User talk:JzG/Archive 197

Talk:Hunter Biden

Guy, do better. I know this is a heated argument, but you're talking to a well-intentioned editor who just happens to disagree with you about content and sourcing, not someone who is trolling you, and you've got a a mop in your hands. :) —valereee (talk) 09:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, actually that is a statement based on Atsme's involvement in discussions at WP:RSN and elsewhere (see for example Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 303, and see if you can identify who the Fox RfC closers might have thought was "bludgeoning").

Atsme has referred several times to the "Russia hoax", terminology that belongs firmly in the conservative media bubble - use of this phrase is a massive red flag. She has repudiated the existence of the conservative media bubble despite academic sources showing it exists, and she has consistently argued the Sangerite line that we should adopt sourcing standards that draw false equivalence between the conservative and the mainstream, which is a common misunderstanding among conservatives (the opposite of conservative is liberal, the opposite of mainstream is fringe).

To assert, as Atsme did, that the Washington Examiner is "as and as bad as all the other biased media that publishes online clickbait" is to ignore that fact that "there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims", and to further ignore the very obvious fact that where a WP:BLP is concerned we absolutely should not be drawing on "biased media that publishes online clickbait" at all. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG, I'm not arguing with your assertion. I agree with it, WE is not a source we should be using for any contentious political article. I'm arguing with your language. Atsme is a well-intentioned editor with whom you are disagreeing, and with whom currently there are multiple other editors disagreeing, some of them in really non-civil ways, at the same article. You need to tell those editors to stop it. When you comment in a post where someone has been uncivil, and you basically are agreeing with that uncivil editor's argument, but you don't also include at least a note that their way of making that argument has strayed into incivility and even PA, you give that behavior an implicit approval. I know it's not what you intended. —valereee (talk) 11:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to ping you to your own talk. —valereee (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, Atsme and I are forthright with each other. But you're right: I should not be intemperate. I already refactored the comment anyway. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Media Bias Chart by Ad Fontes Media

Hey, I just noticed your discussion at your user page. I just recently finished a 10-week volunteer gig for them in which I trained on their rubric, then (along with a cohort of ~40) rated 30 articles a week. It was fascinating. I use their chart as a cheat sheet for sources I'm less familiar with, and while in some cases I disagree with them, in general I've found they usually come down pretty close to where we do. —valereee (talk) 10:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, yes, it's a good ready-reckoner IMO. I try to keep to sources in the top-centre. I have bought myself a subscription to the Financial Times at no small expense, because I think it's probably the most reliable right-leaning source in the UK. And I have put money into the IPO crowdfunder for Ad Fontes Media. I don't agree with them 100% (e.g. I think USA Today is distinctly tabloidish) but in general there should be solid consensus for reliability for any site that scores 45 or more for accuracy and the modulo of bias is less than 8. I also find Masem's arguments on pushing back on blow-by-blow reporting to be compelling. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I did the same thing with the Wall Street Journal! I also have a subscription to the NYT and WaPo, and most of my news reading is there, but I use the WSJ for a right-leaning reality check. If NYT and WaPo are reporting breathlessly and WSJ is like, yawn, I pay attention.

The rubric Ad Fontes uses is very interesting -- for instance, on the partisanship axis, +/- 6 they consider "neutral". +/-18 are the party platforms. +/- 30 is "most extreme elected officials," and outside of that they term "most extreme". But they also consider language, headlines, main photos, and if those are more extreme than the article itself, analysts push it further out along the spectrum. That's why Wonkette lands where she does -- the site's half-satire, so even though her reporting is more or less factual, her language pushes her rating way left. The reliability axis has a similar set of rubrics. —valereee (talk) 11:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, that's interesting. I don't think the methodology is published or peer-reviewed, is it? But it makes obvious good sense to downgrade sites that use clickbait images / captions. Thirst is a disincentive to reliability IMO. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

