User talk:JzG/The politics of sourcing

Upset

lol you seem upset. :D 173.85.196.152 (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Not really, no. I am somewhat mystified that the far right has supplanted the far left in ideological rejection of facts. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Attempting to make the case that both sides are equally bad but in different ways

I would like to confirm that discussion about the contents of this page are welcome here. If they aren't, just let me know and I will quietly go away. I value our being able to work together far more than I value expressing my opinion on [spit!] politics.

Re:

"The issue for me is that I cannot actually see how anybody could, in good faith, look at reliable sources and conclude that Donald Trump is a good, still less a great, President. The evidence shows overwhelmingly that he is surrounded by corrupt and incompetent people, because nobody honest or competent seems to want to work for him. And that would seem to be due to the fact that his business, personal and political life all show him to be a greedy dishonest bully. Ask any of the small contractors he drove into bankruptcy."

I find the statement to be accurate. However, there seems to be an implication that other recent presidents and/or opposition candidates (either from the last election or the next one) are somehow not as bad. I contend that they are all evil and corrupt, just in slightly different ways. Pick a politician and I will be happy to provide specifics. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

okay, i'll bite:

• Maxine Waters
• Louie Gohmert

173.85.196.152 (talk) 09:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Too easy. From our Maxine Waters page:

"According to Chuck Neubauer and Ted Rohrlich writing in the Los Angeles Times in 2004, Maxine Waters' relatives had made more than $1 million during the preceding eight years by doing business with companies, candidates and causes that Waters had helped. They claimed she and her husband helped a company get government bond business, and her daughter Karen Waters and son Edward Waters have profited from her connections. Waters replied that "They do their business and I do mine." Liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington named Waters to its list of corrupt members of Congress in its 2005, 2006, 2009 and 2011 reports."

Regarding Louie Gohmert:

"Reports that Rep. Gohmert’s campaign committee filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) show expenses related to a trip he took to England in November and December of 2014. These expenses included more than $5,000 to the five-star Andaluz Liverpool Street hotel, nearly $400 to the Old Bank Hotel in Oxford, and more than $200 for a taxi ride in Cambridgeshire. Rep. Gohmert’s trip to England included speaking events with groups like the Cambridge Union Society, the Rothermere American Institute, the Federalist and Henry Jackson Societies, and a joint group of the British House of Lord and House of Commons.

"No one begrudges Rep. Gohmert a hop across the pond, but even when he’s traveling throughout the Queen’s Dominion, he’s still bound to follow American laws," CREW Interim Executive Director Anne Weismann said.

House rules prohibit members of Congress from spending campaign funds on anything unrelated to a campaign or political purpose. Rep. Gohmert’s trip, which included speeches to people ineligible to vote for or contribute to him, served no such purpose, prompting CREW to file a complaint with the Office of Congressional Ethics. This was the second complaint CREW has filed against the Texas congressman, following a 2013 incident in which Rep. Gohmert used his position in Congress to get out of a parking ticket."

Source: [1]

Next time, please pick someone who is running or has run for president. I am sure that you can find some unknown politician from a tiny district that has no published corruption charges. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Re: Maxine Waters. She encourages harassment of people she disagrees with politically[2]. You have to agree that is at least a little "evil". {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 14:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, how dare she interfere with the quiet enjoyment of privilege by people who are locking children up in concentration camps. Heaven forfend that some ICE functionary might have their feels hurt by angry citizens. Guy (Help!) 14:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

JzG, I personally think murder is worse than locking people up unjustly, but I don't advocate harassing abortion providers at their homes or at restaurants.

The current situation with immigration is tough. Courts have ruled that you can't lock children up longer than a certain number of days, but that you also can't separate them from their parents. The only solutions with that set of legal facts is either deport entire families quickly (which Democrats and others don't like, wanting to fight for every person to stay) or release them into the country with orders to show up for their hearing. Some number of those released that way will never show up for that hearing.

Either way, ICE people are just following the law, if you don't like that work to change the law. My personal opinion is that legal immigration should be much easier, but until that happens we have to enforce the law. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 14:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

You lose the argument when you call it concentration camps. You also lose the argument when your viral image of children in "cages" is from the Obama administration, when locking children up wasn't a bad thing apparently. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Murder is indeed worse. The relevance is unclear, though, as Waters was not advocating that. I am British. We invented concentration camps. I am not the only one to use that exact term. Some Republicans don't appear to challenge it. Guy (Help!) 14:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't care that some people use it. To compare what the US did to what the British or Germans did is wrong. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

In your view. In mine, incarcerating children in cages without their parents is exactly what the term concentration camp implies. But, you know, this is one of those places where reasonable people may differ. Guy (Help!) 15:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

