Lesser Of Two Evils?

I read an exchange the other day between a friend and another individual on social media. My friend stated that we're always voting for the lesser of two evils. The other person trotted out the usual smug response from people who think voting doesn't matter: "The lesser of two evils is still evil". But is it? 

Calling someone evil is a moral, maybe even a religious, judgement. Using whatever my ethical standards are, I can categorize people as good or evil and make predictions about how they will act based on those assumptions. But in the realm of politics, does moral uprightness necessarily translate to good governance? I would argue that it is mostly irrelevant. It's also completely subjective. 

Morality of  politicians is always brought up by their opponents and ignored by their supporters. Donald Trump is arguably the most corrupt, dishonest, and morally bankrupt president that we have ever seen. Do the people who agree with his policies care? Not at all. Even Evangelical Christians, who were very concerned about morality when Bill Clinton was engaged in oral sex in the White House, are some of the biggest Trump cheerleaders. Democrats aren't quite as bad — they'll push out one of their own if certain lines are crossed, but nobody can argue with a straight face that they're all choir boys. 

Let's dispense with a literal interpretation of the phrase "lesser of two evils". Sure, an argument can be made that some politicians really are evil, but most of the time the phrase is being used figuratively. What we mean is that Candidate A has fewer positions that we dislike than Candidate B does. My dad had a saying when it came to voting — he'd say that he'd hold his nose and vote for someone who wasn't quite as bad as the other guy. None of them are evil, it's just that none of them are all that good. I'm not using "good" in a moral sense, but in the sense of being counted upon to govern in a way that I consider good for the country and good for me. 

The problem with our system of choosing elected officials (one of them, anyway) is that it's a binary choice. We're not legally restricted to two choices, but effectively it's going to be, with few exceptions, either a Democrat or a Republican that gets elected. The system is rigged so thoroughly that most of us are conditioned to view a third party challenger as a spoiler whose only function is to siphon votes away from the two main parties, and a vote for such a candidate is characterize as a "wasted vote". There's solutions to this state of affairs, ranked choice voting being the most radical, with runoffs being an easier to implement alternative. Currently the presence of third party or independent candidates tends to result in someone with only 35-40% of the vote getting elected. Until radical change in how we run elections takes place, we're stuck with the binary.

Since we are faced, in virtually every election, with only two choices, is it reasonable to assume that one of those candidates will perfectly align themself with me on  all of the issues that I think are important? Of course not. Will either candidate be perfectly in opposition to all my issues? Also no. So, what do we do, do we stay home, secure in our purity, as our friends and neighbors vote for "evil"? Or do we weigh the pros and cons of each candidate and vote for the one who mostly aligns with our priorities? Of course, many people are one issue voters — they have one priority and will support whoever has that same priority, no matter what else they believe in. 

Waiting for that perfect candidate will be a long wait. 

ARE We A Democracy If The Supreme Court Says We're Not?

"We're not a democracy, we're a republic". How many times have we heard that from right-leaning Americans? Then we who think we know better patiently explain why the two are not mutually exclusive, how voting for our representatives is the democratic aspect of our government, how direct democracy, aka mob rule, isn't the only form of democracy...blah, blah, blah. We congratulate ourselves on our understanding, but what did the founders, the men who wrote the documents upon which our government is based, think about democracy? Not much.

The word "republic", actually an adjectival form "republican", occurs only once in the Constitution, where the states are guaranteed a republican form of government. It was assumed that the federal government would by extension be a republic as well. But what is a republican form of government? A republic is nothing more and nothing less than "not a monarchy". The details of this "not a monarchy" they were making up as they went along. The founders were skeptical regarding the wisdom of the people. They feared the power of the mob, the were wary of factions, they were worried that a charismatic yet unscrupulous leader could fool the common man. They had a pretty good idea who could be trusted to make the big decisions and it wasn't Joe the Plumber. 

Then, as now, voting was the province of the states, and the requirements for the franchise differed from state to state, but in general it was white, male property owners who had the privilege of voting. Indians were not even considered persons according to the law. Slaves, despite what most people today believe, were not considered three-fifths of a person, the were considered zero-fifths of a person. Three-fifths was how they were counted for census purposes as a sop to the slaveholding states. Other than in the census they were property. But even among that exclusive club of property owning white men, when it came to federal elections, it was only for members of the House of Representatives that they had a direct vote. Senators were not directly elected until the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913. Before that they were appointed by either a state's governor or the state legislature. I'm sure the setup of the Electoral College needs little explanation. It was set up in order to protect against "the people" making the wrong decision. 

