What a weird flex: "Rioters didn't seize a 'large part' of the city and reduce it to a lawless hellscape out of a Mad Max movie; it was only six blocks" complete with a map of the city to emphasize just how small the area that successfully declared itself completely independent from the jurisdiction of the government was.
Let's all just pretend that the real issue isn't that ANY piece of a major city was able to successfully act as an independent government for longer than the time it took to truck in a bunch of cops and bust their heads open.
this is what a lot of the fact checks are amounting to. Trump makes a true but exaggerated claim, and the media marks the entire thing false because the claim was exaggerated.
Its often not even exaggerated, its just not viciously, perfectly defined to a nonsensical degree.
In this case, its "big" because its an area that was large enough to be put on a map and disrupt local inhabitants, compared to say someone just calling their house sovereign and independent. But they are saying it needed to be relatively "big" to the entire area to be true, which is nonsense.
His only mistake was using the word percentage, which does give them a legup on him to "fact check" like this.
yep, "big" is a relative term, so the only way to fact check it is to recontextualize the original quote. Seattle times is certainly making a fool of themselves here, but the real question is who can see it?
That's why he does it. If he says something accurate and true, they just wont cover it, but if he says something a little bit sensational/exagerated, they'll fall all over themselves nitpicking the hell out of it to prove how he's tots a liar yo, thereby amplifying his message and making them show their hand to the public.
They didn't take the majority of Seattle's city limits, therefore it was not a big part. Checkmate, chuds.
Exactly.
What a weird flex: "Rioters didn't seize a 'large part' of the city and reduce it to a lawless hellscape out of a Mad Max movie; it was only six blocks" complete with a map of the city to emphasize just how small the area that successfully declared itself completely independent from the jurisdiction of the government was.
Let's all just pretend that the real issue isn't that ANY piece of a major city was able to successfully act as an independent government for longer than the time it took to truck in a bunch of cops and bust their heads open.
this is what a lot of the fact checks are amounting to. Trump makes a true but exaggerated claim, and the media marks the entire thing false because the claim was exaggerated.
Its often not even exaggerated, its just not viciously, perfectly defined to a nonsensical degree.
In this case, its "big" because its an area that was large enough to be put on a map and disrupt local inhabitants, compared to say someone just calling their house sovereign and independent. But they are saying it needed to be relatively "big" to the entire area to be true, which is nonsense.
His only mistake was using the word percentage, which does give them a legup on him to "fact check" like this.
yep, "big" is a relative term, so the only way to fact check it is to recontextualize the original quote. Seattle times is certainly making a fool of themselves here, but the real question is who can see it?
That's why he does it. If he says something accurate and true, they just wont cover it, but if he says something a little bit sensational/exagerated, they'll fall all over themselves nitpicking the hell out of it to prove how he's tots a liar yo, thereby amplifying his message and making them show their hand to the public.
They're arguing over what is a "big percentage."