5 ms·
Suppose Trump’s rant of inflammatory lies had gone on for 90 minutes; would CNN, Fox, et al., reasonably be expected to air it all? What if the president had c
by sk5t 6y ago
Suppose Trump’s rant of inflammatory lies had gone on for 90 minutes; would CNN, Fox, et al., reasonably be expected to air it all? What if the president had called for terroristic acts against his opponents, show that in its entirety without editorializing as well?
- blub 6y agoCutting off in the middle of the speech is not editorializing, it's essentially censorship of the elected president of the USA. Obviously he wasn't calling for terrorist attacks on anyone, let's not get ridiculous.
- thomastjeffery 6y agoIt would be censorship if the unaired part of the speech had more content. That was not the case.
- sk5t 6y agoYes--it's not as if Donald set forth his case in a preamble, then bolstered that case with logic and evidence, brick by brick. He started with "there was massive fraud, big fraud" and ended with "I'm hearing there was so much fraud and cheating." But there was no evidence, only hand-waving and bluster.