Politics

[Gemmill 62983]

He's doing the same as he's done with all the US networks. Except those weasels have stumped up tens of millions for him to leave them alone and become compliant in their coverage. 

 

The BBC doesn't need to worry about him turning the FCC on them, so they should just send him a picture of a fist with a beautifully manicured raised middle finger with union jack nail polish on it. 

[The Fish 12529]

6 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

Surely the BBC could only be subject to US law if they agree to be, otherwise they'd be sued daily by regimes all over the world. I was just reading that if it does get heard there, the BBC likely win anyway mind. Presumably Trump wants them to pay him £10m or so in reality so he can call it a win and point to the fake news against him.

 

This really is very stupid of the BBC, I'm actually stunned that they did this. I have read the entire transcript of that speech and you just cannot make the case that the section they included was meant to suggest people become violent at the Capitol. And more than that, honestly, I have indeed been under the impression for about 4 years that he did incite people in a very obvious way, so that 'spin' has indeed hurt his reputation (though I don't think this is solely on the BBC tbf to them).

 

It's a long, rambling speech wherein he talks about fighting for the country, against the Democrats, etc - but at no point in reading it did I honestly feel that he was saying people should become violent at that march. I can see the argument that including aggressive language in a speech like that could be considered irresponsible, but it is nowhere near as clear cut as that edit makes it seem - this part comes after several other references to fighting 'the media, donors, weak republican politicians in primaries, etc. It reads like a continuation of that theme:

 

Our brightest days are before us. Our greatest achievements, still away.

I think one of our great achievements will be election security. Because nobody until I came along had any idea how corrupt our elections were.

And again, most people would stand there at 9 o'clock in the evening and say I want to thank you very much, and they go off to some other life. But I said something's wrong here, something is really wrong, can have happened.

And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.

Our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors have not yet begun. My fellow Americans, for our movement, for our children, and for our beloved country.

And I say this despite all that's happened. The best is yet to come.

So we're going to, we're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we're going to the Capitol, and we're going to try and give.

 

I'd argue that you're reading that as a liberal commie cuck, if you were a god-fearin', gun-toting 'Murcan you'd see the invite to take matters into your own hands within the phrases;

Corrupt elections

something is wrong

If you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country any more

We're going to the Capitol. 

 

He doesn't have to explicitly say "Go take a dump on Pelosi's desk", all he has to do is add a spark here, a little tinder there and Kablooey. His obvious rhetoric is "We've been cheated and if you don't do something about it, America is doomed, I'll be with you at the Capitol."

 

To me, it's as clear cut as it can be.

[Rayvin 8303]

9 minutes ago, The Fish said:

 

I'd argue that you're reading that as a liberal commie cuck, if you were a god-fearin', gun-toting 'Murcan you'd see the invite to take matters into your own hands within the phrases;

Corrupt elections

something is wrong

If you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country any more

We're going to the Capitol. 

 

He doesn't have to explicitly say "Go take a dump on Pelosi's desk", all he has to do is add a spark here, a little tinder there and Kablooey. His obvious rhetoric is "We've been cheated and if you don't do something about it, America is doomed, I'll be with you at the Capitol."

 

To me, it's as clear cut as it can be.

 

Read the whole thing and tell me if you still feel that way. If you do, fair enough, but I read it looking to take the same position you have, and struggled to do so.

 

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial

[PaddockLad 22426]

It's civil proceedings. Not sure what relevance this is but Jonny Depp and Amber Herd did their divorce over here 🤷🏻‍♂️

Edited November 11 by PaddockLad

[Renton 27740]

6 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Read the whole thing and tell me if you still feel that way. If you do, fair enough, but I read it looking to take the same position you have, and struggled to do so.

 

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial

 

I mean I recall watching it live and I agree with Fish in the inferences it made. I don't know how you read the transcript of that speech and don't see this personally, he's clearly not calming things down and in fact is stoking up the hatred.

 

You also have to contextualise who he was talking to (basically a semi-armed millitia) and how he said these words. But I agree the edit was stupid and unnecessary. But actually it pretty much conveys the jist of what he did and said in a few seconds imo. 

[Rayvin 8303]

5 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

I mean I recall watching it live and I agree with Fish in the inferences it made. I don't know how you read the transcript of that speech and don't see this personally, he's clearly not calming things down and in fact is stoking up the hatred.

 

You also have to contextualise who he was talking to (basically a semi-armed millitia) and how he said these words. But I agree the edit was stupid and unnecessary. But actually it pretty much conveys the jist of what he did and said in a few seconds imo. 

 

I am reading the transcript cold and fairly - all I can say is that I would not take this as inciting me to commit acts of violence. The use of the word fight throughout is always directed at fighting notional enemies, the media, the democrats. And to be honest with you, I can't be alone in this view because the BBC has had two executives resign over it. This is as bad as it looks, and the best argument I think we can make about this speech is that it was irresponsible. It just does not read like he's trying to convey a message of actual, violent insurrection. More a wider sense of challenging all the dark and nebulous forces out there, as he sees it.