There are quite a few other things to call it, but a concentration camp has pretty defined meaning, as what happened in the Boer Wars or WWII. I also ask if you cared much about this during the last Presidency or it suddenly became an issue now? Again, this is what makes people extreme. I'm not a Republican but I can't stand the grandstanding of the left and picking and choosing when to be offended. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The US is guilty of separating children from their parents. This is routine when a parent is arrested for breaking the law....since children cannot be safely housed in detention with adults. A lack of sufficient means to house them in more adequate conditions does not mean they are being kept in a concentration camp! To believe that they are in a concentration camp means yes, fake or at least sensationalistic news is being consumed. JzG, lest we forget the newspapers in the Isles have a long history of finding fault in US ways of going about things do they not? Its sort of a way to shore up the long aged philosophy that the US are mere errant children, who were rebels and rose up against the Empire.--MONGO (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Illegal entry is a class B misdemeanor, not a crime. It is on the same level as possession of up to 2oz of marijuana in Texas, or prostitution in Arkansas or Tennessee, or importing certain plants. Until Trump, children were not separated from their families and caged - at least not after the courts stopped the government incarcerating children with adults. The problem is not that children cannot be housed in detention with adults, the problem is that there was a seismic change in enforcement policy. But even if you want to defend the arrests and detentions, what's your excuse for the inhumane conditions, or the fact that ICE didn't even keep track of whose kids they were? A court ordered the release of the children and their return to their parents, as of the end of August there were still nearly 500 children not returned. And that is why people compare this to concentration camps. It's the cruelty and the callous indifference. Guy (Help!) 18:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Until Trump? So when Obama did it, it wasn't called detention or concentration camps, but Obama Luvfest Camps? [3], [4], [5] Also not sure how you state a misdemeanor is not a crime, it is, it's just not a felony. Perhaps you should stick to British politics. BTW, in many cases, the children were not brought in by their parents, but by trafficers which is why it's difficult to hand them over. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Right. No doubt the enforcement was ramped up during Trump administration but the policy is not new law...and the detention methods have been similar for numerous Presidents. Heck, because there was not proper scrutiny over who the minors were released to under Obama, some ended up back in the hands of traffickers and where they went from there, who knows.--MONGO (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Just adding I do condemn the policies we have in place as far as methods of detention of those in violation of immigration laws and well as the separation of children from their parents. Personally not sure how to better process everyone but it is a flawed system no matter what President it is enforced under.--MONGO (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

You know, I think the biggest difference is also the simplest. Under the Miller-pushed Trump era immigration policy, the cruelty is the point. Guy (Help!) 16:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

To repeat my question in the hope of an answer; this page correctly criticizes Trump. But there is an underlying implication that other recent presidents and/or opposition candidates (either from the last election or the next one) are somehow not as bad. I would like to see The Other Guy either clearly state that he din't mean to imply that or to openly state that he thinks Trump is worse than, say, Obama, Hillary, or G.W. Bush. As I said, I can make a strong case that they are all corrupt. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

That is an important and fair point. All politicians are human, all humans are flawed. The crucial difference is that all previous presidents in my lifetime gave a strong impression that they understood that they were flawed. Trump appears to believe that his ignorance is better than other people's knowledge. Can you imagine Barack Obama lying about the crowds at his inauguration? Or John Podesta calling such lies "alternative facts"? This is about on-wiki bhaviour. If someone comes here to say that Trump is the most attacked president in history, and that same person supports the most prominent Birther, they are not here to improve the encclopaedia by ensuring their views are represented in a properly balanced way. They might think they are but they are actually WP:RANDY.

So, I absolutely do mean to state, not imply, but state, that Trump is worse than Obama, W, Clinton, Poppy, Reagan, Carter or any other president in living memory, including Nixon. And pretty much every impartial source agrees. He is not as shitty as Vox portrays him, but he is a uniquely terrible president. His contempt for the truth is deeply disturbing, as is his contempt for those he considers his inferiors (which, by now, means pretty much everyone). No previous president would have nominated Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, the Federalist Society didn't even include him on their list until Trump asked them to. No previous president would have hired Bannon, Miller, DeVos, Pruitt and the others. One or two of them, maybe, to appease specific donors, but not all of them. I genuinely believe that anybody who considers Trump to fall anywhere on the normal spectrum of presidents, has a serious issue with source assessment. And yes, some of it is pure cluelessness. He had none of the normal party machinery around him, he chose people who deliberately positioned themselves to play a role in his campaign, but the sheer scale of criminaity among that group is staggering, and when you take Cohen into consideration it really doesn't look like a coincidence.

Yes, all politicians are corrupt to an extent, but to set that alongside what Trump has done is whataboutism.