There's information about their methodology at https://www.adfontesmedia.com/how-ad-fontes-ranks-news-sources/ , and they do mention that their raw data is available for researchers, but as far as I know there's been no peer review. During the analyst training, Otero emphasized that her own bias almost certainly affected early versions of the chart, and that as the number of people working on the rubric increased, she believed her own bias was affecting it less and less but that it was impossible to account for or even reliably detect any overall right-or-left bias of the group. —valereee (talk) 12:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

There is a simple way of telling whether the chart is based upon reality or opinion (note that an opinion can be very close to reality). Look at Reason Magazine. Any accurate list will list Reason as extremely biased, but not right wing. They are libertarian. No right wing source advocates legalization of prostitution and heroin, zero restrictions on immigration, letting any adult marry any adult they choose including same sex marriages, and zero restriction on any medical procedure, including abortion. No left wing source advocates abolishing the income tax, closing down the department of education, zero restrictions on firearms including machine guns and rocket launchers, letting any adult marry any adult they choose including polygamists, and zero restriction on any medical procedure, including selling one of your kidneys. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, well, yes and no. The problem is that it's a 2D representation of a 3D landscape. Political Compass was the firsts ite I saw that split libertarian / authoritarian and economic left / right. In this case, a libertarian site will tend to align with fundamentalist free-marketism, opposition to social security and universal healthcare and other policies of the political right, so it would still probably appear right-leaning even if you factored out the difference. Ad Fontes puts Reason at +12 bias, way tot he left of Fox, OANN and the rest, which has truthiness for me. Maybe not for you. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

It's interesting. I have talked to many US conservatives who are absulutely convinced that libertarians are left-leaning. They see things like "firing everyone in the border patrol and the DEA" as unambiguously leftist. I really think Fontes is doing the equivalent of ranking all sports from small balls (marbles, ping pong, golf) to large balls (basketball, american football, real football) and applying it to wrestling, tic-tak-toe, and Minecraft.

Note that I don't agree with libertarianism (they really don't have a good answer to the problem of environmental pollution, for example), but I would like to see the US elect some greens and libertarians just so that we can be disappointed by someone new. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, libertarians are certainly left-leaning by comparison with the current GOP (though maybe not the Reagan-era GOP). They are also typically against the war on drugs, in favour of legal weed and such, so there is definitely crossover with some causes of the left, but core leftist values like social safety nets and sound regulatory regimes are anathema to most libertarians I think. I know no leftist who would see Atlas Shrugged as anything other than a dystopian horror story (though that's not to say such people may not exist somewhere). I think Ad Fontes is probably leaning to a more superficial question: does this article fall within the partisan left or the partisan right (as in: is it arguing leftist or rightist rhetoric as fact), and then taking an average - but I don't know. And of course without a peer-reviewed methodology we don't treat Ad Fontes as fact and don't include it as a source, but it gives a fair indication IMO, in that if something doesn't meet both minimum accuracy of 45 and minimum bias of 8, then it can't be taken as reliable without extra checking that we may not be qualified or permitted to do per WP:NOR (but see Wikipedia:Trust, but verify and my discussion with Masem and feel free to join the fun). Guy (help! - typo?) 16:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I have often heard libertarians described as "racists who like weed" and I think it's a fair assessment. The philosophical underpinnings of libertarianism are horrific, and racist thought leaders like Murray Rothbard who tried to rebrand Jim Crow as "freedom of association" (with school integration and desegregated buses being called "forced association") and portray lunch counter sit-ins as "aggression" under the "non-aggression principle" don't help their case. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I too donate to Ad Fontes Media, and I'd like to see their chart recommended as one more tool when evaluating sources. They are spot on with Fox, which shows that our failure to more firmly deprecate them demonstrates a notable failure of the RfC consensus process to achieve proper results. -- Valjean (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The chart is like Wikipedia; usually right but not a reliable source. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Of course. It's just a good tool, and the best chart I know of. Right now some script highlights all references in articles by reliability, opinion, bias, etc., and unfortunately it points to the wrong media bias chart. I wish that could be changed. -- Valjean (talk) 06:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, nicely put Guy (help! - typo?) 08:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

