Talk:The Ingraham Angle

I just prepared my 2023 taxes and I'm shocked to find out that not only did my cost go up at the grocery store and anything I buy that I needed to pull out more money from my 401k to live on doing this caused me to incur increased taxes because my Social Security became taxable due to the necessity of drawing more money to live on I'm retired this is cost me over $200 a month in additional tax on nothing that I got from the government watch out everybody it's going to get worse

Importance of person

Wikipedia is not a personal biography site. There is very little content on this page. I propose the page be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.132.4.34 (talk) 01:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Russian bots

"Hundreds of Russian bots" is misleading as it's non-specific. It should either give a precise number or "hundreds" should be removed. Hundreds could be two hundred up to 999. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 12:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The source says hundreds, but if you can find a source that gives the specific numbers, I have no objection to adding it.- MrX 🖋 13:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

That may be what the source states, but it's not specific enough to be encyclopedic (it's weaselly) nor is it truly informative. As it is, it's stealthily POV. It should be removed or, if the quantification stays, specifics need to be found. You want it in, so the burden is on you to prove how it's encyclopedic and truly informs the reader accurately with it written as it is. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. The word hundreds is commonly understood to mean more than 200. We follow sources, and this particular information was widely reported. I'm not aware of a policy that requires me to "prove" that something is encyclopedic, but WP:DUEWEIGHT would indicate that we must include this information. If you would like something more specific, we could also add "use of the hashtag #istandwithlaura increased by 2800% in 48 hours."- MrX 🖋 14:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The source for these hundreds of Russian bots is “Hamilton 68” now discredited by release of the twitter files. This entire premise of Russian bots should at a minimum be rewritten. 2603:8001:E02:25C:F194:F9C2:5E55:1688 (talk) 11:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Ace Hardware

Ace announced this past week that they were reversing their decision to pull advertising from Ingraham Angle. This has been covered quite a bit in the news. It's been added to the "Response from advertisers" section a couple of times, each time it's been moved to the bottom of the article as a footnote with the reasoning being WP:UNDUE. Let's keep in mind that the boycott section of the article is huge. If WP:WEIGHT applies anywhere in this article, I'd say it's the entire boycott section. Be that as it may, it is what it is right now - and if it's going to stay as is, then adding that Ace Hardware changed their position on the pulled advertising is certainly not the weight that tips the section out of balance. "Response" should include content regarding all advertisers who've made a substantive statement, should it not? It feels to me as if the Ace Hardware content is being buried and removed from the section because it's the wrong message (no I don't think all editors working on the article have an agenda, but I do believe some are certainly guilty of it). Coverage on Ace regarding their reversal can easily be found at the following sources: Huffington Post, The Hill, BizPacReview, Chicago Business, Daily Kos, Daily Caller, The Wrap. The boycott was touted by editors as so significant that they felt it deserved its own article and the list of advertisers undeniably necessary, but mentioning in this article's section on the advertisers' response that a Fortune 500 corporation has reversed their decision re: the boycott isn't? I'm thinking WP:COMMONSENSE applies here more than WP:UNDUE and the Ace reversal needs to be in the section, not as a footnoote. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I prefer it as a footnote, and as a one or two sentence summary. It's simply not that significant, and it interrupts the flow of the rest of the article. By the way, several of the sources you listed are not reliable. - MrX 🖋 17:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing reliability isn't the point of that list. I wouldn't use the unreliable sources in the article, no one should. The point is that it's being talked about online in various sources, including reliable sources. But I think you already know that. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not really following you. I'm sure you're aware that sources also discuss many of the other advertisers in detail, but of course we don't include all that material because WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. The only thing noteworthy about Ace Hardware is that they changed their mind. Obviously that's doesn't fit into a concise list, so a footnote covers it nicely.- MrX 🖋 17:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

"I'm not really following you." I'll make note that you're claiming such. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

But, why should it be included in the body and not as a footnote? I don't know that I agree that the response section should include all advertisers who have made a substantive statement (why would that be the case?), but even if we say we should, Ace hasn't made a substantive statement. Their statement was to say that they have no statement. -- irn (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