To the specific point of internment. Obama introduced a policy in 2014 in response to a sharp increase in unaccompanied minors, specifically. Trump's policy was introduced against a background of normal levels of migration. Under Obama, the policy was that families were separated normally only if there were aggravating circumstances (one parent carrying drugs, for example). Trump made it standard practice. Trump decided to enforce the category B misdemeanor of illegal entry, in the same way that Sessions wants to treat possession of cannabis for personal use. And of course Trump has a history of racist rhetoric, including, specifically, against Mexicans. Obama did a bad thing in response to a crisis. Deliberate? It seems unlikely. Trumo does the same bad thing in response to normal levels of immigration. Deliberate? Hard to conclude otherwise, and most sources do conclude that it absolutely was deliberate. Guy (Help!) 21:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, the differences in handling INS seperations (Obama was bad, Trump was a lot worse) are far less important than a President deciding to murder someone without any trial, judge, or jury, as is required by the due process clause of the constitution. See

Obama Killed a 16-Year-Old American in Yemen. Trump Just Killed His 8-Year-Old Sister.

and

From torture to drone strikes: the disturbing legal legacy Obama is leaving for Trump.

Or we can look at is George W. Bush’s statement in his 2003 State of the Union address that "the British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" and his outing of a CIA operative[6] in retaliation for her husband exposing that lie[7]

Most people would consider hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's killed because of a blatant lie[8] to be worse than separating 2,700 children from their parents.

Mind you, that was a shitty thing that Trump did, and you have certainly made a "Trump is Bad" case but you have not made your "Trump is worse than Obama or Bush" case with that example. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

(...Sound of crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Re: "No previous president would have nominated Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court", Really? Have you ever heard of the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination? Kavanaugh was well qualified.[9] The problem which was impossible for Trump to foresee, was that during the hearings Kavanaugh was accused of sexually assaulting Christine Blasey Ford thirty-six years prior, while they were both in high school in 1982. No matter who you believe j that case (my observation is that ones political views are a very good indicator of who they believe), no way could Trump have seen that one coming. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The problem with Kavanaugh is nothing to do with qualifications, it's the fact that he was a partisan hack whose public records were suppressed by the GOP despite credible evidence that they showed he lied under oath in his first confirmation hearing, and his jurisprudence consistently included dissents to rulings following stare decisis - in other words, he's a partisan hack who is perfectly happy to tear up precedent to deliver his poltiical agenda. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't dispute that (at least until I see his decisions on the court -- sometimes the supremes turn out much better than expected, sometimes much worse), but you haven't made your argument. You would also have to present an argument that no previous president ever nominated a partisan hack who is perfectly happy to tear up precedent to deliver his political agenda. Are you seriously going to claim that the nominations of Clement Haynsworth (rejected 45–55), G. Harrold Carswell (rejected 45–51), Robert Bork (rejected 42–58), Clarence Thomas (confirmed 52–48), Samuel Alito (confirmed 58–42) and Neil Gorsuch (confirmed 54–45) were not partisan choices?

NPR -- hardly a bastion of conservative thought -- says

"But that partisanship surrounding Kavanaugh isn’t new. The modern politicization of the Supreme Court nomination process dates back to the mid-1970s, according to George Washington University political science professor Sarah Binder. As Congress and presidential elections became increasingly hyper-partisan in recent decades, it was only a matter of time before the nominally apolitical Supreme Court followed suit, Binder said."

I can't help but notice that every time I argue that "the republicans are bad and the democrats are bad, but in different ways" you completely ignore the second part and present more reasons why the republicans are bad. Are you doing this on purpose, or is this a case of "I am on team blue, so I am only capable of seeing the bad things that team red does"? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: So, I get the point you're making but consider: when Bork was shown to be a shameless partisan hack, his nomination died. Blocking Garland was, as far as I can tell, an unprecedented abuse of power. It seems to me at the moment that the Republican party has moved to a point of extreme ideology which cannot command majority support. Instead of moderating their position to something that would win the battle of ideas, they engage ion rampant voter suppression (something the Democrats do not appear to do, though both sides are equally prone to gerrymandering) and packing the courts with increasingly young and partisan judges. Five out of nine SCOTUS justices are now hard right activists and four of them were appointed by presidents with a minority of popular support. It is difficult to remove a SCOTUS justice because they are supposed to be independent, both sides have appointed judges that lean to their ideology but on a 0-10 scale the liberal justices are 3-4 while the current conservative justices are 9.9. Everything about the modern Republican party shouts desperation to retain power in the face of a minority and shrinking base.

But that is a long-term trend. Trump, specifically, is uniquely awful. Look at this week's events. How hard is it to unambiguously condemn mail bombing or shooting up a synagogue? And this is in the context of his inability to condemn neo-Nazis after Charlottesville. It is bizarre to me that Trump appears to care more about upsetting racists than about the victims of racists. He is also very obviously a grifter, personally and directly profiting from his tenure. Recent statements from Gingrich reinforce this. There have been three presidents in recent history who were dishonest: Nixon, Clinton and Trump. Trump stands head and shoulders above the others in the duration and scale of his venality, and the extent to which he is isolated from any kind of scrutiny by the Freedom Caucus especially. See also this: [10]. The Mueller "witch hunt" keeps turning up witches. This is not normal, and the GOP does not seem to want to fix it.

