm no fan of Trump, but the distortions and violence from the left cause me to recoil and look to Trump for leadership. nobs 00:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Respectfully, you have proven over and again, here and there, that you know fuck all about Europe, let alone the difference between liberals and leftists. London Grump (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Ahh c'mon. Be fair. I spend more time reading leftist crap and can understand and empathize more than an average right-winger. Rightwing echo chambers I generally avoid cause I have to spend too much time walking every idiot sentiment backwards. On balance, I'd say leftists and rightwingers generally both can be open to persuasion and moderation of views, but generally it's easier for me to persuade leftists, cause I don't have to go into a debate over what the meaning of their core beliefs are. Pragmatism rules on both sides. And when I say accusing everybody and their dog of being a racist backfires, I mean it as advice from this side how it's being received. And that issue of name calling alone is why Dems lost in 2016, and why the "far right" is gaining in the EU. nobs 23:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, you're not as pigshit ignorant as Conservative. I'll grant you that. As for the rest of your word soup, QED. London Grump (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
At least Rob acknowledges that the rise of such sentiment in Europe is the far right. The rest of the Morons on Conservapedia are insisting, with great gutso, that Marine Le Pen and her ilk are wholesome, trustworthy, loving conservatives.--Mercian (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
My thesis isn't complete because we haven't had enough empirical evidence yet, but we're halfway there with Brexit and Trump behind us, and LePen & the AfD lying before. I theorize the Left has desensitizedWikipedia's W.svg the West to racial terms, race baiting, and arguments based on identity politics through overuse of certain terms and arguments. And at core is, when legitimate criticism can be found, it is ignored for an an automatic reversion to terms like 'racist' or 'fascist'. Donald Trump and supporters is a classic case in point; there was no shortage of legitimate criticism of Trump and the Trump movement. But to make it exclusively about race not only further desensitized a moderate public to those arguments, it produces a backlash. It may be too late, cause the roots of this mass desensitization go back well before Reagan.
The only way to stop this mass desensitization now is to virtually stop those tactics completely, except in genuine cases, which are much rarer than the Left believes. Then there's danger of an overreaction. But I haven't thought this theory through completely yet. It is not that the Left is creating racists by their actions, it is a mass public is becoming increasingly immune to Leftist arguments. And fundamentally, the Right never had a monopoly on racism. The Left needs to clean its own house, and not lecture the world on morality. There is a serious flaw in the ideology and theories liberals have foisted upon recent generations of schoolchildren who grow into their 20s to discover they've been indoctrinated with fringe theories.nobs 18:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
No, you daft bugger, Brexit is not behind us. It hasn't even started yet, particularly now that Nicola Sturgeon has played her hand. Do keep up.
Besides, in what alternative universe is Brexit a straight right-left issue, even if you conflate the left and liberalism?
@Mercian: I don't think there is a rise in the far right. It's always been there. It just stayed in the shadows. Now that people are realising that neo-liberalism has failed them, and the left having been marginalised by the same liberals over the last thirty years, people are just a bit bolder, a bit more confident expressing themselves in the open. Mind you, that's just my view from the gutter.London Grump (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
duh, I was speaking of the Brexit vote, where a sizeable portion of the people rejected decades of indoctrination that Alle menschen werder bruder with a common destiny. nobs``19:33 13 March 2017
You wrote one thing and you meant another? Uh, OK.
Tell me, did you mean to write "decades of indoctrination" or did you mean something closer to reality? London Grump (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
The anger/protest vote is very interesting to watch. In the UK a vote for Brexit did not mean "I think that the UK would be better off without the EU." In the US a vote for Trump did not mean "I think that Donald Trump is qualified and would make a great President." In the UK, Brexit won by a slight majority, although lost in many areas. In the US, Trump lost by about 3 million votes, but won enough states to win the Electorial College. Hclodge (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Bingo. Trump & the Brexit vote were more a rejection of the Left than a majority embracing Right-wing Populism. And how has the Left responded? Doubling down on what the public has been desensitized to. nobs 21:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Nope, the safest Labour seat is Sunderland. Sunderland voted for Brexit and it is not the only example. If anything it was a protest against David Cameron who is not a leftist. Nor is Clinton, she is right of centre, not by much but she is.--Mercian (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Sunderland is like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania voting for Trump. When they were loyal Democrat voters, they were 'blue collar working class'; when they held Democrats to account for broken promises, they were 'racists'. I'm sure this is a good analogy to Sunderland. The mistake the Left makes is thinking blue collar working class is too stupid to figure this out, which workers are reacting to and could probably make the crossover permanent. nobs 00:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Today, Donald Trump flies to Tennessee to put flowers on the grave of Andrew Jackson. For decades, Democrats worshiped Jackson as their hero and held annual "Jefferson-Jackson Dinners" as their annual fundraising galas. However, in the past couple of years, there have been moves to rename these events because Jefferson owned slaves and Jackson actively displaced Native Americans from the eastern US. With the Democrats disowning two of the most important Presidents in US history, Trump is embracing Jackson as his own. A very clever move that will endear him to middle America and even to disaffected Democrats who had spend years organizing and supporting Jefferson-Jackson Dinners only to be slapped in the face by "politically correct" millenials. Even President Kennedy recognized that Jefferson was probably the greatest intellect to ever be President. Hclodge (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