That's incorrect, Irn. They stated they reversed their decision because they had "insufficient information" when they pulled their ads. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

That's not a substantive statement, thus the footnote.- MrX 🖋 20:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The fact that it remains in the article at all is because the amount of coverage is not insignificant. As editors we can judge that the coverage is minor enough to warrant consigning it to a footnote, and I do. Even if it had been mentioned in a few of the majors, we would still have the discretion to consign it to a footnote per routine editorial filtering of news reporting, and I would.
A really bad argument against consigning it to a footnote: Some POV-pushing editors like it that way. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

And some, I assume, are good editors. - MrX 🖋 00:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss, please know that my comment re: agendas was not part of the argument for the content to be more than a footnote. But there are agenda-driven editors here now in this article. Suddenly, an article that didn't have their attention at all before the Hogg boycott and the ill-conceived concept/existence of the now-deleted boycott article has caused them to care very much what content this article contains. To the point of one-sided edit warring over it and re-adding content that has nothing to do with the article subject but everything to do with painting the article subject in a particular, POV light. My interest at this article is to try and make it fair and balanced as well as well-written and informative. I have no agenda other than that (which is supposed to be the agenda of every Wikipedia editor). Others can't say the same about their interest here with a straight face or a bit of honesty. They know who they are. So do I. That's where the comment came from but it had nothing to do with the argument. Just something that's been eating at me since the AfD on the boycott article. Rant over. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Just want to say if folks are going to permit very one-sided media as a reliable source, then media from the opposing side should not be discounted as unreliable sourcing. If that alone does not defeat the purpose of Wikipedia:NPOV then I welcome a logical reasoning. Mike03car (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Now it looks like another editor decided the former media of which I was just referring is not valid. Is it too much, however, to request some consistency? Thanks ^_^ Mike03car (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "one-sided media". Also, please see WP:BIASED. All we care about is whether sources are reliable. That means that they're under editorial control; have a reputation for fact checking; and are are cited by other reliable sources. Sources like Mediate, Breitbart, and the Daily Wire are not deemed reliable for Wikipedia's purpose. If you care to challenge that, you can visit WP:RSN.- MrX 🖋 23:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

What needs to be remembered in regard to reliable sources is this:

• Just because it's in a reliable source, we aren't compelled to include it or see it as superior content.
• Just because someone is labeled by media in a news story as being in a particular role (e.g., "NRA board member Ted Nugent"), that doesn't mean we have to or should parrot them. Especially if it's irrelevant to the article subject, a section within the article subject's BLP, or an event that had nothing to do with the content being presented.
• A good, honest, ethical, and conscientious editor with the mindset that this is an encyclopedia and not an outlet for moving a political agenda forward will cull out irrelevant content and prose simply on principle and not try to excuse repeated inclusion of it because "it's in reliable sources". An editor with an agenda other than writing encyclopedic content will not.
• Even sources deemed unreliable are still usable (to a degree) according to policy. An experienced and ethical editor will recognize this and not just revert stating "Unreliable source" in the edit summary and/or talk page discussion. And -- when there is an unreliable source attached to good content, they won't just revert but because they actually care about articles, content, and the encyclopedia as a whole - rather, they will search for a reliable source to replace the unreliable source.

Political-related articles such as this one attract agenda-driven editors. One need remain diligent and call b.s. and bias out. Good on you, Mike03car. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I would be very careful with the aspersion casting. I've turned the other cheek a few too many time in the past couple of weeks, and I won't be doing that much longer.- MrX 🖋 00:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Do your worst. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Cage Match!Mike03car (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

No. I'm only calling out wiki-lawyering and use of policy to WP:WIN for a particular agenda when that use of policy is not applied with WP:COMMONSENSE. I'm not calling out a particular editor. The editor who responded to my comments, however, is calling me out and threatening. If there's a cage match, it's one sided. I don't take part in that kind of thing. Used to, but no more. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I attempted to input some levity into the terse back and forth.Mike03car (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I can see that now. But truly, since WP:BATTLE and WP:WIN are serious policies, it's probably best to not joke about them. In the current day and on this talk page, at least.