And what do you make of this? [11]

Regardless, my point is that anyone who comes here to "correct" the "bias" of mainstream media because it's "Fake News" is a problem. Trump core supporters appear to have entirely bought into this narrative, that Fox News is the Truth™ and anything that conflicts with it is a lie, whereas the objective facts show that Fox is largely acting as a propaganda outlet and gives the GOP up to a six point advantage through its reach. Guy (Help!) 11:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding, "what do you make of this[12]", illegal, unconstitutional, and nobody likes a cheater.

So what do you make of this?[13][14] --Guy Macon (talk) 12:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of drone strikes, or war in general. I was not a fan of taking out bin Laden through an extrajudicial strike. I'm also not a fan of whataboutism. The GOP is currently engaging in systematic and shameless disenfranchisement of racial minorities in a deliberate attempt to stop people voting against them, which is a massive problem, and Trump is in power only because a hostile foreign power intervened in the elections with what appears to eb active collusion from Trump campaign staffers, several of whom now have Federal convictions as a result. The Democrats appear to want people to vote, the Republicans don't. The Republican view of "electoral integrity" seems to go no further than raising barriers to voting to deter virtually non-existent electoral fraud, while doing nothing whatsoever about actual election integrity, including vetoing a bipartisan bill to ensure election integrity. From over this side of the pond, it looks like a coup. Trump does not appear to believe in free speech, the rule of law, or the right to vote. He is also completely prepared to allow corporate interests to destroy the environment for short-term profit. These are his own personal failings not those of the GOP. The GOP always favours corporate profits over the individual, hence its visceral opposition to Obamacare, which makes it easier for employees to switch jobs. This is about Trump's unique failings as a human being and the way that his presidency is outside of all previous norms. Guy (Help!) 12:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

JzG! "Trump is in power only because a hostile foreign power intervened in the elections"...."only" when there still is zero proof this was the case? Trump is in power because the other candidate sucked worse then he did! The traditionally left leaning news may vilify Trump as a course of action to appease their bored koolaide drinking base, but the people that voted decided they preferred Trump to that screeching, lying hag...that fake feminist that claims she supports womens rights and me-too and yet, that hag called those women liars, and part of a vast right wing conspiracy even though Monica had Billy-bobs cum on her dress. Americans told Hillary to "fuck off".--MONGO (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Ummm....NO. Let's set the record straight:

1. There is plenty of proof that Russia interfered with the elections. (The only question is how much effect it had.) That is the unequivocal conclusion of the allied foreign intelligence agencies which listened as senior Russian officials discussed how the Trump campaign was working with them to hurt Clinton and aid Trump; and later of the U.S. intelligence agencies who watched the hacking in real time as it happened; and of the cyber professionals who examined the evidence.
   Read the sources in our articles, and fucking believe them. Disbelieving RS is not a valid option for a Wikipedia editor, yet you do just that. That's very unwikipedian and shows a negative learning curve.
   JzG and I don't have the luxury of ignoring evidence the way you Trump supporters do. We are reality-based editors, not fringe agenda driven editors. You can call us left-wing. That's fine, because the facts and truth are more often on the left-wing piece of real estate (at least at this time in history).
2. The reality-based, fact-based news (you see them as "left leaning") report those facts. Well, "The Facts Have A Well-Known Center-Left Bias."
3. Quite a few more people voted for Clinton than voted for Trump, so the majority preferred Clinton, not Trump. It takes a lot of "koolaide drinking" by Trump's base to see it differently. Americans told Trump to "fuck off", but the Electoral College gave him the victory. You are still part of a dwindling minority that can only win by using voter suppression.

Those are not opinions. They are facts. You really fly your "fringe flag" boldly and reveal a number of problems related to your American politics incompetency. That you could even propose we cease using The Washington Post as a source (a real DOOZY of a fringe thread!!!) is a very fringe and incompetent suggestion. Otherwise you have enough experience to edit fine, so just be careful around American politics before you get a topic ban. Your editing is misinformed by an agenda based on unreliable sources, and that agenda is driving you off a cliff. Your words are proof of the truths in JzG's essay. There is a bullseye there, and you have placed yourself in the middle of it. Everyone who attacks the essay is doing that. They have only themselves to blame. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh how cute...you forget the electoral college elects the President didn't you. The doozy of a fringe belief is your blindsided belief that the WaPo is NOT biased. Maybe instead of writing FAs I can create essays and that will enhance my competency! No matter what, no polls show more than a tiny lead in the House after the election so the best the Democrats can hope for will be the slimmest of margins unlike the overthrow of 2010. Maybe it will be enough though to get Trump impeached! Then you get a real conservative like Pence as President...won't you love that?--MONGO (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that you rather quickly got off the topic of murdering people with no trial and on to voter suppression. I really wish you would go back and discuss the murders, but meanwhile, let's talk voter suppression. As documented at Voter suppression in the United States, this in one area where the red team is far worse. That being said, the blue team does have a (smaller) voter suppression problem of its own:[15]