That's pretty good. :) —valereee (talk) 10:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Mistaken revert

Hi, it looks like you wrongly reverted an edit I just made. The article formerly titled Rod (optics) was recently moved to Rod (ufology) and the redirect was pointed to Rod cell instead. This left a lot of broken links that used to point to the former article, now pointing to the latter. Using the "what links here" page for the redirect I have been fixing links so they point to the correct article (usually the ufology one). Please undo your revert. Thanks, 156.146.63.52 (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I subsequently fixed this - the issue was that the move discussion didn't support ufology, but optical phenomenon. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

How convenient for Trump

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/tucker-carlson-lost-only-copy-of-documents-nailing-biden.html Valjean (talk) 05:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

What an amazing coincidence! Looks like losing evidence is everywhere these days![1] --Guy Macon (talk) 05:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Valjean, this the same Tucker Carlson whose defense in law is that nobody takes him seriously? Guy (help! - typo?) 08:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

If we didn't have Tucker, we would have to break in a new Bad Example... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Wow, Guy and Guy meet. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I had evidence that we are not the "Two Wild and Crazy Guys" in this video[2]. However, I sent them from Cardiff to London without making a copy and the evidence was lost in the mail. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Julian Assange 1RR notice on its talk page

Hey JzG. Over at WP:AE, people are saying that you are the admin who placed the 1RR on Talk:Julian Assange. It appears you may have given up your admin role to participate on the article. If that is the case, are you willing to post a comment in the AE that you are releasing the article to the jurisdiction of other admins, sanction-wise? (Can I think of any worse way of wording that?) They want to know if the admins who close that case are able to modify the 1RR, and change it into a different kind of 1RR. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I thought that was obvious from what I said already? Guy (help! - typo?) 19:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Guys like Guy

Can't paste links on this thing, but was referring to your Jimbotalk comment of 14:35, October 26. Other comments on other Talks, from you and others, have a similar vibe. Seems normal lately for anyone who questions or denies the idea that Russians are secretly controlling Trump voters to be immediately viewed as the lowest form of stereotypical Republican.

Same goes for those who dispute the baseless left-wing theories about Amy Coney Barrett being the executive branch's judicial puppet, George Floyd being intentionally asphyxiated by a racist cop or COVID being a common cause of death rather than a common contributory condition.

Some claims just simply do not align with the known facts, regardless of whether they're.spread by Democrats, Republicans or those outside of the bipartisan American bubble. Anyway, I still think you're alright, personally, just using you as a convenient exemplary scapegoat for a much wider opinion-based kneejerk problem on this site. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, well, that's nothing like my actual position, so I must assume something was lost in translation. It's undoubtedly true that Russia intervened in 2016, and that the Trump campaign colluded with Russian intelligence assets, and that they obstructed attempts to investigate this - that's all in the Mueller report. The FBI also say that Russians are feeding disinformation via Giuliani, the hack of Burisma in 2019 was probably Russia, as the hacks of the DNC and Emmanuel Macron were. And Russian troll farms are continuing to spread bullshit on social media, there are reports of large numbers of band from time to time. But most Trumpers are getting most of their disinformation from the conservative media bubble, which uses social media expertly (e.g. Facebook's top ten most shared links routinely contains several by Dan Bongino, a name that half of the US probably wouldn't even recognise). Guy (help! - typo?) 22:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Aye, like any conspiracy theory, there are cold hard facts to be found and shared amongst those who want to believe the pre-established conclusion. Russian agents did hack the DNC before the last election. While a Clintonite might cry foul and point to it as dirty communists foiling her entirely wholesome plot to help good old CNN stamp out Social Justice Sanders by only blaring the soundbites that suit capitalism, a liberal educated Ontarian might see it as a scheming war hawk feeling ashamed she couldn't keep her honestly disturbing backroom secrets secure from the voting public, much less professional (and amateur) spies from every foreign state.

