5 ms·

The lies that Trump used to send that mob to the capital are in a different galaxy of falsehood than the BBC editing down some of his less fiery invective. It's

The lies that Trump used to send that mob to the capital are in a different galaxy of falsehood than the BBC editing down some of his less fiery invective. It's one hell of a choice to focus on the latter over the former. Your bar for the the left is on Mt Olympus, your bar for the right is buried underneath the Mariana Trench.

qcnguy 11mo ago
If he really lied so badly they could have just broadcast those lies and held the moral high ground, but they didn't. They had to make things up (not "editing down", they spliced together sentences 50 minutes apart and hid what they did). That should be a huge reality check for you. How do you even know that any of your opinions about Trump are true? You're getting them from the kind of people who fake videos of him. You should consider the possibility that nothing you know is accurate.
- smallmancontrov 11mo ago
  You're clutching this complaint about editorialization like a soccer player faking an injury but facts don't care about your feelings: Trump's speech wasn't just incendiary as fuck (I've listened to it in whole), it did incite a violent mob that broke into the capitol and chanted "Hang Mike Pence! Hang Mike Pence!" as they carried a hastily constructed noose and gallows around capitol hill. Meanwhile, there is no factual basis for Trump's claims at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_U.S._presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related... Your team had 60 chances to make factual arguments of any length using any evidence and witnesses and they failed every one of significance, even in front of Trump's DOJ and judges appointed by Trump! What's the evidence that he wasn't just wrong but intentionally wrong? Oh, only a hundred things: we have Steve Bannon saying he planned to declare victory regardless of the outcome because there was no reason not to do it, we have the emails where John Eastman set up the fake elector plan and complained when Mike Pence wouldn't help with it, we have the fake certifications signed by the fake electors, we have the emails from Ken Chesborough setting up the signings, hell, Mike Pence went on Fox and said Trump ordered him to overturn the election results. We have Trump standing by as his mob ransacked the capitol for hours while he hoped Pence would change his mind before at long last giving up and calling them off. The contents of that speech are one of the most documented false arguments in history and it should be a huge reality check for you that you're ignoring this to pearl clutch about something that, at worst, would have been a million times less consequential. But it won't be, because you're a partisan hack and we both know it.
  - jibal 11mo ago
    Indeed. "Closed as per WP:SNOW. There is no indication whatsoever that there is consensus to change the status of the BBC as a generally reliable source, neither based on the above discussion nor based on this RfC". Wikipedians know a troll when they see one.

qcnguy 11mo ago

If he really lied so badly they could have just broadcast those lies and held the moral high ground, but they didn't. They had to make things up (not "editing down", they spliced together sentences 50 minutes apart and hid what they did). That should be a huge reality check for you. How do you even know that any of your opinions about Trump are true? You're getting them from the kind of people who fake videos of him. You should consider the possibility that nothing you know is accurate.

smallmancontrov 11mo ago
You're clutching this complaint about editorialization like a soccer player faking an injury but facts don't care about your feelings: Trump's speech wasn't just incendiary as fuck (I've listened to it in whole), it did incite a violent mob that broke into the capitol and chanted "Hang Mike Pence! Hang Mike Pence!" as they carried a hastily constructed noose and gallows around capitol hill. Meanwhile, there is no factual basis for Trump's claims at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_U.S._presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related... Your team had 60 chances to make factual arguments of any length using any evidence and witnesses and they failed every one of significance, even in front of Trump's DOJ and judges appointed by Trump! What's the evidence that he wasn't just wrong but intentionally wrong? Oh, only a hundred things: we have Steve Bannon saying he planned to declare victory regardless of the outcome because there was no reason not to do it, we have the emails where John Eastman set up the fake elector plan and complained when Mike Pence wouldn't help with it, we have the fake certifications signed by the fake electors, we have the emails from Ken Chesborough setting up the signings, hell, Mike Pence went on Fox and said Trump ordered him to overturn the election results. We have Trump standing by as his mob ransacked the capitol for hours while he hoped Pence would change his mind before at long last giving up and calling them off. The contents of that speech are one of the most documented false arguments in history and it should be a huge reality check for you that you're ignoring this to pearl clutch about something that, at worst, would have been a million times less consequential. But it won't be, because you're a partisan hack and we both know it.
- jibal 11mo ago
  Indeed. "Closed as per WP:SNOW. There is no indication whatsoever that there is consensus to change the status of the BBC as a generally reliable source, neither based on the above discussion nor based on this RfC". Wikipedians know a troll when they see one.