As I have said, the democrats are bad in different ways. You can cherry pick voter suppression -- an area where the republicans are far worse -- or you can cherry pick asset forfeiture -- an area where the democrats are far worse. Under Obama and his Attorney General, the total annual dollar value of assets seized by federal law enforcement went from less than $2 billion to more than $5 billion. In 2014 the amount of money legally stolen by cops became greater than the total amount stolen by burglars. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure, because the context of this discussion is: are Trumpies a problem for Wikipedia? Since, by common consent, both sides have been known to engage in extrajudicial killing of people identified as enemies of the state, this is not a difference. What is a difference is refusing to divest yourself of business interests, feeding money to your businesses as part of your official duties, refusing to condemn racists and so on. Can you cite any previous President who has, while in office, led chants for a former opponent to be locked up? When did Bush or Clinton or Obama encourage people to beat up journalists? When did they attack the DoJ for following the evidence and not being personally loyal to them?

Nominating extremists to the courts is borderline normal, forcing them through when there is compelling evidence of dishonesty is not (but that is McConnell, not Trump). Withdrawing from the Paris climate accord and the UN Human Rights Council absolutely is not normal. Pardoning Arpaio and D'Souza is not normal. Demanding suspension of due process for immigrants is absolutely not normal. The Putin press conference is off the fucking charts. Attacking Mueller and the FBI is also off the charts. So is attacking May, Merkel and Trudeau. So is calling the press the "enemy of the people". So is the refusal to divest his businesses, profiting from hotels during his presidency and especially letting Jared Kushner act as unofficial ambassador to Saudi Arabia, when Kushner and Trump both have business interests there.

And anyone who comes here to tell us that this is all fake news and both sides do the same kinds of things, is a problem. I like you, and I generally trust your opinion and instincts. I cannot believe that these abnormal things about Trump do not trouble you, and it's clear that deep-red tribal Trumpies present a problem anywhere they edit in politcal articles, because in order to be deep-red tribal Trumpies they are, by definition, not capable of adequately assessing sources. Guy (Help!) 18:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Guess you forgot how Hillary told the press and the DOJ that her husband was being singled out, that the independent counsel and the DOJ were engaged in a witch hunt and the with hunt was backed by a vast right wing conspiracy?--MONGO (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. But there is a difference between the President's wife blowing steam about something and the President himself attacking the DoJ and numerous named individuals because of an investigation that has resulted in substantial criminal convictions. Still, the comparison with Clinton is a good one. Both he and Trump were shown to be sex pests. But Clinton was a normal politician doing normal tings the normal way. He didn't support white supremacists, he didn't keep his businesses while in office, he didn't appoint business associates to senior diplomatic roles where they (and he) would profit directly from their official business, he didn't call the media enemies of the people, he didn't promote conspiracy theories from fringe websites, he didn't punch down the way Trump does, he didn't refer to GHWB as "Crooked George". In other words, he did not act like someone who has never been answerable only to himself.

Obama is, as a matter of simple fact, the only President in my lifetime who did not have any independent investigators appointed to look into alleged wrongdoing. The number and seriousness of the Mueller investigation's convictions are generally agreed to at least equal Watergate.

After Watergate, Roger Ailes, a Nixon aide, set up Fox News. He saw the press as the real villains in Watergate. He did his job well: Fox is working exactly as designed. Guy (Help!) 18:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

To Guy Macon - in essence, politicians of all persuasions engaging in dirty tricks, assassinations and war-mongering at times. Two areas the left and right differ are (a) health care and (b) climate change. I am a doctor and could never work in a US health care system. Obamacare offered a glimmer of hope, and how amazing brainwashing is to make that look like a bad thing. Also nothing is worse than risking the health of the whole planet. end of story. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeed.

At many times, in many circumstances, "A pox on both their houses" would be a legitimate stance to take. This is very clearly not the case in the U.S. now, and hasn't been for a number of decades, dating back at least to the Tea Party, and possibly even as far back as the Reagan Administration. In that time, the Republican Party has moved farther and farther to the right, and at the same time closed itself off from any moderation. (Are you aware that there used to be a liberal wing of the Republican Party? Actually, qualitatively liberal -- not as liberal as the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, but still bone fide liberals who were respected members of the party. Today, it's likely that Ronald Reagan -- a former liberal Democrat -- would be considered to be too far to the left for the current GOP.) While the Republicans have moved (I first wrote "drifted", but, in fact, it was a completely deliberate move by the right wing of the party) the Democrats have stayed fairly much where they were, pace all those who claim -- without evidence -- that it's become more liberal. In actuality, the Democrats only look as if they are more liberal because of the GOP's move to the right. You can align current Democratic Party positions with those of the party 25 or 30 years ago -- something which cannot be said of the Republicans.