My foregone conclusion at that point was an American (Hillary Clinton) just helped Americans who always figured the government is run by cold-blooded lizards so never bothered voting decide voting for a WrestleMania manager would be worth the side effects for a change. America screwed America in 2016, face it. Sure, Russians are happy Clinton lost, because she clearly thinks poorly of them and really did enjoy actual war during her term at the State Department. fuck escalating tensions.

Iraqis, Afghans, Iranians, North Koreans, Pakistanis, Libyans, Somalis, Yemenis, Palestinians and Syrians are also less likely to die under the lesser evil, why not look so closely at those beneficiaries? And Canada, I repeat, is openly suggesting Harris over Pence right now, brother! But yeah, no, keep fearing Soviet influence, eh? Worked so well as a strategy in decades prior, right? Anyway, sorry for misreading you there and venting here, have a howlingly happy and safe Halloween, neighbour! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

If you will excuse a bit of ranting, the popular press keeps conflating two different things; attempting to influence US elections and attempting to influence US elections by illegal means such as hacking. The US tries to influence elections all of the time. So does everyone else. Does anyone imagine that France doesn't try to influence UK elections to get a result favorable to France? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

There's this guy named Paul Hunter on our TVs, other Guy, who shows up around this time once or twice a week to read us a short story about Trump, then end it all..with a dramatic pause. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Its all the Reptilians fault.--MONGO (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Climate change, paranoia and financial collapse, yesss. Earthquakes, depression and rioting are on the mole people's agenda, though. And if you think a thunderbird is only responsible for scaring our dogs, take another look at what Northern scientists like to call...the electromagnetic spectrum (it's all out there in front of us!). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Bah! Fake news, all of it. Here is 💩 THE TRUTH! 💩 --Guy Macon (talk) 04:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

And that's another thing! I resent you people using that word! That's our word for making fun of you! We need it! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

MONGO, Like. Or do I mean Icke? Guy (help! - typo?) 23:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, the Russians are not Communists. Vladimir Putin is a kleptocrat. He might have trained in the KGB, but he is an old-fashioned fascist at heart. His vast fortune rests on extortion of oil and gas oligarchs, and his preference for Trump is entirely about favourable treatment for oil and gas generally and Russia specifically (the sanctions regime stemming from his annexation of Crimea and invasion of Ukraine). Oh, and his desire to destabilise the Western alliance, which he did incredibly successfully through his promotion of both Trump and Brexit. Russia is a massive geopolitical problem, they are seeking to establish a new Russian empire and sphere of influence, and aggressively filling the vacuum left by the retreat of the US on the world stage. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

"Dirty communists" was me trying (perhaps poorly) to see what a foul-crying Clintonite might've seen. Same with "entirely wholesome" and "good old". I remember "the fall". But those who prefer their political enemies to appear as polar opposites might tend toward seeing this "threat to democracy" through Cold War-tinted glasses. I get how Russian expansion might seem problematic to citizens of a competing superpower, it just doesn't hit home as hard for a relatively meek Canadian audience who thinks there are good and bad people on both sides of this nuclear standoff. Putin himself seems like a dick to me, as does Trump, to be clear. But in sufficiently different ways for me to not suspect cahoots to the degree CNN and WaPo fans do. Clinton lost narrowly by being less likeable, that's all. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: It seems a bit odd to me that, given that you are apparently trying to use it to portray coördination between Trump and the Russian government as a sort of mirage or otherwise mere hogwash, you chose the single-most-substantiated example of collusion between them to bring up: in which Trump publicly requested that Russia carry out a military cyberattack against a former cabinet-level official of the US government, and Russia immediately went ahead and did it. See Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections § Calls by Trump for Russians to hack Clinton's deleted emails.

Clinton, certainly, left a great deal to be desired for assuming the White House, as do all American presidents, despite having a better resumé than any presidential candidate in American history, even Dwight Eisenhower.