Yes, things have changed. Any citizen aged 18 or older can vote. Electors are required to vote for their state's choice for president. Senators are elected by the voters. But it's obvious that this isn't the way things were originally set up. Why am I even bringing this up? The Supreme Court and the "Great Replacement" theorists. 

Legal theory aside, what drives the rejection of democratic aspects of our government is the realization by the dwindling majority that they're heading into minority status. They see down the road to where "those people" will be in charge. That's why there's the push to gerrymander, to throw up roadblocks to voting, to change census rules where non-citizens are counted, to make mail-in voting virtually impossible.  The Supreme Court majority is cool with it all. 

The current Supreme Court majority is unshakably originalist in their constitutional interpretation, even occasionally strict constructionist textualists. They are adamant in their position that cultural changes in attitudes and mores should have no bearing on interpretation. They have created a new standard where new laws must have an 18th century analogue in order to be legitimate. What's to stop a slate of electors from voting in opposition to their state's voters' will? Or a state legislature substituting more compliant electors? Sure, we saw Trump's "Stop The Steal" try tis in 2020, but is it so far outside the realm of imagination that the Supreme Court majority would rule that the Constitution does not prohibit this? Don't forget that three of them were willing to nullify the Fourteenth Amendment (four, if you count Kavanaugh, who was opposed to it based on a statute, not the amendment). 

Can we be sure that the Supreme Court would stop the steal attempt this time around?

Doctor Fauci And The Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
 

In most cases public Congressional hearings accomplish little. Representatives or Senators from both parties make speeches or ask leading questions. Often the lawmakers are rude and disrespectful to witnesses, other times the witnesses are smug and disrespectful to Congress. Even when an investigative committee uncovers wrongdoing of some kind, a change in administration can make any findings moot. At best, a public hearing can put relevant issues in front of the electorate and influence their votes. Witnesses often sidestep questions, giving vague answers, or invoking their constitutional right to remain silent. Like Dr. Fauci did in a Senate hearing this past week.

The Covid-19 pandemic was a time of incredible confusion. There was much that we didn't know as it began and even the infectious disease experts were scrambling to stay ahead and give appropriate advice for minimizing infections and death. Guidance regarding masking, social distancing, closure of schools and businesses changed as new information became available and even as the virus itself mutated. Public health officials and elected representatives had to balance the risk of the virus' spread with the harm that closing schools or businesses might have. No matter what decisions were made, somebody was going to be mad. 

Dr. Anthony Fauci was one of the main advisors to President Trump when the pandemic began. Not the only one, but somehow he became the face of conspiracy theories dreamed up by those who thought the pandemic was a hoax, while at the same time by those who blamed him for the hundreds of thousands of deaths in the United States. He joins the club of the many people in the "lock her (or him) up" club who committed no crimes but whom the MAGA crowd is convinced below in prison. I'm not going to run through the litany of accusations that have been flung at him, but a key word to consider is "advisor". 

As an advisor to the president, Fauci's job was not a decision-making position. It was to provide Trump with information so that Trump could make decisions. Trump, if you recall, was musing about whether injecting disinfectant was a viable solution. (Many in the MAGA camp claimed that he never said this because many people misquoted him as saying "bleach", or claimed that Trump was joking, or some other ridiculous excuse). Trump chose to not impose national lockdowns and left it up to state and local officials to make their own decisions on how to deal with the spread of Covid-19. Dr. Fauci had no role in how governors and mayors dealt with the pandemic. 

It became clear once Trump was re-elected in 2024 that the federal department headed by the Attorney General could no longer be call the Department of Justice, but more accurately the the Department of Retribution. We have seen over the last year how various people whom Trump considered enemies have been targeted for investigations. President Biden, as one of his final acts in office gave preemptive pardons to people who had been the focus of Trump's and his MAGA followers' ire, including DR. Fauci. In an effort to find something, anything, that didn't fall under the presidential pardon, Sen. Rand Paul requested Dr. Fauci's Covid-era diary. For some reason Fauci made these diary entries on a government server, so they were a matter of public record. Paul made it very clear that he believed that Dr. Fauci belonged in prison and was transparent about his crusade to find a loophole in the pardon, possibly a difference between what he would say in a Senate hearing and what was written in the diary, in order to charge him with perjury. Dr. Fauci chose to claim his constitutional right to decline to answer any questions.