Cool. I've never heard of those two things (batttle & win) as a wiki policy.Mike03car (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Advertisers

I saw an Expedia commercial on The Ingraham Angle. Will watch for an official source in order to update article. Mike03car (talk) 02:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

That's interesting. Another "quiet" return to advertising on the show? I can't find anything online yet, but if they did have an ad on the show tonight, it should be in the news over the next day or so. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit

Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "shorten - undue quoting from a press release; unneeded piping; minor c/e; changed descriptor for Never Again MSD". Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

RFC regarding removal of "List of advertisers"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Consensus is clearly for removal. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

---

The article section Response by advertisers contains two subsections:

• List of advertisers backing out of The Ingraham Angle: contains 31 entries
• List of advertisers continuing with the show: contains 10 entries

Should these 2 embedded lists be removed? – Lionel^(talk) 06:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support: the daily or hourly updating of this list by over-eager editors perfectly illustrates WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. I opened this discussion.– Lionel^(talk) 06:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose removal of these lists, since they are key to understanding The Ingraham Angle since they reflect the seriousness and extent of the boycott, which is having and will continue to have a major impact on the show. The decisions by advertisers are notable and backed by reliable sources. (That the list may change is irrelevant; the Wikipedia article can simply be updated.)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nom. As well, it's undue weight. The article is "The Ingraham Angle" not "Boycott of The Ingraham Angle". Re: The first oppose !vote above: If the boycott were truly "serious", there would have been a noticeable difference in the show. There wasn't/isn't. If there truly was a "major impact" to the show, Fox wouldn't have so quickly and strongly have come out in support of the show's host and condemned the boycott-instigator so publicly. If the decisions by the advertisers are truly "notable", then why aren't we highlighting each of their released statements given at the time they pulled their support? If each of these statements in support of the list are accurate, I'd like to see some significant reliable sourcing to support it all - and in more than one source, at that. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. I mean, God forbid that an encyclopedia contain information directly on a topic and which summarizes its extent. --Calton | Talk 13:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
• Remove. These lists violate core policies pretty fragrantly in my view. First off, there is a striking neutrality issue per WP:BALASPS. Of course the boycott is important, but even without these lists there's about three times more coverage of the boycott as there is of the show's entire history section... wtf? That is waaaay out of whack. In my view cutting these lists should be just the first step in fixing the article's balance problem. The second problem is verifiability. The text-source integrity is a mess. As far as I can tell there's no sourcing at all for the holdouts list. The boycott list is only sourced to TheWrap. I have have my doubts whether TheWrap, which is a Hollywood news site, is reliable for political stories like this one. This concern was raised last year at RSN and there was no consensus. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - It is fairly difficult to discuss a boycott without mentioning the companies that have been boycotted. It's not our fault that a large percentage of the coverage of this show has been about the boycott. WP:NPOV requires that we represent material in proportion to it's coverage in reliable sources. I think that's what we have accomplished. I'm not sure why editors keep bringing up WP:RECENTISM which is an essay (i.e. the opinion of a few editors), and WP:NOTNEWS which applies to routine coverage, not significant events that have received sustained coverage. This boycott has been covered in hundreds of sources across the globe, for weeks. The outcome of the recent RfC was to merge the content from the independent article. Now it seems that the same editors who did not prevail in getting the article deleted, want to do it editing away material that is vital to understanding the scope and impact of this important boycott.- MrX 🖋 16:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • re "the opinion of a few editors" - For realz dude? False. NickCT (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Remove - Per nom and User:Winkelvi - WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, WP:UNDUE all apply. Add to that WP:NOTDIR. I struggle to imagine that many readers are going to gain anything from having the companies listed out like this. I'm a little surprised by the oppose opinions here. This one seems self evident. NickCT (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Notnews does not apply here -- Notnews applies when there is ...original reporting ... news reports ... who's who ... a diary and there is no original reporting or news reports, but the coverage is based on appropriate secondary sources which are reliable. Recentism does not apply here -- recentism is when an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events, and considering that the show itself is only six months old, and (arguably) the most notable thing to happen to the show is the Ingraham-Hogg spat and the boycott, then coverage is not unfairly balanced to recent events. Undue does not apply here -- Undue requires that an article fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint..., and there is plenty of sourced coverage about the boycott, and not many sources about the program itself; further, considering that this boycott has a realistic chance of getting her show canceled, it is reasonable to cover this controversy here. Notdir does not apply here -- None of the seven points of NOTDIR apply; the list of advertisers is not a directory, not a sales catalogue, not a genealogy, not a list without context. In sum, none of these guidelines apply.