In short, blaming both parties may seem like a fair and balanced stance to take, but it flies in the face of reality, and is ahistorical to boot. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The GOP has sufficiently isolated itself from electoral consequences, through cable propaganda, gerrymandering, voter suppression, the rock solid southern racist vote and the rock solid theocratic vote, that the average GOP congressdroid now fears a primary from the right far more than they fear the general electorate. I think if that were fixed the problem would go away. Guy (Help!) 23:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

What's wrong with the US leaving the UNHRC? It's a perfectly good move. As for the Paris accords, you seem to miss that the President, in this case Obama, couldn't just sign treaties with the world without Senate approval. Trump was correct to leave the accord. Again, it seems from here that you basically get your news from the Guardian or some other left site and basically call anyone who disagrees with you a right winger. It's attitudes like yours, calling people racist or theocrats, etc. that got us Trump in the first place. You really do need to tone it down. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Normally if the US is going to make a significant policy change in order to appease a rich party donor they at least pretend to consult on it first. Pulling out of international treaties to appease billionaire donors is not at all normal politics. See here.

I get my news from a very broad range of sites, including WaPo, NYT, Financial Times, Telegraph and the Guardian. All media are far left by comparison to Fox. Liberals tend to have a much broader set of media sources, and are much less likely to be swayed by their editorial biases, according to research. Which is pretty much the point I'm making. Pretending Trump is normal is a problem, because by pretty much universal consent, he ain't. It's not about him being right wing, it's about him being shameless authoritarian crook. Guy (Help!) 15:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• In an interesting turn of events, I have been having a conversation on another website with an intelligent and thoughtful poster who thinks the democrats are far worse. To him, climate change and creationism are things that the republicans get wrong, but to him the democrats who hold fringe views on vaccines and GMOs are far worse. He agrees that Trump is rude and boorish, but doesn't think that Obama being sophisticated matters -- only his expansion of government powers and his assassination people without a judge or jury. In that conversation I keep bringing up ways that the republicans are just as bad or worse. Neither conversation has convinced me that I am wrong about both being bad in different ways. My theory is that I am seeing blinders at work. Which makes me wonder what blinders I have on that I don't realize are there... --Guy Macon (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Climate change is official policy of the GOP, and Trump has also made anti-vaccine statements. It was Democrats who passed the California vaccine mandate. However, broadly, I agree that the GOP and the Democrats are indeed two sides of the same coin, up to a point. But now? Not so much. McConnell's refusal to even allow Garland a hearing is a naked power grab and a breach of all prior norms, and the way the GOP has refused to hold Trump to account is likely to cause them lasting electoral damage, and rightly so. This is not about the parties, it is about Trump and the reality-distortion field around him, and in particular the die-hard Trumpies who believe that any fact that conflicts with their narrative is by definition false. Guy (Help!) 18:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

But they are not two sides of the same coin, but are radically different in several ways. Scholarly data analysis, published in the Oxford University Press book Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics, shows that "liberals want facts; conservatives want their biases reinforced. Liberals embrace journalism; conservatives believe propaganda.... The right-wing media ecosystem differs categorically from the rest of the media environment." The authors have documented that the right-wing media ecosystem is more susceptible to "disinformation, lies and half-truths", results documented by numerous other researchers and authors.

Sources

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Guy

Could you please tone it down? The first thing that jumped of the page at me was "I hate". While there are many valuable and insightful parts to this essay it just goes too far. Cheers, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Ha! "I hate Illinois Nazis" is a quote from The Blues Brothers. Guy (Help!) 11:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

A public service

As a public service, here are some things you should NOT say or write. [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=106&v=QEQOvyGbBtY ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Political Scientists Trace American Democracy’s Severe Polarization To Fucking Idiots On Other Side Of Aisle

DURHAM, NH—Blaming those with a differing worldview for sowing rampant discord in society, political scientists at the University of New Hampshire announced Wednesday they had traced the current polarization in American democracy to those fucking idiots on the other side of the aisle. “The analysis we conducted indicates the growing divide in political attitudes has been entirely caused by those dipshits in the other party,” said Dr. Stanley Pomeroy, adding that all these goddamn slobbering imbeciles and the biased media outlets they call news are primary drivers of the nation’s movement toward ideological extremes. “Our research clearly shows that ignorant assholes on the opposing side who never leave their personal echo chambers make the political sphere more contentious by continually spouting off stupid fucking opinions about issues they don’t even understand. Until these shit-for-brains voters stop casting their ballots for the wrong party, it’s unlikely things will get any better.” At press time, Pomeroy stressed that the only way to reverse the troubling effects of polarization was for the dumbfucks on the other side to disregard all their life experiences and change everything about the way they think.

