BBC anti-Trump disinformation

[stryder]

I'm not saying that the overall rally and march wasn't a reckless or carelessly planned event in terms of anticipating how some of the Western chauvinist groups would interpret, respond, and act. Gobs of police were injured, the stress even causing some to die from heart attacks, and there was plenty of vandalism. People should have been arrested. If a regular GOP president had been involved in such instead of Trump, at the very least their career would be totally over, if not leading to imprisonment.

That's the astonishing part about it: What kind of Houdini escapes not just that, but gets elected again? Who eludes not only the consequences of their own rash decisions, but overcomes a constant campaign against them by the establishment, and a long series of deliberate traps set up by their rivals... That normal politicians usually bumble right into and get swallowed up for good?

I'm just glad Trump never had the aspirations of Napoleon, or Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan early in life. He literally seems to be unstoppable, like there's a genie or secret pact with the Devil involved. If I was a risk-taking daredevil or adrenalin-addicted junkie eager to keep staying in his crosshairs, I sure as heck wouldn't keep emotionally sabotaging myself by believing Trump is the least socially intelligent person in the room, instead of the most cunning one.

Most people would go far if they have a conspiracy group that can stay on topic with the game plan and they aren't discovered. So who's Trumps conspiracy group? I mean we know he has enlisted Republicans into the fold, but you have to consider while he sings their praises, they are just being used as "useful idiots" to his end game.

There are inclinations in a grand scheme of things when you take into consideration Bannon's usage and Cambridge Analytica. On it's own it would of just allowed certain collected data to allow the manipulation of people through critical mass, however applied to other techniques with a slowly enlarging close knit "Cult", it would likely get to the point of almost being the Devil Incarnate.

While he might seem unstoppable to some, Trump is human, is flawed, he is fallible, he's just got a team to use a bib to wipe him down if he starts drooling.

[confused2]

[!!!!] CC does it again.. is a confused2 opinion that ended up here as a consequence of the way the quote machine works.

I'm not saying that the overall rally and march wasn't a reckless or carelessly planned event in terms of anticipating how some of the Western chauvinist groups would interpret, respond, and act. Gobs of police were injured, the stress even causing some to die from heart attacks, and there was plenty of vandalism. People should have been arrested. If a regular GOP president had been involved in such instead of Trump, at the very least their career would be totally over, if not leading to imprisonment.

That's the astonishing part about it: What kind of Houdini escapes not just that, but gets elected again? Who eludes not only the consequences of their own rash decisions, but overcomes a constant campaign against them by the establishment, and a long series of deliberate traps set up by their rivals... That normal politicians usually bumble right into and get swallowed up for good?

I'm just glad Trump never had the aspirations of Napoleon, or Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan early in life. He literally seems to be unstoppable, like there's a genie or secret pact with the Devil involved. If I was a risk-taking daredevil or adrenalin-addicted junkie eager to keep staying in his crosshairs, I sure as heck wouldn't keep emotionally sabotaging myself by believing Trump is the least socially intelligent person in the room, instead of the most cunning one.

Most people would go far if they have a conspiracy group that can stay on topic with the game plan and they aren't discovered. So who's Trumps conspiracy group? I mean we know he has enlisted Republicans into the fold, but you have to consider while he sings their praises, they are just being used as "useful idiots" to his end game.

There are inclinations in a grand scheme of things when you take into consideration Bannon's usage and Cambridge Analytica. On it's own it would of just allowed certain collected data to allow the manipulation of people through critical mass, however applied to other techniques with a slowly enlarging close knit "Cult", it would likely get to the point of almost being the Devil Incarnate.

While he might seem unstoppable to some, Trump is human, is flawed, he is fallible, he's just got a team to use a bib to wipe him down if he starts drooling.

I think CC has captured 'Trump'.

Personally I don't think he has or needs a 'team' - people voluntarily 'self-organise' around him and he uses that to achieve his objectives. Fortunately his objectives seem to include being loved and admired (by Americans) which takes most of the edge off the mad dictator effect.

The nitty-gritty of the thread is that the American people agree that, in isolation, "And we fight. We fight like hell" isn't incitement to insurrection but (as reported by the BBC) the intention to walk down to the Capitol to do it changes the meaning into actual incitement. Is a sniff of a billion dollars enough to motivate the required folks to agree with Trump? In fairness many would probably do it for love but the billion dollars clinches the deal.

As CC suggests .. he's probably unstoppable.. so very likely "Bye bye BBC". I'd rather see the organisation bankrupted than pay a penny to an [opinion] like Trump - which is probably part of the agenda - to allow individuals more freedom to create their own (pro-Trump) propaganda streams.

[C C]

[...] While he might seem unstoppable to some, Trump is human, is flawed, he is fallible, he's just got a team to use a bib to wipe him down if he starts drooling.

Every magnate, campaigner, and officeholder has a team these days, though -- like Bobby Axelrod in Billions or comic book figures like Green Arrow. But in contrast, Trump doesn't even select the brightest people. He seems to be constantly fiddling with the chemistry of his team, kicking individuals out and bringing them in according to attributes like loyalty. Always tinkering with the setup and kicking the vending machine instead of just letting things be.