So can we interpret this to mean that Trump represents what, up until a handful of years ago, we've known as the Democratic party? The GOP establishment never embraced him. Here's a theory: Democrats went so far as to vote for a black man, not because of his merit or qualifications, but because he was black. Simply to prove they were not racist. In the end, when they disagreed with him on policy or ideology, they got called racist. They had enough, knowing nothing will satisfy the commie Left short of castration and enslavement, these Democrats turned to Trump. nobs 19:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Rob. Until you realise that liberalism and socialism and communism are three very different and often mutually exclusive things, you will never understand what has happened over the last hundred years. Get those basics straight and then maybe you can start to understand what is happening today. Until then, there really is no point in trying to discuss politics or history with you.
And you still don't have the first Scooby Doo about Britain and Europe. London Grump (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Europeans are as ignorant as Americans, and liberalism, true liberalism, is a diametrical inverse of those other two things you mentioned. What's more to know? nobs 06:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I didn't say Americans were ignorant. I said you were. As for the rest of it, you're still wrong. You sound like Conservative when you use bafflegab phrases like "diametrical inverse". Take the foundation of NATO, for example. Churchill is looking to building links with Europe, Truman wants to bring the USSR into a European settlement but Ernest Bevin, British trade unionist and socialist, is the one who wants to exclude the communists, look towards the US and is the main force behind NATO. How does that fit in with your simplistic world view? Where does Tony Blair fit in? Walk on, Rob. London Grump (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Stalin himself rejected any European settlement within weeks after FDR was dead, basically, cause as he saw it, France was guilty as Germany was in fighting the Soviet Union for 4 years, including French soldiers in German uniform on Russian soil. As he saw it, the French KP was the legitimate successor regime, and when the US started giving to DeGaulle as much as it was Stalin in post-war reconstruction aid, he about lost it. Really, you can date tbe Cold War from that moment (which adds to my thesis cause DeGaulle was Churchill's boy). True, Truman thought he could negotiate FDR's big dream with Stalin, but events over the next two years drove things in the direction of a military standoff rather than a negotiated peace.
Blair? Even though he's a guy I respect, can't give him much credit for brains. Any fool who is so willingly taken in by Clinton's and their bullshit, then seeks to emulate them, can't be too gifted. But he deserves immense credit for dumping hereditary peerage. Shit, if Britain had done that 250 years ago, we might be singing God Save the Queen over here today. You know, that's what the American Revolution was about; settlers didn't see the point in paying rent to some Lord stooge-friend-of-the-King, who never saw the land he supposedly owned, or cut down a single goddam tree to make it arable. We did away with heritary peerage in 1776. nobs 04:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I notice you ignore my point about ideology and focus on carefully selected facts, woven into imaginative deflections (DeGaulle and Churchill?), instead. Was that intentional or did you mean something else again? London Grump (talk) 06:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
When the old international order broken down - the Versailles convention - two visions emerged of a post-Hitler Europe. A Stalinist view of a Soviet Socialist Republic of France along with a Soviet Socialist Republic of a United Germany. Based on Churchill's view as early as May 1940, the Churchillian vision ultimately won the day, out of which was born the EU and other global institutions. nobs 15:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Let's, for the sake of argument, set aside Churchill's lacklustre post-war career and pretend that his pro-European vision was the only alternative to Stalinism. What the fuck does it have to do with Ernie Bevin and the way his various legacies crap on your half arsed political analysis? London Grump (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Bevin deserves credit and respect as a father of NATO and the idea of collective security. His role as a visionary was however, in a divided, bi-polar world of a military alliance, even before the divided world was set on a nuclear hair-trigger. And clearly, Bevin had a much more profound understanding of Europe than anyone in Washington at the time (if indeed, anyone in Washington has ever had an understanding of Europe, or the world, at any time). Without sounding critical though, cause Bevin truly does deserve recognition, it is more in a limited parochial sense of the signatories of NATO and aquiesses in the failures of Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin. A quick fix as we would say. I covered a lot of this here, beginning with, "Nato is a freak of nature..." and not scripted as part of the original plan. Kinda the way the Apostle Paul calls the Church a "mystery hidden in God until now". nobs 18:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Here's the minutes of meetings between Stalin and Hopkins, May 26-30, 1945, on page 894, the start of the Cold War can be dated. The entire discussion, beginning with Churchill's congratulations on the victory of "The Grand Alliance" on page 885 to the end of the chapter on page 916 is all interesting, relevent, background as well. nobs 18:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Here's a picture of a kitten. It has nothing to do with Ernest Bevin either. Would you like me rephrase my earlier point in simpler words? London Grump (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Sure. nobs 00:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
How does Ernest Bevin fit in with your conflation of left of centre movements?London Grump (talk) 09:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
As a nationalist. Being a trade unionist he was an ardent anti-communist. This has to be seen in the context of his day. Bevin, like Joe McCarthy, or Hitler for that matter, saw communism of his day for what it really was - an international, Moscow directed, Stalinist conspiracy. This ran counter to popular and media perceptions in the West. nobs 17:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Close enough for our purposes (ie its broadly bollocks but it will do for now). Now, how does that fit in with your conflation of Socialists, Trotskyites, Stalinsist and Liberals? London Grump (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

"a diametrical inverse of those other two things" that shows a spectacular ignorance, not only of what you were trying to discuss, but also of English and simple geometry. Sphincter (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

You're too critical; a true-blue Democrat would know what I'm talkin' about - and be impressed. nobs 04:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Australia attack page.

Nothing to do with Trump. Ken likes to troll certain CP members, in this case the Australian Alan E, he is hoping to get a response. When the German AugustO posted Ken wrote articles such as Germany and bestiality. I was a poster once and many anti-Britsh articles appeared. I never mentioned my nationality but Ken does love checkuser.--Mercian (talk) 06:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

User Conservative is a multiple account, I think. Basically, Andy & Ken. nobs 06:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

[edit] WIGOing your own activity on CP

has always been the height of trollish asshattery, nobs. It's as sad as Ken's constant pleas for attention. (talk) 11:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm just trying to get a damn response to Trumps attacks on conservatives. The silence is deafening. You can understand, I hope. nobs 03:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
You're confusing attention with affection London Grump (talk) 10:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey, I'll get to your question about Stalin et al above, just been busy w/ Obamagate and trying to rehab those hardliners over there, you know, trying to convince them these's suicide attacks are fruitless. nobs 10:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
A palpable hit! London Grump (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Am I the only one who notices? It's been three days now since Trump trashed-talked the Tea Party conservatives, I laid out the Trump/Ryan/Priebus case in explicit, minute detail, and no one rises to their own defense (although Andy has continued sniping on MPR-this, right here, is why he won't give me MPR access). When the shit hits the fan, and it will, these conservative kamikazees and shahids won't get any sympathy anywhere. nobs 11:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh come on Rob, you should know how Andy works by now - all Republicans are awesome... until the Teabagggers come along, then most Republicans are RINOs... unless they're the Presidential nominee, then they go to being the Greatest Conservative In The History of Always... until they lose, then it's straight back to being a RINO... then for once Andy backs the right horse... after his love affair with Huckabee... and suddenly because Trump's racist, misogynistic message resonates more with Andy than actual Republican policy, Trump becomes the new norm for Andy... expect the Freedom Caucus, or whatever those dribbling lunatics are called, to become RINOs any day now.
And who exactly are you expecting to comment? Andy won't, as per above, and editors know that disagreeing with Andy equal a ban. Fuck, you should know that by now. TerryH is only there to whore his blog. Ken is incapable of original thought. Karajou does nothing but block people and the rest are missing in action / given up / dead / in jail. Not sure which one of those applies to Ed Poor. (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • expect the Freedom Caucus, or whatever those dribbling lunatics are called, to become RINOs any day now. What an eye opener. I never even thought of that. nobs 15:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Does Andy like Ronald Reagan? Considering Trump is Andy's favorite president (afaik), and Reagan is Trump's favorite president? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Andy opposed both Reagan and Nixon cause he's isolationist. They were internationalists, like Rockefeller (Rockefeller & Ike brought the GOP out it's isolationist mold where Andy, Phyllis, and the Tafts were stuck). Trump,'s 'America First' nationalism resembles isolationism, but Andy conveniently ignores statements like, "I'll bomb the shit out of them."
Trump resembles FDR & Reagan in style, affluence, 'hands free' approach to governance. He speeks in broad terms, leaving the details to others. Rexford Guy TugwellWikipedia's W.svg for instance, really was the mastermind behind the New Deal. FDR, Reagan, and Trump are the visionaries whose main task is dealing with the public, not the Congress or bureaucracy. nobs 19:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Everytime I go to MPR to debate GOP & administration strategy and tactics I can't help get the picture of these guys out of my mind. nobs 20:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I know how you feel. The "debate" on Conservapedia remind me of these guys. London Grump (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yep. Exactly. And most everybody gets anesthetized sooner or later just like that. In my video, you can see the the Bacha baziWikipedia's W.svg on the right thinking, "You sure this is a good idea?" nobs 08:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Truthiness

