Well I mean the article says that they’re not even going to wait until the “deadline” for so-called self-deportation before they start arresting people who came in under the immigration program:

“But DHS said it retains the authority to target migrants who arrived under this program before the 30-day period lapses. Officials say those prioritized for arrest will include migrants who have failed to apply for another immigration benefit like asylum or a green card.”

So they’ve overnight given themselves the right to arrest people who the day before had a legal right to live in the US. Basically they seem to think the only legal and human rights that exist are those granted by their god-king or Muskolini, and they don’t fear the legacy judicial system.

Imagine if there was a candidate in the 60s that was obviously funded by the CCP and supported by its propaganda machine, which was plotting to surrender its country to the CCP, while being a vocal supporter of planned economics and thumping Mao’s little red book like the Bible. I think a lot of leftists would agree that such a party, though far-left on its face at least, would have been undemocratic at its core and not in the interest of the country itself.

It is in my mind very misleading to try to use an analogy with Bernie Sanders. Sanders, AFAIK, is not interested in upheaving democracy or selling out the country to Russia. This is fundamentally different from many current far-right parties in Eastern Europe.

Now, is it a wise strategy to straight up bar Georgescu’s party without explaining the reasoning as the article claims has been done? Perhaps not (though ample evidence supporting the decision has been provided previously by Romanian intelligence agencies). But one can understand why extreme measures might be called for to counter the electoral interference of a country that is actively invading your neighbor and has openly talked about wanting your country to become a puppet, too.

From ISW, "Georgescu has praised Russian President Vladimir Putin’s leadership and “wisdom” and claimed in 2022 that Ukraine is an “invented state.” ( https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/likely-kremlin-backed-election-interference-against-romania-threatens-bucharests ) Could you find a similarly extreme and anti-democratic view espoused by a “far-left” leader that you think non-tankie leftists commonly support? If you still don’t see how extreme Georgescu’s party is and why they can be rightfully called a Russian agent I highly recommend checking out the ISW article, actually it’s well worth reading either way. Georgescu was even too explicit a Russian stooge for other ultranationalists to stomach (for a while).

What would you then consider to be a “reliable source of information”? It sounds like your criteria for that are so high that it’s unlikely anything would reach up to that level. After all, should we ever trust any source as “the ultimate source of facts”? If all you wanted to point out was that noone can absolutely trust all of Wikipedia then fine I guess, but I would hope and doubt almost anyone here would have that mindset.

I would also say that many Wiki pages have a mix of overall neutral or positive-leaning text about the subject while e.g. a criticism section includes very good negative-leaning info. As an example, the Disney page (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Walt_Disney_Company) has mostly neutral or positive information about the company, no doubt much of which is written by Disney fans. But it also has a good and sometimes savage criticism and controversies section. I have of course seen Wiki articles that are very skewed, but I’ve also seen very skewed research articles, lexicon entries etc. Wikipedia’s rules and the community of moderators trying to apply them as best as they can gives it a better chance than many other sources to correct in time at least.

Another point is that less and less counts as “the most generic of things”. The basic facts of biological development, evolution, even meteorology and chemistry are being increasingly questioned with nonsense. There is an immense value in all the hard work poured into improving, spreading and preserving that “generic” information. Wikipedia is a collective treasure shared with all the world. It shouldn’t be taken as gospel, nothing should like you point out, but despite its imperfections it’s worth so, so much.