But if it's Trump you are designating as the “lesser evil” and safer for that list of nationalities, it seems rather important to point out that after completely losing track of a naval carrier group alongside his many spectacular gaffes and blunders surrounding nuclear arms doctrine and military matters, he proposed to exterminate all life on the Korean Peninsula, which would of course have been the second battlefield use of nuclear weapons in human history, both times by the United States, and both times against non-white civilian populations. (Brazen anti-Asian racism being one of the many forms of racism which Trump exhibits gleefully.) On top of that, if he has handed out nuclear weapons technology as liberally as he proposed doing during his last campaign (hopefully we'll find out some day before they're used?) several of those nationalities are significantly less safe than you seem to be saying in the aftermath of the Trump administration, without even mentioning other “accomplishments” of his.

Though I certainly have to say that, if as your wording here might imply you are an ardent anti-capitalist, expressing that by praising as less evil a guy who is so bad at capitalism that he lost money running casinos and thinks that trade wars are easy to win is an innovative, kinda reverse-psychology way of doing so that I haven't seen before. It's like you're negging capitalism! --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 13:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I like capitalism, just think the American dream machine values it too highly. The 99% are getting screwed, and Sanders' potential administration might have given many poor folks a chance. Could have easily beaten Trump, at least. Trump's brazenly racist violence is rhetorical and hypothetical, mostly. I like that. I don't approve of his ineptitude as a team captain or financial manager. But Americans should stop expecting leadership from a president. Nobody can faithfully enact 350 million members' wishes. Find more local inspiration, sheeple! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

And to be clear, some Russians are meddling and Trump did openly ask for some, it's no mirage. Just mere hogwash to think that potential factor, among the thousands that might go into deciding any election, was worthy of the insane amount of press and airtime it got. I remember a solid few weeks where awaiting the Mueller Report seemed to be the literal only story on CNN. Awaiting! If that wasn't the very definition of "sad fake news witch hunt covfefe", I don't know what could more precisely describe it. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: If you'll pardon me doing a smidgeon more Americasplaining (which I realize is an especially absurd thing to do towards a Canadian, like you have any choice other than to pay an inordinate amount of attention to the U.S. already) but in the aforementioned “Russia if you're listening...” direct public call for a cyberattack, Trump openly committed treason under the section of our constitution which defines it as “levying War against” the United States, the most egregious form of treason even.

Like one of his many violent dirtbag idols, Al Capone, (another incongruity for the ages for the U.S., undoubtedly to be remembered as Dominic Green's “Second British Empire”: a “law and order” president who thinks Al Capone was mistreated by the justice system) Trump will never actually be held accountable for his most salient crimes, but at best might be brought down for tax fraud or some technicality. But of course, there has yet been fruitless desperate hope that our democracy would reassemble itself automatically and through some just-world fallacy fiat like the Mueller Report would force accountability... an accountability “We the People” and our institutions no longer have the will to enforce, as an aggregate, ourselves. It's all just deer-in-the-headlights—the blood of Númenor has thinned. (In the moral sense, obviously, rather than the original Tolkenian hereditary sense.)

All this, and for example the open support for Rodrigo-Duterte-style government death squads (Duterte, the self-styled Hitler of drug addicts, being another of Trump's dirtbag idols) points to a more substantial threat to democracy and the rule of law than is usual (edit: usual internally) for one of the “Five Eyes” Western powers, IMHO; I have to concur with Guy that it's not all just political histrionics. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 10:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

If a private email server can be construed as one of the United States, I suppose illegaly accessing its data could as logically resemble war. Thanks for clearing that up. Capone and Duterte have done far more harm than Trump or Clinton, by my Two Eyes; if America was trapped into picking one, I'd nudge it toward Capone, but would still shake my head at the whole rotten tradition of artificially constricting the field to two contenders a year or more in advance. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I would not have made the favorable comparison between Capone and Clinton myself, nor any U.S. Secretary of State from Dulles/Iran/Guatemala onwards I think, or even earlier—perhaps you have a soft spot for her, and maybe for American capitalism, after all! --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 19:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't support locking her up, so I guess that makes me a bleeding-heart snowflake. If any ragecaged children have eggs and toilet paper to spare this holiday season, though, she haunts several big houses. Just saying! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The legendary Canadian politeness!

