UPDATE: not 100 Executive Orders but closer to 200 on the first day....

"BREAKING: Donald Trump to sign 200+ executive orders tomorrow.

.... they include:

- Declare emergency at the border + issue proclamation closing the border
- Designate cartels as foreign terrorist organizations
- Remain in Mexico....
- Military will be directed to construct new phase of border wall
- Terminate Biden orders on energy drilling restrictions
- Return federal workers to in-person work
- Pause all offshore wind leases
- End DEI hiring practices in the federal government, merit only
- Withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord
- Order every agency to remove all federal actions increasing costs for Americans via deregulation
- Suspend security clearances for the 51 officials who lied about the Hunter Biden 2020 laptop story
- Establish a DOGE "hiring freeze""

mhaze,

Who are you trying to convince - yourself or us?

Chill. Sit back and watch the show tomorrow.

Just trying to keep you informed Foxy since the sources you rely on certainly won't. I think its the least I can do to try to help you make sense of something that is clearly going over your head.

Things are about to get better.... remember its always darkest before the don.

mhaze,

You've certainly earned yourself the-one-of-a-kind
Trumpinator Teddy Bear. Perfect for a Trump supporter.
The Proud Patriots Trumpinator Teddy Bear is sure to put
a smile on your dedicated face.

I'll try to get it for you.

You've earned it.

.

Dear mhaze,

.

You wrote :

1. « Banjo, you linked to Wikipedia to support your claims. »
.

Wikipedia provided a list of polls I indicated for your facility, mhaze.

Naturally, you were free to ignore them and do your own searching. I certainly didn’t mean to orient your research.
.

2. « I didn't look for polling on this - its a futile effort since its impossible to get a non-biased poll. I did my own research and reached my own conclusions »
.

Good for you, mhaze.

I agree that all polls are politically sensitive to a certain degree, but from my experience, the accuracy of the better-known polls has significantly improved over the years, and I consider that, as a barometer of public opinion, they now provide a reasonably good indication of the overall tendencies at a particular point in time.
.

You indicated in your previous post “that Wikipedia has a political bias”. I think that’s probably inevitable given that it’s open to all and sundry for contribution. But because it is constantly open to revision it tends to oscillate a bit before settling down to a position of stability in relative equilibrium.

A study by the Manhatten Institute in June 2024 noted as follows :

« Wikipedia has evolved over the past two decades into an indispensable information resource for millions of users worldwide, amassing over 4 billion visits per month … Findings show that Wikipedia entries are more likely to attach negative sentiment to terms representative of right-leaning political orientation than to their left-leaning counterparts. »

The MediaBias/Fact Check organisation investigated the Manhatten Institute a year earlier, on 23rd June 2023, and found as follows :

« Overall, we rate the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research Right Biased based on editorial and policy positions that routinely favor a conservative perspective. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to a lack of transparency with funding, the use of poor sources, and a failed fact check. »

Wikipedia is not perfect, but it provides useful information and areas for further research.

.

There are any number of polls on this issue. I've seen plenty that show completely different orders for best/worst eg some have Reagan as best and I saw one from economists who listed FDR near the bottom because of his Depression policies. The thing about the bias on Wikipedia in these type of issues is that they can be selective as to the ones they use and the ones they disregard. Since Wikipedia is inherently biased to the left, that's why it ought to be taken with a grain of salt.

Wikipedia is very useful. If you want to find out about the mating habits of the African yellow warbler, then its a good starting point. But if you're considering issues the least political, its less useful and needs to be approached with trepidation. Relying on it as definitive is absolutely a no-no.

To see how bias is enacted and consolidated in Wikipedia, look up William Connolley and how he was able to slant the entirety of Wikipedia's stance on climate change. Even though he was finally kicked out as an administrator things have barely improved.

Again, I use Wikipedia all the time. But with eyes wide open and never on matters political.