Source:[16]

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Ha! Fucking hilarious! And that was the case right up until January 2017. Guy (Help!) 23:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, love The Onion. Now here's more on the subject. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

And even more![17] Why, it's almost as if one could do a quick web search and find a one-sided hit piece supporting either side!

But whatever you do, DON'T pay any attention to these guys:[18] I suggest putting your fingers in your ears and humming "LALALALALICAN'THEARYOU!"...

Re: "right up until January 2017", I know! Isn't it wonderful that before January of 2017 both parties consisted of idiots who put staying in power and personal gain above the needs of the nation, but after January of 2017 one side stayed evil while the other side became 100% good, pure, and altruistic? Clearly we need to re-elect whoever it was who performed this miracle! --Guy Macon (talk) 10:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The "both sides are corrupt" argument has always had some validity, but it doesn't take into account the capture of the GOP by Trump. It has abandoned any semblance of a legitimate party representing the people, and is now a personality cult supporting and protecting a corrupt autocrat. The situation is radically different now than we've ever seen in this country's history. Keep that in mind. Trump is not a person of no consequence. Far from it. Don't underestimate his influence.

I blame McConnell, as he's the one who ordered the bipartisan Gang of Eight to not reveal that Trump was under investigation for conspiracy with Putin, and his campaign for active collusion. He chose to hitch the GOP's wagon to Trump, even if it turned out he was a Manchurian Candidate who would turn over control of America to Putin, and become the puppet president of the Banana Republic of the Soviet States of America. That's when the GOP changed allegiance from the Constitution to Trump, and there is no possible connection between them. It's an either/or situation. Trump has never read the Constitution, does not understand it, and doesn't care. He demands complete and total loyalty to himself. That's the deal with the Devil McConnell made, and the GOP, with few exceptions, has stayed in that wagon, even though it's being pulled by a seeming madman.

The rules and playing field have changed radically, and an approximate date can be put on it. With extreme voter suppression in many GOP controlled states, a tactic not shared by the Dems, the GOP has abandoned any pretense of following the Constitution or democratic principles. Now its goal is absolute power and shut out all competition FOREVER, with power turned over to Trump alone, even if he becomes an absolute dictator. Polls now show that Trump supporters will still support him even if it's proven he is in league with, and controlled by, Putin. They no longer care if there was collusion. That's how low the GOP has sunk. The current GOP would not be recognized by Reagan, Eisenhower, or Lincoln. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Up to the start of the Trump administration, recent American politics could be summed up really simply: the Democrats pursued an agenda, the Republicans pursued power. The democrats campaigned badly but generally governed well, the Republicans campaigned well but generally governed badly. The best result for the American people seems to me to have been achieved when neither had absolute control (example: ACA). Trump is not part of that world. What Trump cares about is Trump's money and Trump's image and pretty much nothing else. He can't even fake empathy. Politically, he is a bomb-thrower, and that's not unprecedented, but looking back in history at past legendary terrible presidents, Trump actually combines the worst facets of all of them. He is as dishonest as Nixon, as racist as Jackson and Buchanan, as belligerent and insecure as Andrew Johnson, as creepy as Clinton, as corrupt as Harding. And the GOP is doing nothing to hold him to account. Instead they are packing the Supreme Court with people who are likely to overturn precedent and allow him to defy subpoenas over his self-dealing and sexual harassment. I am not the only one who thinks America faces an existential crisis in its democracy, and potentially even a second Civil War. Guy (Help!) 15:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Re: "the Democrats pursued an agenda, the Republicans pursued power:, with all due respect (and I do respect you even if we disagree on politics), bullshit. Both parties have been pursuing power since day one. The actual political positions are just things that are coldly calculated to attract money and votes. As documented here, the parties have switched what they "believe in" whenever it looked like the old positions wouldn't lead to them retaining power. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

This is not my analysis, it is pretty much the mainstream view across a large number of sources I have read. You can trace it back to the civil rights era, when the Democrats decided to turn their back on Southern racists and the GOP decided to court them. The only stable ideology in the GOP is cutting taxes, especially corporate taxes.

Obviously it's also a superficial statement, but it's broadly true.

Still and all, it's a side show, because overall being a Republican (or a Democrat or anything else other than a LaRouchie) has never been a problem here in and of itself, the issue is people who are Trump fans, who are in denial about his systematic dishonesty and corruption. Guy (Help!) 18:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I, uh, get the feeling this page will become a venue of ever increasing hysterics. It started off relatively sane, but it's been steadily derailing. Now its goal is absolute power and shut out all competition FOREVER – You make it sound like Trump has established INGSOC (or USFASH I suppose would be his variant). Is America just high? or are the propaganda machines really that effective? Personally, I think that America's culture of hyping everything up is to blame. One person gets Ebola, and suddenly it's an impending national crisis. One Trump gets into the White House, you know how much that is? That's a troupe of Putins you son of a bitch. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