You've probably heard by now that by accepting a pardon, you are no longer exposed to criminal liability for the crime for which you are pardoned and can be compelled to testify. And since Dr. Fauci received a blanket pardon for any acts up through the end of Biden's term in office, he can no longer refuse to testify. This is true, as far as I can determine, up to a point. Rand Paul has made it clear that he is looking for a justification to bring charges against Dr. Fauci, whether it be perjury, lying to Congress, or any hypothetical crime that occurred after January 20, 2025, including state crimes that theoretically took place before 2025. 

One of the things you see on cop shows is that people who are guilty are the ones who "lawyer up" or refuse to answer questions. Whether this is a reflection of how things really are, or we've been collectively brainwashed to believe that, most of the time a refusal to answer questions is assumed to be a sign of guilt. What most of us don't realize, but what any criminal defense lawyer will tell you, is that when the police are asking you questions they are gathering evidence. You know that line: "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law"? Well, they really mean that. Even if you're guilty, it's not your job to convict yourself, but even if you're innocent there's nothing to be gained by giving law enforcement information that could possibly be misinterpreted and used against you. 

Dr. Fauci did the right thing in my opinion. It was made clear that the purpose of the hearing was not to uncover the truth, but to uncover a tenuous excuse to prosecute him but any means necessary. Answering questions would have possibly given Paul and the other Republicans on the committee a pretext to take legal action, no matter how much of a stretch it was. The fact that his lawyer was kicked out of the hearing room gave additional reason to suspect the legitimacy of the whole process. His refusal to answer questions even on some innocuous questions like the color of his tie or whether there was a folder on the table in front of him, gave the middle finger to the whole process.  

It's never wrong to insist on exercising your rights under the Constitution. 

Political & Cultural Change Disguised As Constitutional Interpretation

What do Supreme Court Justices base their decisions on? Most conservative, Republican-nominated, justices claim to adhere to either a textualist, or originalist interpretation of the Constitution. 

Textualism is a theory in which the interpretation of the text is based primarily on the ordinary meaning  of the legal text at the time of its enactment, where little consideration is given to non-textual sources, such as the intention of the law when passed, the problem it was intended to remedy, or questions regarding the justice or rectitude of the law. 

Originalism is a legal theory in the United States which bases constitutional, judicial, and statutory  interpretation of text on the original understanding at the time of its adoption. Originalism consists of a family of different theories of constitutional interpretation and can refer to original intent or original meaning. 

There is a third, rare, theory: Strict Constructionism. Strict construction requires a judge to apply the text only as it is expressly written, i.e., read perfectly literally. This can contradict the commonly-understood meaning of a law. For example, consider a law that specifies "the use of a knife when committing a crime should be punished by ten years in prison." This would commonly be understood as prohibiting the use of a knife to threaten or injure another person. However, read purely literally, the law would also mandate ten years in prison for dining and dashing if the diner were to use a knife to cut their food. 

Theoretically most conservative jurists fall into the originalist camp. They understand that the text must be understood in light of what those who authored the text understood it to mean. They reject the concept of a "Living Constitution" adhered to by most liberal, Democratic-appointed judges. 

"Theoretically" is the operative term. The current conservative majority on the Supreme Court appear to be originalist or textualist only when it supports modern conservative political goals. Originalists claim that if society changes sufficiently that the original text or its meaning is obsolete, then the text itself should be changed  — by an amendment if it's a constitutional question, or by legislation if it's a matter of statutory interpretation. And they are quite strict about this when it comes to striking down liberal policies. When it comes to supporting novel conservative interpretations however, they are happy to deviate from the original interpretation and assign meaning to text that was never there. Reading recent Supreme Court decisions reveals previously unheard of rationales for overturning laws, or retaining others. The current push for the Unitary Executive Theory is one example. 