He also tactically knows how to reliably reward people in his circle (or those that have passed through it) who have fidelity. Rescuing them from legal pickles they get into and being there when they need support. Like Sharon Osbourne recently.

The biggest asset he has going for him might be akin to one that Claudius enjoyed (at least as depicted in the 1970s drama) -- where his enemies (and even allies) frequently underestimate him. No matter how many times Trump undoes a machination against him or rises from the ashes, his opponents and detractors keep coddling themselves with the conceit that he's an idiot and buffoon. Thus positioning themselves for the success of his next Houdini act. The ultimate foolishness is never learning to respect the expertise or to elevate one's opinion of an adversary, no matter how many times one gets whupped by them (or they escape).

[confused2]

We (the Brits) have a problem. Every American knows that "We fight. We fight like hell." is pure rhetoric but Brits think the words have actual meaning beyond rhetoric. We (Brits) think the words are connected with what the Proud Boys were doing - breaking things and maybe hanging Mike Pence - absolutely not, as every American knows.
So the egregiously shortened speech -

We're going to walk down to the Capitol... and I'll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell.

Actually indicates the intention to go to the Capitol and do some rhetoric (or maybe nothing).
We (the BBC) are apologizing for

..giving the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action.

The original speech has rhetoric in it, the egregiously shortened version has the same rhetoric - rhetoric which has no meaning beyond some rhetorical space inside people's heads.;
The BBC are apologizing for something it didn't do and Trump will be only too pleased to pick up a billion dollars for the confusion.

[geordief]

The words said are actually Trumps words.  although they are concatenated.  (Perhaps they should of flagged it was concatenated). 

If they had made him say "I D... Trump am a great big fraud etc", then he could consider that being defamation (although not everyone would agree). 

If Trump didn't meander while publicly speaking and kept to the bullet points of the content, the press wouldn't edit out bits.  (How many other outlets edit out his meanders?)

Further to that, as a kind of counter point,  how many feeds on Truthsocial are likely Defamative which Trump openly allows?

All in all it's a lot of noise over nothing.

We (the Brits) have a problem. Every American knows that "We fight. We fight like hell." is pure rhetoric but Brits think the words have actual meaning beyond rhetoric. We (Brits) think the words are connected with what the Proud Boys were doing - breaking things and maybe hanging Mike Pence - absolutely not, as every American knows.
So the egregiously shortened speech -

We're going to walk down to the Capitol... and I'll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell.

Actually indicates the intention to go to the Capitol and do some rhetoric (or maybe nothing).
We (the BBC) are apologizing for 

..giving the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action.

The original speech has rhetoric in it, the egregiously shortened version has the same rhetoric - rhetoric which has no meaning beyond some rhetorical space inside people's heads.;
The BBC are apologizing for something it didn't do and Trump will be only too pleased to pick up a billion dollars for the confusion.

I thought Trump only won when his targets settled out of court. 

Should the BBC (and the British public)  hand over  money to  him  rather than in a court case explain that  an unfortunate  choice of editing  reinforced the interpretation that he was trying to use a mob to prevent the constitutional  handover of power ?

It is not the BBC's fault if a simple technical error serendiptiously   allowed the truth to be made patent to all who could read between the lines.

As rapist apologisers  are wont to  complain "how come it took  these thugs 5 years to notice  the crime had taken place?"

Clearly BBC made a mistake  and perhaps Trump and his supporters are entitled to a penny's damages (minus the costs)

[Syne]

The BBC regularly makes these sorts of "mistakes," but only in one political direction. That's not serendipitous.

[Yazata]

The BBC regularly makes these sorts of "mistakes," but only in one political direction. That's not serendipitous.

I'm curious whether the BBC has ever praised President Trump or had anything positive to say about him or any of his policies. Perhaps yes, regarding the Gaza peace deal, but beyond that I doubt it. Generally speaking, the BBC's opinions on American politics seem to closely echo Democratic party talking points.

Domestically, they are just as bad. Certainly Nigel Farage could ask the same question that I just asked about President Trump. Has the BBC ever had anything positive to say about Farage or Reform?

I think that it's clear to everyone that the BBC has a left-leaning political line. If they were a private broadcaster that would be their right, even if it didn't make them immune from criticism or charges of political bias. But when they are funded by a mandatory media-tax on all Britons who want to watch TV (broadcast, cable or streaming), it's simply bad.

If the staff of the BBC were actually the impartial journalists that they pretend to be, dedicated to the truth and to understanding, then they would try to cover the  policy agendas of all politicians and parties, hopefully explaining why those parties' voters support those ideas. Let viewers decide for themselves whether they agree with those policies and the reasons for them and whether they want to support those parties come election time. Ideally, viewers should have no idea what party the network or particular presenters favor.

[Syne]

Leftists are essentially one and the same with globalists, and their unity in narrative is the evidence.