 

Granted, maybe it would feel different to a crowd of baying idiots, and that's relevant in this conversation absolutely, but in the cold light of day I'm just not seeing it. Not to the point where the BBC can make the edit they did and call it 'in the spirit of the truth'.

[Gemmill 62983]

Bollocks man. He'd driven people to go there. Remember him telling people that it "will be WILD!", Bannon had been talking in the days leading up to it about how something big was gonna go down, and then Trump gave this speech telling everyone to FIGHT or you're not gonna have a country left 

 

And then he went back and watched it all on the telly. 

 

He knew EXACTLY what he was doing. 

[Renton 27740]

3 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

I am reading the transcript cold and fairly - all I can say is that I would not take this as inciting me to commit acts of violence. The use of the word fight throughout is always directed at fighting notional enemies, the media, the democrats. And to be honest with you, I can't be alone in this view because the BBC has had two executives resign over it. This is as bad as it looks, and the best argument I think we can make about this speech is that it was irresponsible. It just does not read like he's trying to convey a message of actual, violent insurrection. More a wider sense of challenging all the dark and nebulous forces out there, as he sees it.

 

Granted, maybe it would feel different to a crowd of baying idiots, and that's relevant in this conversation absolutely, but in the cold light of day I'm just not seeing it. Not to the point where the BBC can make the edit they did and call it 'in the spirit of the truth'.

 

The textual transcript lacks the context of the time, place and emotion. It is obvious what he was doing to any fair minded person. Iirc someone in the crowd literally had a noose with Pence's name on it. I think in your effort to be impartial here you're somehow missing the obvious.

[PaddockLad 22426]

21 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

Bollocks man. He'd driven people to go there. Remember him telling people that it "will be WILD!", Bannon had been talking in the days leading up to it about how something big was gonna go down, and then Trump gave this speech telling everyone to FIGHT or you're not gonna have a country left 

 

And then he went back and watched it all on the telly. 

 

He knew EXACTLY what he was doing. 

 

You are of course correct.  The BBC still massively fucked up though. Both these things are undisputably true . 

[Toonpack 15518]

1 hour ago, Rayvin said:

Surely the BBC could only be subject to US law if they agree to be, otherwise they'd be sued daily by regimes all over the world. I was just reading that if it does get heard there, the BBC likely win anyway mind. Presumably Trump wants them to pay him £10m or so in reality so he can call it a win and point to the fake news against him.

 

This really is very stupid of the BBC, I'm actually stunned that they did this. I have read the entire transcript of that speech and you just cannot make the case that the section they included was meant to suggest people become violent at the Capitol. And more than that, honestly, I have indeed been under the impression for about 4 years that he did incite people in a very obvious way, so that 'spin' has indeed hurt his reputation (though I don't think this is solely on the BBC tbf to them).

 

It's a long, rambling speech wherein he talks about fighting for the country, against the Democrats, etc - but at no point in reading it did I honestly feel that he was saying people should become violent at that march. I can see the argument that including aggressive language in a speech like that could be considered irresponsible, but it is nowhere near as clear cut as that edit makes it seem - this part comes after several other references to fighting 'the media, donors, weak republican politicians in primaries, etc. It reads like a continuation of that theme:

 

Our brightest days are before us. Our greatest achievements, still away.

I think one of our great achievements will be election security. Because nobody until I came along had any idea how corrupt our elections were.

And again, most people would stand there at 9 o'clock in the evening and say I want to thank you very much, and they go off to some other life. But I said something's wrong here, something is really wrong, can have happened.

And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.

Our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors have not yet begun. My fellow Americans, for our movement, for our children, and for our beloved country.

And I say this despite all that's happened. The best is yet to come.

So we're going to, we're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we're going to the Capitol, and we're going to try and give.

 

There was a congressional hearing, he was found guilty and impeached, the BBC simply editted that one speech to illustrate/show he said (and drove) what actually the whole day was about, which was a violent insurrection.

[Rayvin 8303]

7 minutes ago, Toonpack said:

 

There was a congressional hearing, he was found guilty and impeached, the BBC simply editted that one speech to illustrate/show he said (and drove) what actually the whole day was about, which was a violent insurrection.

 

This is a fair counterpoint tbh. Surely the BBC could just point to this.

[wykikitoon 28482]

I love how Trump has gone for the BBC.  The cunts have been editing shit like this for years and they say their impartial  Get to fuck and get rid of Kuntsberg whilst youre at it

[Craig 12325]

5 hours ago, PaddockLad said:

This is the only context you need...

 

Man addresses men assembled in front of him, urges them to "FIGHT" 20 times 

Men, some of whom are armed and one carrying a makeshift gallows, immediately march and then proceed to fight law enforcement to gain illegal  access to the Capitol. Lots of evidence that both man and men were fully aware of plans to attack Capitol. 