Most of the federal government's departments were created by Congress to administer various government functions, functions that were written into law by Congress. This goes beyond the modern regulatory agencies and includes the Treasury and Justice departments. Since these departments and agencies are not creating new laws, but are executing laws created by Congress, they are part of the Executive Branch, which is headed by the president. Congress has passed laws partially shielding many of these agencies from partisan politics, for example, prohibiting the president from replacing some agency heads for political reasons. Previous administrations have accepted that this state of affairs. The Unitary Executive Theory pushed by the Heritage Foundation holds that the president is the executive branch and that has unalloyed power and authority over every aspect of the executive branch, despite laws to the contrary. The Supreme Court has supported this theory (albeit inconsistently) bolstering Trump's dictatorial, authoritarian mode of rule. 

The founders would have been very surprised at this position. They were vociferously and consistently against the presidency having king-like powers and envisioned the president executing or implementing the law, not creating it, or ruling by fiat.  The very structure of the Constitution limits a president, rather than giving him unlimited authority. It's clear that the current Supreme Court majority is interested primarily in advancing a conservative political and cultural agenda, not in "calling balls and strikes". This intersects in large part with Trump's agenda, but not completely. To those playing the long game, like the Heritage Foundation, and even Mitch McConnell when he was remaking the federal judiciary, Trump is a means to an end. 

It's much easier to affect political and cultural change through one person, that through the often slow moving legislative process. 

Inflation, Gas Prices, and The Cult

It's a truism that presidential elections are determined by the economy. People claim that they care about foreign affairs, wars, infrastructure — but it's really the state of the economy that drives the bus. In the 2024 election the perception was that for most Americans the economy was bad. Inflation had peaked around 8% in 2022. Even though there were a number of reasons that were completely outside the control of President Biden, people predictably blamed him for the mess. It wasn't unreasonable to point out that during Trump's first term inflation was around the 2% Federal Reserve Board target, suggesting that Trump and the Republicans were better for the economy. Of course the truth was more complex. Trump's economy was fine until Covid, and Trump's mismanagement of that crisis, caused cascading issues leading to supply-chain disruptions, whipsawing supply and demand, all coming to a head after the 2020 election of Joe Biden. But enough voters were unconvinced by logic (or facts) and chose to vote for Trump based on the economy — or rationalize their support for the more odious aspects of his reign by citing the economy. 

The problem with relying on Trump to fix the economy is that he has a third grader's grasp of economics. His unshakable belief that a trade deficit indicates that we are losing money and that tariffs are paid for by foreign governments is the most obvious recurring example. He also seems to be enamored of magical thinking believing — that his mere presence will solve any and all problems. He campaigned on ending inflation on Day One. He promised to return prices to pre-2022 levels. He vowed to cut energy prices in half. Those of us not in the thrall of Trump worship knew that the lingering high prices had little to do with any Biden policies and that there was little that Trump could do to fix them. A president isn't a magician with the ability to singlehandedly cause a boom or a bust. Ironically, with inflation and gas prices trending downward throughout 2023 and 2024, both the consumer price index and gas prices would have returned to normal if he had done absolutely nothing. By just coasting on the trends he could have claimed to have fixed the economy. Gas prices had dropped to well below $3.00/gallon and were expected to get even lower. But Trump did the two things that were guaranteed to cause prices to rise: impose irrational tariffs and start a war in the Middle East.  

Unless every tariffed business suddenly voluntarily and altruistically decides to reduce their profits, the cost of tariffs will get passed on to the consumer. Not to mention the unpredictability and confusion that the constantly changing tariff rates cause. Businesses crave stability. They have to have enough information to make financial projections. Not only are the Trump tariffs being regularly found illegal by the courts, but Trump himself constantly changes his mind on who he is going to punish and by how much. The failure of the inflation rate to return to normal is entirely Trump's. Of course, the Iran War, with the Strait of Hormuz being blocked (by Iran and  by the United States!) is the direct cause of the rise in gas prices. Trump has mocked "affordability" as fake news, and belittled (or is it be-liddl'ed) the concern over rising gas prices by assuring us that it's only temporary and true patriots are willing to pay the price. 

Trump's justifications are unsurprising. Politicians always attempt to portray their screw ups in a positive light. The reactions of his supporters, even those who are negatively affected by his economy-busting policies, makes no sense. The villagers who had the torches, pitchforks and sickles ready to go, who were adamant that the economy was why they voted for Trump, now aren't as concerned about inflation or high gas prices. A common excuse is "inflation and gas prices were higher under Biden", which is true for the peak in 2022. Both inflation and gas prices were steadily decreasing, and would likely have continued to decrease if Trump, as I wrote in a previous paragraph, had done nothing. But the point that they intentionally miss is that even during the last half of 2024, when inflation was pretty much under control, and gas prices were actually lower than they are now, Trumpists were losing their minds about how terrible things were. Their other excuse is that "Biden caused it". Even if we concede that Biden caused the economic mess that Trump inherited, they brush off Trump's promises to fix it all. On Day One. 

The most egregious example of Trumpists changing their tune when Trump changes his is their newfound support for foreign adventurism and their acceptance of the economic fallout from it. One of Trump's promises in his campaign was that he wouldn't start wars, he would end them. Despite that promise, the Trump Cult is now expressing thankfulness that we are now safe from a country we were never in any danger from and viewing skyrocketing energy prices as an acceptable tradeoff. 

Yes, there are voices within the Republican Party and the MAGA base who are upset at the affordability crisis and opposed to the Iran War, and media jump on that as if the cultists are abandoning their leader. We've seen this before. There's some rumblings and a few people from the cult speak out, but pretty soon it all settles down and he reasserts his control. 

Trump's War-Ending Scorecard

Trump's continuing to claim that he ended eight wars, here's an update. 

The Navy is blowing up boats of alleged drug smugglers near Venezuela, and has invaded the country,  kidnapping its president. He has impounded a several Venezuelan oil tankers, one of which was flying a Russian flag and was escorted by a Russian submarine. He is threatening to take over Greenland by force. As of this update, we are in negotiations to end a war with Iran that Trump started. 

Trump has claimed that he has ended eight wars, part of his pathetic grasping for a Nobel Peace Prize. But has he?

1. Israel-Gaza:

I wrote about this recently. In this article I showed how the supposed "New Dawn of Peace in the Middle East" was virtually identical to the cease fire that was in place when he took office in January which was over in March. This one has already been violated multiple times. Hamas has not agreed to several of the terms, in fact they were not consulted and had the "agreement" imposed upon them.

Update: ceasefire violations are continuing on a daily basis. None of the other items in the "20 Point Peace Plan" have been started, other than the weirdly named "Board of Peace", which has done nothing other than collect money. The Israeli government continues to not only allow Jewish settlers to steal Palestinian territory, but to abuse or kill individual Palestinians with impunity. This side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will surely blow up before long. Trump appears to have forgotten about Gaza or gotten bored with it. 

2. Pakistan-India:

It wasn't a war, just another in the many border scuffles that these two countries have engaged in since their existence. India says that Trump has nothing to do with the cessation of hostilities which were negotiated directly between India and Pakistan.

Update: ceasefire has held

3. Rwanda-Democratic Republic of The Congo:

These two countries have had on again-off again periods of border fighting for years. As well as cease fires and "peace agreements" that are regularly violated. Peace talks are ongoing, as are the violations of the cease fire. 

Update: The so-called peace agreement was signed with great fanfare at the "United States Institute Of Peace", recently named "Donald J. Trump Institute Of Peace" on Thursday December 4th, but fighting has not stopped, and has in fact escalated. The U.S. has imposed sanctions on Rwanda for actions that Trump claims to have ended. 

4. Thailand-Cambodia:

After a week of cross-border fighting, Malaysia brokered a ceasefire. The only involvement by Trump was a threat to leave high tariffs in place. 

Update: the cease fire and "peace deal" was suspended in November 2025. A new cease fire was instituted a month later. There has been sporadic cross border fighting since then. 

5. Armenia-Azerbaijan:

These two former Soviet Republics have been fighting over where the border should be since they achieved independence. The biggest disagreement has been over Nagorno-Karabakh, an Armenian enclave within Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan effectively ejected all Armenians from the enclave, making the settlement of the conflict moot. 

Update: No active fighting, but core issues have not been addressed, let alone solved

6. Egypt-Ethiopia:

Not even fighting, let alone a war. They're arguing over water use. 

Update: there never was a war, not even border skirmishes. Still none. 

7. Serbia-Kosovo:

Also no fighting. Trump is claiming that he stopped a war before it started.

Update: there never was a war, not even border skirmishes. Still none. 

8. Israel-Iran "12 Day War":

Israel had been conducting preemptive strikes against Iran and it's regional non-state allies like Hezbollah in tandem with its war against Hamas. Israel and Iran traded missile strikes for 12 days, ending after Trump had our military drop a bomb on Iran's nuclear facility. Iran declined to escalate. There is no peace agreement, but their is a cessation of hostilities. 

Update: Trump can hardly be called a peacemaker if he had to drop a bomb to get their attention. The War started up again in February 2026

So here's the score:

• Diplomatic disagreements that involved no fighting whatsoever and therefore there was nothing to end: 2
• Peace plan with a cease fire that is currently being violated: 3
• Fighting that stopped after we dropped a huge bomb on one side, but restarted again for some reason: 1
• Conflicts that involved decades-long border fighting that will likely continue, but the ceasefire is currently holding: 2
• Actual lasting peace: 0

Meanwhile, one war that we were involved in, Afghanistan, which he campaigned on ending in his first term, was not ended in his first term. And of course, the Russia-Ukraine war, which he claimed he could end "in 24 hours, even before he was inaugurated" is still going on. Looks like he got bored with that one. I'm reasonably sure he will claim to have ended the war with Iran, which he started. If it ends. 

Critical Thinking

There's an acquaintance of mine who has in the last few years gone over to the MAGA side of politics. I don't interact with him these days, but I do check his Facebook page once in a while, since I find it a reliable barometer of what the MAGA crowd is pushing on any given day. Since my social media and real life interactions are either with people I agree with politically, or those with whom I don't agree, but who keep it to themselves, it gives me an idea about what the Trumpist man on the street is "thinking". Twitter/X used to be a reliable source of this information until I deleted my account a few years ago. Until then I noticed that whatever was trending on Twitter/X showed up on his Facebook page. 

A few years ago this individual, before he had gone full MAGA, was bemoaning the predominance of what he called critical thinking among social media users. By "critical thinking" he meant people criticizing other people, not the actual definition: "the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue to form a reasoned judgment". I and several of his friends attempted to point out that what he was complaining about wasn't critical thinking, but no matter what evidence we presented, including the Merriam-Webster online definition, he stuck to his belief. I think of this incident whenever I see examples of people engaged in not thinking critically. It's also a great example of the cult mindset. 

People mindlessly repeating whatever they saw on social media is pretty common. Something pops up in your "feed" and if it confirms what you already believe and you share it or comment or "like" it. If you disagree with it, there's the infamous laughing emoji. What's missing from this equation is anything resembling fact-checking. 

One of the victims of Trump's attack on the credibility of news organizations, what he calls the enemy of the people or the fake news, is fake-checking sites. While I concede that any news organization will have its biases, in general I believe that mainstream media's reporting is usually accurate. Whether their interpretation of events or their opinions are reliable is a topic for another day, although I did discuss it last January. Fact-checkers are nothing new, although they multiplied in the age of Trump. The same people who derided mainstream news sources, also attacked fact-checkers as unreliable. The prevailing opinion was that facts were what you said they were and fact checkers were just as biased, if not more so, than the networks and newspapers. This attitude reflects a basic lack of understanding of how fact-checkers operate. 

The main benefit to utilizing fact-checkers is that they cite their sources of information. They "provide the receipts". Their ruling on whether something is true, partly true, or false is based on information that is usually publicly available. If there's a Facebook post going around that says that a politician made an outrageous claim they'll link to videos, to government websites to let you know what information they found out about the claim. You can follow the same trail that they did and decide whether you would have come to the same conclusion. The incredible thing about fact-checking is that for the majority of what you see on social media, the resources to do your own fact-checking are available. 

This is where it gets tricky. 

Some fact-checking is easy, some takes more work. The internet is full of so-called experts holding forth on every subject under the sun. A lot of it is just someone's uniformed opinion. Often it takes patience to work through it all to get to the truth. Other times it's a simple as watching a YouTube video of a press conference. But it starts with a willingness to accept that just because something sounds plausible, it doesn't mean that it actually happened. Repetition often cements certain things as "facts" in our minds, or we conflate similar stories. It helps to have a good bullshit detector, that is, an ability to see when something just doesn't make sense, in other words to be a confirmed skeptic. Being skeptical doesn't mean that you automatically discount something you disagree with, or find difficult to believe, but that you seek independent confirmation before accepting it as fact. 

Remember the definition of critical thinking from early in this article? The objective analysis and evaluation of an issue to form a reasoned judgment. Usually the answer is more complicated than an internet meme, and often it's not what we wanted it to be.