Well, I went to see if we had any good articles on Canadian politeness to link to and ended up finding out that Margaret Atwood is Canadian. I had no idea. The Order of Ontario even—she might be your neighbor. One more thing to thank you guys for. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 20:31, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

My mom met Atwood, thought she was cool, I'm firmly undecided. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, America's version of capitalism is bordering on oligarchy, and will get there if Trump wins next week. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

If oligarchy was dependent on election results, it'd be democracy. Biden didn't spend his own money to get here. Like every presidential hopeful since Eisenhower, he'll scratch his donors' backs sooner than he'd stick a knife in them. If a grown Google, informed Amazon and consenting Comcast want the freedom to merge behind closed doors during this long mythical winter ahead, you think Ol' Joe is going to stand between them? Pfft! He can't even (in theory) stop Disney from annexing Cuba. Andrew Yang seems ready, willing and able to sink WWE, though, and I have mixed feelings on that. Go Kamala! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, not really, no. The majority did not vote for Trump and the GOP’s hard right corporatist agenda, backed by often unqualified judges selected by a right wing think-tank, has never had majority support in the country. It’s been tyranny of the minority for most of the last quarter century. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

No president has been chosen by a majority of Americans. Best case scenario, a plurality of those qualified, registered and willing to vote. Corporations, on the other hand, hook vast majorities for life, regardless of age, colour or felon status. Have you ever worshipped a telephone? You Will (though the company bringing it to you might not be AT&T). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, but George W. Bush and Donald Trump lost the popular vote (Trump by the largest margin ever). And the 47 Senate Democrats represent more people and more votes cats than the 53 Senate Republicans. And I am pretty sure you know this. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. By your country's gargantuan and twisted rulebooks, though, that's a system feature, not a bug. Democrats should've known better before running a candidate that "jokingly" admitted she's a terminator built in a Silicon Valley garage, rather than someone everyone might like on some level. That's literally all you need to win at electoral college lacrosse, basic sustainable human connection to your audience. The Rock, Katy Perry, Al Gore...thousands of people could crush a majority against Trump, then appoint whatever cabinet American people honestly want, and drain the undisputed swamp in Washington for the next generation to take back your God-given world championship from India. Simple! Anyway, Biden will win, pass paxfully away, Kamala will rise and none of it will affect Dorsey, Beszos or Branson's drone armies from zooming on above such petty noise. Cheer up! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, The UK has a lot of parties, and a first past the post system. This allows the Monster Raving Tory Party and their promoters in the news media to handily divide the public. There's pretty much no dissent from the view that Hillary Clinton was the one candidate Trump could beat. Equally, only a raving madman would think that electing a criminally insane game show host to the most powerful office int he world was anything other than profoundly stupid. But I give all due credit to Phyllis Schlafly, who more or less invented the culture war. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time telling whether you're an American or a Brit, so excuse me for calling it "your" world championship earlier, perhaps. Wish you'd linked Schlafly, in any case, not ringing a bell (will search later I see what you mean). To be clear, Trump was pushed hard by a McMahon, not a madman. And she got the ball rolling because of his insane drawing power at WrestleMania 23 in 2007, not for his fake game show ratings. I see his article no longer mentions any of this; maybe after this political angle burns down, I'll raise that glaring oversight again. Anyway, credit to Lincoln as the only legitimate pro wrestler to take office and root the black man toward victory, fuck Buchanan and Booth's ghosts! Umaga, rest in power, brother! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, I'm English, but have worked for American companies for most of the last two decades - I interact daily with US people (and also Indian and Egyptian people). Guy (help! - typo?) 12:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

So like Bond...but Guy Bond. I'm glad we had this little tea party, brother. Any friend of the Indian and Egyptian people can infiltrate my thoughtbubble and plant whatever seeds he sees fit any day! May the sun never set on the mighty Kamala, and may the Lord of Light guide you as well, Ser Guy of the Isles, for the nights across the shining sea seem likely to remain dark and full of terror regardless of who shits upon the White House throne (per CBC, Vice and Global Research projections, anyway). Cheerio and don't forget to bring a towel, dirty hands sink ships, stiff upper lip and all that, eh? I'm off to see a wizard, will respond to any further inquiries no sooner than November 12, unless I forget. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

