Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Valjean (talk | contribs) at 18:01, 15 March 2020 (→This person.: test). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

This page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Ashe Schow (November 25, 2015). "Misplaced Pages founder advocates for updating policies following 'The Hunting Ground' controversy". Washington Examiner. Retrieved February 8, 2020. Another editor, whose username is BullRangifer, suggested Misplaced Pages not become "a kangaroo court or lynching" by rushing to ban accounts who break COI. BullRangifer suggested following seven steps to determine whether "The Hunting Ground" crew member should be banned and whether his edits should be removed. Some of the steps included how he handled questions related to his edits and whether he stuck to discussion pages to ask for edits rather than making them himself. Marcus Gilmer (October 3, 2018). "Misplaced Pages demotes Breitbart to fake news". Mashable. Retrieved October 5, 2018. Support. If anything, it's even more unreliable than the Daily Mail, as they at least use trained journalists, whereas Breitbart is a fringe propaganda organization which lets its extreme partisan bias get in the way of how it reports things, and whether it does so, just as Fox News does. It too should be deprecated, but let's start with Breitbart (and InfoWars). — BullRangifer 17:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27,TB, RS stash

User:BullRangifer/Negotiation table

Some questions for Trump supporters

I don't want to misunderstand any of you, but to avoid doing so in further discussions, do you believe/deny that:

1. there was Russian interference in the election?
   1. that its primary goal was to destabilize America and sow division?
   2. that its secondary goal was to harm Clinton's electability?
   3. that its third goal was to help Trump win?
2. that is was Russia, and not Ukraine, that interfered in our election?
3. that the Mueller investigation did not "produce enough evidence" to prove the existence of a formal written or oral "conspiracy"/"coordination" between the Trump campaign and Russians?
4. that the Mueller investigation did prove the existence of active co-operation/collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians?
5. that there were numerous secretive meetings and contacts between the Trump family, Trump campaign members, and Russians/Russian agents?
6. that they (including Trump himself) lied again and again about these contacts?
7. that several have been convicted for doing so?
8. that these meetings and lies were sufficient to justify strong suspicions of conspiracy/collusion?
9. that it would have been very negligent of intelligence agencies to not start investigations of the (a) interference, (b) roles of Trump campaign and Russians, and (3) whether Trump is a witting or unwitting Russian asset (not "agent")?

What's your position on these assertions? Feel free to use the relevant numbers for your answers. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I supported Trump in the Canadian sense of disgust at Clinton's thinly-veiled plans to nuke Russia, but haven't cared for any American president's lying, greed or racism. Jimmy Carter's, maybe, because his was subtle. Maybe too subtle (was he even trying?) Helped clean up a nuclear disaster near a river I know once, so for that alone, he's still the only decent one since TV debates became a thing. Somewhere on Misplaced Pages, '15 or '16, I tried and failed to persuade American voters they didn't need to choose between two evils when Carter is still technically an official living president, merely not sitting. Same deal with Obama. You want him back, why settle for Joe Biden, the complete opposite counterbalancing VP? Makes no sense.

That said, I can confirm 1 through 6. There is absolutely nothing perfect or proper about a legit intelligence agency treating Russian election meddling with newslike urgency when agents of America's largest trading partner and country that speaks fluent English and Americanism are hiding in plain sight, planting seeds as you read this. Russia isn't in your hemisphere, much less in your charm spell radius. If any Asian deep state has the power to boost a viable signal over an ocean, it's Jerusalem. Wake up, Bullfolk!

Thank you for this opportunity to endorse Jimmy Carter, Kamala Harris and The Rock. Rome had a triumvirate, and it turned out alright, eh? And no, that wasn't an allusion to "the Fall"; Rome is currently and objectively better than Washington. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:40, November 9, 2019 (UTC)

Actual text of sanctions

Christopher Steele stuff

This might be of interest to you. Bear in mind that it was uploaded by John Solomon, so its authenticity is questionable. It's currently bouncing around the conservative echo chamber as evidence that the FBI was warned that Steele wasn't credible. (Ex: ) That seems very far-fetched to me. However if this document is real it might serve another purpose, to shed a little more light on the dossier allegations and how Steele arrived at them. R2 (bleep) 18:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

This will have to be quick.... I saw that on Twitter, but the thread immediately devolved into conspiracy mongering, so I stopped reading. I know about that allegation, but it's not new, just a twist on what we already knew, AFAIK. We have always known that Steele quickly developed a strong dislike for Trump (what normal person wouldn't?); that the dossier was raw intelligence, IOW unedited and largely unverified; that it was possible that some of it was even accidentally picked up disinformation from Russian intelligence, unlike most of it where "Steele spied against Russia to get info Russia did not want released; Don Jr took a mtg to get info Russians wanted to give.", IOW they could have also given Don Jr. misinformation, etc. This is no secret, and both Steele and BuzzFeed made this plain from the very beginning. Is there anything really new here? -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Look at it from a different angle. It's much more interesting in how it fills out our understanding of the dossier allegations than in how it does (or rather, doesn't) support the Spygate theorists. For instance Steele explained why the pee tape allegations were credible. R2 (bleep) 21:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. There are several interesting things about the pee tape allegation that make me tend to believe it might be true:

1. Trump has no alibi.
2. Even Schiller, his bodyguard, wouldn't give that to him.
3. He was offered the prostitutes.
4. It would be totally in character for him to consort with prostitutes.
5. It's also in character for him to have them defile that bed. He hates Obama that much as a president and as a black man. His racism is a well-documented family thing.
6. Comey is a trained professional at sniffing out BS and lying. Comey was a disbeliever until he talked to Trump. That changed him into a "maybe peeliever," and he's the expert.
7. Trump lied more than once in different ways about this.
8. He did it when lying wasn't even necessary or provoked, IOW clear consciousness of guilt.
9. There is no reason not to believe it. This is Occam's razor stuff. Belief is the more logical option.
10. And then there is this.

Now we've got more about it? Wow! Will this never end? I can't wait for the movie. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Now I'm on my phone with a lousy connection and just waiting... One thing interesting about this is that Steele did not intend for the dossier, as we have it, to be published. He wasn't happy about that.

We also know that the dossier was shared with journalists and is just a small part of his finds. Look at the page numbering and you'll see there's a whole lot missing. That was probably too sensitive to share with journalists, but the FBI no doubt has it and has been researching it and maybe following leads.

This is most likely some of that "missing" stuff. Interesting! It's what's NOT in the dossier that should scare Trump. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Trump Exemption Policy

The "Trump Exemption Policy" (see here) describes how content regarding Trump is held to a much higher bar by his supporters here than for any other public person. These editors do not treat other people this way. This is super POV pushing, whitewashing, editorial behavior.

Such kid-glove treatment (reserved only for him) is not based on policy, especially WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which lowers the bar for all public persons, and Trump is THE most public person. He makes sure of that.

There should be no special exemptions for Trump, and no double standards for how we treat him. Let's just apply our policies to him in exactly the way we do for every other public person. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Trump-Russia "co-operation" proven

Terminology is important. There are two aspects to the allegation of a '"well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between and the Russian leadership". Don't stop at "conspiracy", just because it wasn't proven. The next word "co-operation" is even more important, because that describes what actually is proven to have happened.

Mueller did not prove "conspiracy"/"coordination", but the Mueller Report documents boatloads of proven co-operation/collusion. There is mountains of evidence for that. See this exposition on two of the terms: Mueller Report#Conspiracy or coordination.

"In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign 'coordinat' – a term that appears in the appointment order – with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, 'coordination' does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement – tacit or express – between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." Mueller Report, vol. I, p. 2

Note those words: "That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests."

Why did Mueller point that out? Because the "two parties actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests." That's textbook co-operation/collusion.

See this from: Mueller Report#Redacted report findings compared to Barr letter:

The New York Times reported instances in which the Barr letter omitted information and quoted sentence fragments out of context in ways that significantly altered the findings in the report, including:

• Omission of words and a full sentence that twice suggested there was knowing and complicit behavior between the Trump campaign and Russians that stopped short of direct coordination, which may constitute conspiracy.

The main fact is that co-operation/collusion actually did happen. Trump welcomed that Russian help and facilitated it.

How do Trump supporters react to that? They stop with the unproven and refuse to admit the proven. How convenient. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

It's an absurd position to hold because they would never do this in real life for anything else. Here's an equivalent situation:

Two men are arrested for beating, shooting, and robbing another man, and after hiding the loot they burned his house to the ground. He barely survives, is forced into retirement because of the injuries that will plague him the rest of his life, and is left destitute, as his belongings have not been recovered. He now lives in a homeless shelter. His life is completely altered, with a bleak future.

At the trial, the two men are accused of planning the attack, as one man brought the gun and the other man brought the bullets. They are charged with conspiracy to commit a crime and also charged with battery, robbery, and arson.

The defense counters that there is no proof the men planned the attack as no formal written or oral agreement to commit the crime has been found.

The final verdict acquits the men of the charge of conspiracy, but convicts them of the other crimes, with lots of evidence.

The friends and family of the two criminals now rejoice and loudly proclaim their two friends are innocent as no conspiracy was proven. They don't talk about the crimes committed or the now destitute and injured man.

THAT is the current position of Trump supporters. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

This person.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Misplaced Pages's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33

{{subst:Ds/alert|ap}}

Arbitration​Committee A system filter has identified that you are trying to alert Valjean (contribs · logs · block log) to the existence of discretionary sanctions. Special rules govern alerts. You must not give an editor an alert if they have already received one for the same area of conflict within the last twelve months. Please now check that this editor has not already been alerted to this area of conflict in the last twelve months: Search logs: in user talk history • in system log. Search elsewhere (optional): in AE • in AE contribs. Do you wish to alert this user? If so, click 'Publish changes' again. If not, click 'Cancel'. v t e Please submit a false positives report if you received this message in error.

• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee