>Each side of every argument is full of misinformation, intentionally or not.
This is just silly information, and is used to sow resignation and demean actual and valid arguments.
There are plenty of arguments and forums where misinformation is treated disdainfully, as it should be. HN used to be one of them, but everything anti trump and musk seems to get brigaded, rather than debated.
I will point out that it is predominantly one side in American politics using misinformation as a weapon. Its the side that brought us "teach the controverry" instead of accepting the scientific reality of evolution. Its the side that made it illegal for the CDC and ATF to do studies of firearms. Its the side that claims to be anti- politics in science while at the very same time politicizing science.
Your statement benefits the side that doesnt have truth on its side, and is therefore harmful.
Confusing insane asylums and refugee asylum by way of talking about Hannibal Lecter points in a completely different direction than what you've stated.
I think no change across 40 years of life is not what either of us meant
Impaired by age is impaired by age. Don't try to move the goalposts. If you meant something more specific, you should have been more specific.
But How does 2020 Biden hold up to this test you came up with?
See above. I didn't come up with anything. 2020 Biden was fine. As for 2024 Biden, I don't care if he was a head in a jar, he and his cabinet were doing great.
1. Not all arguments suffer from misinformation on both sides.
2. The political right uses misinformation as a weapon at a scale that dwarfs that of the political left. Your single example does not counter that argument.
> suddenly it is a new problem when Trump does it.
Nope.
January 29, 2021: "Biden has taken heat from critics over his early reliance on executive action, with Republicans saying it betrays his vow to work with Congress on to build a consensus on issues."[0]
February 6, 2014: "Executive Order tyranny -- Obama plans to rule America with pen, phone"[1]
November 2, 2011: "Obama uses executive orders as a political tool"[2]
February 21, 2001: "The Use and Abuse of Executive Orders and Other Presidential Directives"[3]
Just stop. No evidence presented will satisfy you. Right wing misinformation warfare has been going on since at least Rush Limbaugh.
The post you are responding to has effectively and accurately rebutted the post it is answering, which claimed that the media complaing about Trump's EOs is a new thing, despite having been done be prior presidents.
>The post you are responding to has effectively and accurately rebutted the post it is answering
Wrong.
>which claimed that the media complaing about Trump's EOs is a new thing, despite having been done be prior presidents.
Wrong. My complaint was that Trump is held to a double standard on executive orders, and this is true.
>Just stop. No evidence presented will satisfy you. Right wing misinformation
The irony. Good god. Maybe if you get your head out of your arse and accept you might be wrong on occasion you would see what is obvious to everyone across the planet, that the media holds Trump to a completely different standard.
Next thing you will claim that Israel isn't held to a different standard by the UN. Your claim is as obviously ridiculous as that.
Those were just the stories I could find in 5 minutes.
Also previous presidents didn't issue nearly as many EOs with nearly as controversial content which gives rather less for people to complain about (and yet they still did.)
I'm referring to the widespread meme (that predates this use of the word meme) that is prevalent in the USA. It is so frequently repeated in some form, it is practically an article of faith. Notably, it is a major component of Donald Trump's messaging since he became a right-wing political figure.
Quote marks are frequently used to delimit text for purposes other than direct attribution to a speaker.
This is just silly information, and is used to sow resignation and demean actual and valid arguments.
There are plenty of arguments and forums where misinformation is treated disdainfully, as it should be. HN used to be one of them, but everything anti trump and musk seems to get brigaded, rather than debated.
I will point out that it is predominantly one side in American politics using misinformation as a weapon. Its the side that brought us "teach the controverry" instead of accepting the scientific reality of evolution. Its the side that made it illegal for the CDC and ATF to do studies of firearms. Its the side that claims to be anti- politics in science while at the very same time politicizing science.
Your statement benefits the side that doesnt have truth on its side, and is therefore harmful.