"Democrats should've known better...": you mean "voters in the Democratic primaries". Unless that business about "rulebooks" comes out of some conspiracy theory. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• Wait. I just read what you wrote about George Floyd; if I understand what you're saying he died of a pre-existing medical condition in a way that had nothing to do with a cop kneeing on his neck until paramedics told him to stop, which would be bad enough for Instagram, and really disgusting in this place. Drmies (talk) 01:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the Democrats who choose the only viable option for regular voters who lean left. No, Floyd's neck was not injured and he did not suffocate. The subdual was determined as the cause of death, as clearly as was the restraint, and that subdual was three cops' doing. The charges laid allege no intention to kill against any cop, and no racist motive. His severe heart disease and heavy drug dose contributed, but homicide is homicide, this isn't an excuse. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the reality is actually even worse than that. I say it was a depraved-indifference murder. "While Floyd was handcuffed and lying face down on the street, Chauvin knelt on Floyd's neck for nearly eight minutes. After Chauvin placed his knee on Floyd's neck, Floyd repeatedly said 'I can't breathe', 'Mama', and 'please'. For part of the time, two other officers knelt on Floyd's back. During the final two minutes Floyd was motionless and had no pulse." He wasn't even treated as a human being. He was treated as if he literally had zero rights. There was absolutely no reason to kneel on his neck. The cops simply didn't give a shit. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• Struthious Bandersnatch, you commented, jokingly I assume, that Hillary Clinton had a "better resumé than any presidential candidate in American history". I feel obligated to point out that James Buchanan had by far the best resumé: two years in the Pennsylvania House, ten years in the U.S. House of Representatives, a year as ambassador to Russia, ten years in the U.S. Senate, two years as Secretary of State and two and a half years as ambassador to the United Kingdom. Despite all that, he is widely considered one of the worst presidents until Trump, and he utterly failed to prevent the Civil War. His successor Abraham Lincoln was a neophyte by comparison. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Cullen328: Ah, but you see, whereas Buchanan was only First Lady of the United States for four years, Clinton was First Lady for eight—that's the key differentiator. There's a common misconception that Buchanan had an affair with Sarah Childress Polk, which I can see is repeated in our article which you link to, but in reality he was Sarah Childress Polk and hence served for two of those years as both First Lady and Secretary of State at the same time. (With the 19th-century political intrigue translated into a metaphor of 21st-century professional basketball, this is actually the inspiration for the story of the film Juwanna Mann. Also, note that Polk and her husband President James Polk never had children.) And of course Buchanan was never First Lady of Arkansas, a position Clinton held for nearly a dozen years. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 02:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

    Struthious Bandersnatch, silly boy. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Struthious Bandersnatch, I'm no professor, but I do not think your math adds up. If Buchanan was alive, your innuendo about the "Bachelor President" would be a BLP violation. Luckily for you, he died in 1868. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
    • @Cullen328: And yet, despite your outrage at my alleged dastardly effrontery and impingement of the honor of the man you yourself describe as "one of the worst presidents" who died more than 150 years ago—indeed, perhaps you wish we lived in the day where you could challenge a person to a duel—you walked right past my suggestion that (definitely LP) Clinton has probably done more net harm than Al Capone in the course of her duties as U.S. Secretary of State, in your urgency to knock her resumé.
      Such odd disparity in behavior, I wonder what could possibly produce it. Luckily for you, there's no actual Wikipedia policy against it. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 15:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
      • There's no time to throw down, gentlemen, my little bird at The Toronto Star tells me Real Melania has been replaced by a "Loch Ness FLOTUS"! Also, hockey god Bobby Orr has blessed Trump's bid. Even I'm uncertain of the future now? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

References