 

That's all there is to it.... 

 

 

 

Indeed. 

Which makes the BBC's decision to splice the speech all the more baffling and unnecessary. You only need half a brain to be able to understand the rhetoric - leaving it open to interpretation was sufficient. Instead, they've provided him with ammunition to weaponise it as a witch hunt against him. 

Fucking clowns.

 

[Renton 27740]

Good episode on the rest is politics on this today. I know Stewart and Campbell aren't everybody's favourites but speak a lot of sense to me.

[The Fish 12529]

3 hours ago, Rayvin said:

 

I am reading the transcript cold and fairly - all I can say is that I would not take this as inciting me to commit acts of violence. The use of the word fight throughout is always directed at fighting notional enemies, the media, the democrats. And to be honest with you, I can't be alone in this view because the BBC has had two executives resign over it. This is as bad as it looks, and the best argument I think we can make about this speech is that it was irresponsible. It just does not read like he's trying to convey a message of actual, violent insurrection. More a wider sense of challenging all the dark and nebulous forces out there, as he sees it.

 

Granted, maybe it would feel different to a crowd of baying idiots, and that's relevant in this conversation absolutely, but in the cold light of day I'm just not seeing it. Not to the point where the BBC can make the edit they did and call it 'in the spirit of the truth'.

 

That's my point though. You're reading that as a reasonable, considered, sweet summer child. Take a sidestep to the right and imagine you're a republican voter, now take another sidestep and you're a speech attending Republican, now another and you're a Trump fan, now another step to the right and you're into the QANON and conspiracy shit. Now read it again and tell me that it doesn't stir the buckshot in your loins.

 

The aim, and result of Trump giving that speech was crystal fucking clear. If the BBC had any stones about them they'd tell Trump to heave fucking ho and take his shitty Golf Courses with him.

[Craig 12325]

32 minutes ago, Renton said:

Good episode on the rest is politics on this today. I know Stewart and Campbell aren't everybody's favourites but speak a lot of sense to me.

I think between them they're balanced and extremely knowledgeable. The only people who truly are against them are the extremes of the political spectrum.

[Rayvin 8303]

I've never had an issue with either of them personally. Stewart was brave enough to stand up against Brexit and whatever we're all meant to hate Campbell for, I don't actually remember.

[The Fish 12529]

15 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

I've never had an issue with either of them personally. Stewart was brave enough to stand up against Brexit and whatever we're all meant to hate Campbell for, I don't actually remember.

Mostly the war crimes. 

[Renton 27740]

14 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

I've never had an issue with either of them personally. Stewart was brave enough to stand up against Brexit and whatever we're all meant to hate Campbell for, I don't actually remember.

 

Campbell was Blair's spin doctor, most hated for his role in the Iraq war and the dodgy dossier. Feels like a cuddly puppy now since the absolute ghouls like Cummings we've had involved. Comes across as a fundamentally fair and decent person on TRIP.

[Renton 27740]

Just now, The Fish said:

Mostly the war crimes. 

 

☝️

 

Case in point.

 

[Monkeys Fist 50627]

If a single penny of my license fee is paid to Mango Man, I’ll be dipping out of ever having a license again.  
 

 

[Rayvin 8303]

3 minutes ago, Monkeys Fist said:

If a single penny of my license fee is paid to Mango Man, I’ll be dipping out of ever having a license again.  
 

 

 

I don't pay it anyway, but had been thinking about coming back to it until this. No chance I'm risking that now, it'd be sickening.

[ewerk 39132]

Well done, Labour.

 

[spongebob toonpants 5181]

On 10/11/2025 at 11:09, Renton said:

I genuinely think their immigration stance also makes them unelectable, whether you agree with it or not

Following on from ewerks post above I'm going to say their immigration policy I agree with totally. It's a lot better than Labour's morally reprehensible and unworkable Farage notevenlite

You need someone to make the argument that immigration is a good thing or your just giving into gammon

[ewerk 39132]

21 hours ago, Rayvin said:

Surely the BBC could only be subject to US law if they agree to be, otherwise they'd be sued daily by regimes all over the world. I was just reading that if it does get heard there, the BBC likely win anyway mind. Presumably Trump wants them to pay him £10m or so in reality so he can call it a win and point to the fake news against him.

 

I've avoided reading much about this because frankly I don't give a shit but the fact that he has filed this in Florida seems to be a clear indication that this is a shake down. By doing so he has made it harder for himself to win given that in the US the press has more protection plus he has to prove that people in the state of Florida watched the program despite the fact it was never broadcast there. He has no intention of going to court and it'll be much cheaper for him to file a sham suit in Florida than it would be to do it properly and file it in the UK. He's hoping for a cheap, quick win and get a payout from the BBC rather than having any intention of pursuing 'justice'. I assume he'll also have to prove that he has been damaged by the broadcast and the fact that he increased both his vote and vote share in Florida shows that this is demonstrably untrue.