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• Remove, but make clearer in text. I came here from the notice at the conservatism wikiproject talk page. I agree with editors that it looks like too-much-information to have these long lists, and that the specific names of individual companies are not really that encyclopedic. But I also think that it is highly encyclopedic to make clear the magnitude of the boycott, and I think that the opening text before the lists does not entirely do that once the lists are removed. So there needs to be text (in paragraph rather than list form) to make clear the relative numbers of those advertisers who left versus those who stayed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment about scope: this RFC specifically deals with the "embedded lists" and does not apply to covering involved companies in prose. – Lionel^(talk) 02:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Lionelt: - If we did it in prose, we probably should only include 3-5 of the biggest companies. Mentioning them all in prose would still be WP:UNDUE. NickCT (talk) 03:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
    • @NickCT: -- they're all big companies; why is mentioning them UNDUE? These firms have chosen to continue supporting what the boycotters feel is a cyberbully -- and this information is notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 08:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
      • It's important to read all of what Nick wrote for context: it's undue to mentional ALL of them in prose, Tomwsulcer. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support Removal Per WP:NOTDIR. Also which companies are not important and create a situation where the list has to be maintained often, at least at this point, since some of them are coming back now. PackMecEng (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support Removal per Tryptofish. Springee (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• Keep the "list of advertisers backing out of The Ingraham Angle". The section is about the boycott, so the list is relevant. Remove the list of those staying on board. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Does this removal extend to Ace Hardware? If not why not? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support removal: This article is about the show, and the boycott, while relevant to the show and worthy of mention, is only one aspect of the show. It would be OK to mention that the boycott was joined by significant advertisers, IMO. The current lists look oddly out of place and surprising to the reader. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support removal: I agree that the dual lists are out of place and that listing out all the names of the companies doesn't provide sufficient relevant information to warrant their inclusion. Dbrote (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Remember the previous discussion at Talk:Boycott_of_The_Ingraham_Angle#Recent_removal_of_advertisers_list. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support removal Highly undue. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Remove (invited by the bot) The most egregious of the many wp:undue problems here. North8000 (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Amen. If you're interested, take a look at Sean Hannity, there's a lot of similarity in "egregiousness" re: undue. As well as tone. It's being discussed at that article's talk page, and as a result, the problems are being hashed out. Slowly. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Keep the "list of advertisers backing out of The Ingraham Angle". I am Canadian and have no bias on this topic at all, but I just cannot understand why this info, vital to the article, might be considered for removal. Peter K Burian (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support removal Highly undue. CharlesShirley (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support Way too much emphasis on the Hogg-Media Matters boycott. WP:DUE. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support removal: Undue weight and an unnecessary list. Each advertiser is not particularly notable for remaining or leaving. The fact that a number either remained or stayed in the wake of controversy is relevant, but listing each is far too much detail. Those deeply interested can follow references (Summoned by bot) -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support. I think I was first to call for the removal of this list. I might give it a second thought if this gets inline citations. If the boycott gets its own article again, this list shouldn't appear there either. wumbolo ^^^ 21:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
• Keep/Oppose - I realise I'm on the losing side here, but the arguments used just don't apply - the total list size is more than comparable to its coverage, thus no WP:UNDUE, it isn't WP:NOTDIR if you have a read through. WP:RECENTISM would struggle to be the case - there isn't any long past coverage to deal with - the article has to cover the recent history! The sourcing all seems fine, certainly satisfying the in-article notability/reliability requirements. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support (invited randomly by a bot) WP:NOTNEWS policy was developed precisely for this type of situation. Jojalozzo (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Closing and removing list from article per consensus here. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article is a coatrack. It only bashes the show and host of the show.