I have always been uneasy about the "wisdom of the crowds." (Andy calls this "The best of the public.") The problem is that the people who edit wikis are not representative of the public as a whole. WP probably draws from left-of-center, and CP was designed to draw from the middle and right-of-center. The problem is that CP has gone from hundreds of editors (including trolls and parodists) to about a dozen. Some are far-right and others are non-linear thinkers. Instead of updating and improving content, the core dozen is concentrating on mediating a battle between Andy and AugustO over the Conservative Bible Project and on bending over backwards to praise Trump's every move as well as Trump's redefinition of "fake news". If one accepts the fact that Trump is neither a Conservative nor a true Republican (he is a Populist), one has never seen CP so far adrift from its stated mission. Forget about truth or conservsative values, let's praise Trump some more. Hclodge (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

You nailed it. With Trump's rise CP has become a cauldron of cp:moral relativism.nobs 19:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
The Andy-Bible is the only thing which makes me watching CP anymore: it is so much fun to see how all of AugustO's meticulously crafted arguments, all his anger and frustration is deflected by Andy who really just says: "Whatever, I'm right" - if there ever was an example for the Dunning-Kruger effect, then Andy.
I suppose Andy just has to wait until AugustO reads a particularly idiotic statement, gets an infarct and dies: the rightful wrath of God for contradicting Andy!
--larron (talk) 11:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
That's awesome. In fact, would you mind helping us update the Conservapedia Bible Project article? I did some work on it (unifying/polishing old content) a while back, which helped a lot, but it could really use being brought up to speed with what they're doing over at CP! I mean, if we updated it and made it in-depth enough, it could even become a Gold article (IMO) Th hug.gif Thoughts on this? All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
The standard has gone from "is this a true and balanced article" to "is this article less slanted than WP" to "is this article pleasing to Karajou Ken Terry or Andy" to "is this article click-bait that can generate a few page views." Hclodge (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Haha. So will you help with our article on their Bible project? Unintentional comedy of this magnitude deserves to be preserved for posterior. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
No, but I will conflate cp:PizzaGate and Conservapedia Bible Project. If you read the CP talk pages instead of the Podesta emails, and make the following substitutions you will see that the basement of Andy's house appears "to be at the center or the front group in an underground network that involves" the CP administrators. CBP = "child sex", Alleged code words: “Mark” = boy; “action at a distance” = girl; “Biblical Foreknowledge” = little girl; “relativity” = little boy; “storm” = male prostitute; “spoke” or “said out loud” = person of color; “sea” = semen; “translate” = orgy; "editing" = oldest profession. Hclodge (talk) 04:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Haha, fair enough. Though, would you mind doing me a solid with any of the following:

  • Simply perusing our Conservapedia Bible Project article and succinctly talkpaging if/when you see something that's seriously out of whack (e.g. a misconception in the text)?
  • Just dumping some assorted links to select CP discussions/edits/blocks/etc which would be of relevance to our coverage of the CBP?

You're probably the most up-to-speed RationalWikian when it comes to the CBP, and while I'd love to improve our article on it, it's per definition a bad idea for me to gung ho it without some knowledgable counsel (see above two bullet points). Regardless, much appreciated Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Personal tools