It's all fun and games until someone takes the "this is the worst evil the world has ever seen" rhetoric (from both camps) seriously and starts killing people. If You Want Political Violence To End, Make Politics Less Important. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Trump is not the most evil politician in the world today, and far from the worst ever. He is, however, the worst America has elected in living memory, and the way he is being protected from the consequences of his obvious malice, corruption and incompetence will have profound implications for a long time to come. You know how people tack "gate" onto everything now, because of Watergate? This is worse than Watergate. If the Democrats flip the house next week I expect some seriously crazy shit to go down, starting with the firing or resignation of Sessions and Rosenstein. There's nobody in the No. 3 slot at Justice now, so next in line to run the Mueller investigation is Noel Franciso, a former partner at Jones Day, which represents Trump in the legal cases. So obviously he has to recuse, per the ethics pledge, right? Except... he was given an ethics waiver in April. Which, purely coincidentally, was never publicised by the White House like all the other ethics waivers they issue. As has been said elsewhere, no smoke without fire is a logical fallacy, but in this case if there is no fire it will be the most smoke without an actual fire in the history of either smoke or fires. Guy (Help!) 18:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

"Lochner era", not "Loughner era"

... although it is a curious parapraxis. -Kieran (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Great essay

Great essay. You're a talented writer. Thanks for the read. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Be specific on the term “Creationism”

This was a great article your made, however there is just one pet-peeve I have. You seem to not understand that there is more than just Young Earth Creationism. You used “40% of Americans believe in creationism.” As a way to show that Christians are scumbags. What you missed, however, is that it was talking about creationism in general (Progressive, Old Earth, etc), not just YEC. Likewise the word creationism just means “Belief that a God created the universe.” What is so awful about believing that? And you do realize that the amount of Americans that believe in YEC is even smaller, right? Now I know you were referring to YEC (as you said “…the Earth is billions of years old,…”) but please be specific, it’s extremely misleading. It makes it look like anyone who believes that God created the universe is a idiot who also believes the universe is 6,000 years old. In general your just creating a straw man argument. Maybe find a study that asks how many Americans believe in YEC (remember that “creationism” doesn’t just refer to YEC), then you’ll probably get a more accurate accusation. Overall good article.68.97.131.85 (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Creationism is creationism. The issue isn't that Young Earth Creationism is some bad egg, the issue is that the belief that some kind of god created the universe doesn't stand up to Hitchen's Razor, let alone the slightest critical examination that follows proper procedures of the scientific method. TLDR, It's all hogwash, one way or another, and so much as distinguishing different dogmatic sects in the creationist cult is giving it way more attention than it deserves. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 10:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Appeal to authority fallacy. Dr Vigilante (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

You are pretty new to that fallacy thing, it seems. There is no appeal to authority here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

True I used the wrong one. Although technically Hitchesn Razor is a appeal to authority, as it was by Christopher Hitchens himself, which then people just took the razor as “rule of thumb” because he was an influential figure (and to mine too). Dr Vigilante (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

So you are assuming that the IP used the razor "because Hitchens was influential figure". That is a strawman. It is just a good rule, no matter who invented it. If Hitchens himself used it together with an appeal to authority, that does not taint the razor itself. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling All right that is fair. I was mainly referring to my own experience but I gyres that would fall into “fallacy fallacy” category (although I guess that would describe my “mission” then). Dr Vigilante (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually, "fallacy fallacy" does not mean that you wrongly accuse someone of a fallacy, it means that you accuse someone of a fallacy and conclude that their opinion is false. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Another [Minor] Issue

Before I go on I just to make things clear I am a libertarian, I believe in liberty and freedom and that’s it. Now you constantly mention in “Reality has a well-known left wing bias”, which in most cases is true, and most cases is not. You say “We can't magically make them reliable just because we like their politics or want them to "balance" facts we don't like.” Which is completely true and a fact. You claim that the right are the only ones doing this, that is not a fact. There is countless examples of left not accepting reality. For example, the left rejects that; being fat is unhealthy, males and females have different body structures, race does not define you, etc. Countless studies from scientists show that doing a LGBT+ lifestyle has damaging effects. Now I am not Homophobic, Transphobic, etc, I am a proponent of same-sex marriage, but the left and right both reject reality. Thanks for Listining. 68.97.131.85 (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Publicizing RfC's

Hi Guy, I'm looking for help in publicizing an RfC without WP:Canvassing. The RfC is at the bottom of the Shaun King talk page, and has not received much attention from anyone except a couple of editors that appear to be interested in adding any negative trivia they can find to the King article. Can you think of any Wikiprojects that would be appropriate? Wes sideman (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Place a neutral pointer on the talk pages of any WikiProjects listed on the article's talk page, something on the order of "The discussion here [include a link] may be of interest to members of this project." Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

{{subst:Please see|Article wikilink}} works nicely as a neutrally worded message. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I was not aware of that template. Wes sideman (talk) 11:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)