• Note: I modified the section head to make it more neutral. I also moved a portion of the header into CharlesShirley's comment, to preserve the original meaning: [1]. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Last time I checked we are not supposed to edit other people's comment's to support your particular point of view. I agree that it is not a bio. That was my mistake, but that does not mean that an article needs to be 90% devoted to a single event.--CharlesShirley (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

This article is a coatrack. It only bashes the show and host of the show..but a coatrack for bashing the subject. This article is 95% about one incident in the life of the show. There is no real content on the subject. It is just undue information on a single event. I suggest the whole article needs to be cut down and minimized AND there needs to information added that is not about the single event.CharlesShirley (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Our neutral POV policy requires that we cover material in proportion to its coverage in reliable sources. Based on the number of citations, I'm pretty sure that's what we have done. Also, there was a recent AfD, the consensus of which determined that the article about the boycott would be merged into this one. My preference would have been to keep separate article, but we don't always get what we wish for. - MrX 🖋 19:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not news. We don't "cover material", we write encyclopedic content and source it with news reports, and books, and journals, etc. Wikipedia articles are not meant to parrot media or pretned to be media, as your comment seems to imply. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 12:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You make good points but one thing that misses the point is that how much or how little something is covered is not based upon the amount of coverage in reliable sources. Winkelvi is completely correct below. We don't write articles about the Bible in direct proportion to the amount of news coverage the Bible gets. We don't measure our coverage of the royal baby based upon the amount of new coverage. There are tons of examples of this. This article claims to be about Ingraham's show and it is actually about the Hogg's boycott, which so far has been unsuccessful.--CharlesShirley (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: this article is not a bio of Ingraham. It's about a TV program. The program is most notable for its boycott, so that's what the article covers. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I would argue that the program is most notable for being a high-rated television program. This article has been on Wikipedia since the show was formally announced by Fox News. The boycott is notable, but the current news cycle shouldn't make up the bulk of an article. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with my colleague, Mr. Plainview. The show is a smash hit and it pounds any show from MSNBC and CNN in the ground each night that it on the air. Mr. Hogg's boycott's have wildly unsuccessful. We have given this recent hysteria over Hogg's boycott's more required space in the article for way too long. We have been patient while the boycott's had their chance to effect the show it is just has not worked. This not my opinion. This is the opinion of several reliable sources. The show wins it time slot. It is not under any pressure to be pulled from the air. Hogg's boycott is a failure and reliable sources have called it that. Also, the claim that most of Ingraham new coverage is about the Hogg thing is just Hogg-wash (forgive me for the pun). She is covered in the new all the time. Hogg boycott stuff is just too much. It is way too much. It needs to be trimmed down. Not removed, just trimmed down and calmed down.CharlesShirley (talk) 02:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

With over a year in hindsight, Fox Corporation reports ratings for this TV program have fallen significantly in 2019. The current version of the article presents events ending in June 2018. Time to update? 162.119.240.103 (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Recreation of boycott article

• Boycott_of_The_Ingraham_Angle

This has been in the news again lately. I recreated this article, previously deleted in 2018. I invite development. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Shootings

I live in a small Texas Town and am 68 years old. I have had arms since I was about 15. I keep hearing politicians saying they are going to pass this law and that law. The last time I checked , murder was illegal in 50 states. Did I miss the memo? When has any law stopped a crime? If laws will stop murder then why are our prisons filled with murderers?

    If politicians want to stop murder in the schools and businesses, harden them. Set man traps.  There are lots of ways to stop this nonsense without a single death or writing a single new law.  The money for COVID could be used to harden schools.  This isn’t about stopping crime or it would have been done years ago. This is about lying politicians. They will let our children be killed so they can pass another useless law.  Criminals don’t obey laws. That’s why they are called criminals 174.242.192.104 (talk) 07:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Illinois Governor owner of Wisconsin shooting range

Can you investigate why the governor of Illinois who is anti gun is building a shooting range in Southeastern Wisconsin and not in his own state.Thanks 2603:6000:C800:BB5B:D834:EDF3:EFD5:CB4 (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Waterboarding ?? Is what the Democrats are doing to Trump today is more insanee

The treatments Trump receiving today more in insane THAN WATERBOARDING  ?? 2001:48F8:7056:1B6:0:0:0:6860 (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)