Hacker News Reader

Comment by ABeeSea | Hacker News Reader

> Pelosi in Dec 22 was against more stimulus.

This is not true. It’s very odd to see the kind of right-wing conspiracies based on outright fabrications spread on HN as literal truths. Here is an article from December 22 were Pelosi is calling for more stimulus:

www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/12/22/trump-calls-covid-relief-bill-unsuitable-and-demands-congress-add-higher-stimulus-payments.html

Here is her direct tweet dated 12/22:

https://mobile.twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/134155753573...?

Edit: There are outright lies in the source article. Sad day for HN that the lies are getting so much traction and fact checking with 1st hand sources is getting downvoted.

View on HN

I also thought this was odd. This site alleges malfeasance based purely on analysis of data but then alludes to a person's thoughts on specific dates without citation.

I also found this article on 2020/12/21 where Pelosi says she wanted more stimulus, but the $600 checks were significant.[1] So it seems all the more unlikely that she said she was against further stimulus at any point on the 22nd.

[1] https://news.yahoo.com/nancy-pelosi-wanted-more-600-22542493...

Why is this being downvoted? These are references to primary sources that directly contradict facts presented.

People are confused about this because Pelosi rejected the stimulus in October, prior to the election. She didn't accept until December, post election.

Some democrats were urging her to accept it in October: https://twitter.com/AndrewYang/status/1315078896853843970

That’s not what the business insider linked in the tweet says. It says she described the White House plan as “insufficient” meaning there wasn’t enough stimulus in it. How can criticizing a bill for not having enough stimulus mean you are against stimulus?

The House had passed the HEROES act for additional stimulus in May 2020. The Republican senate refused to even put it up for a vote. She was always for passing of the HEROES act even during this October - December period. She was always pro stimulus.

> the HEROES act

Does anyone else cringe at this American obsession with naming acts of congress so as to create "inspirational" acronyms?

Yeah, I think it's really weird. Maybe a way to help give the bills "spin" and gain support. Honestly, though, I think there are bigger things to worry about.

>It’s very odd to see the kind of right-wing conspiracies

It's even more odd to see the, "if you disagree you're alt-right/ a Nazi" mentality on HN.

Why does a member of congress need to day-trade stocks, let alone leveraged derivatives? It's absurd.

It's even more odd to see the, "if you disagree you're alt-right/ a Nazi" mentality on HN.

You believing that "right-wing conspiracies" automatically means ties to "alt-right/Nazis", I think this says more about your personal biases than the person you are responding to.

> right-wing conspiracies based on outright fabrications

maybe on that one point, but the fact the democrats trade way more on the markets is not a conspiracy theory, it's an outright conspiracy.

why are you defending these people? because they're democrats on paper?

I believe GP is defending facts against malicious lies. That seems always a good thing, regardless of whom the lies are directed towards.

Yes, exactly. This is the kind of obviously disprovable lie that I though wouldn’t fly on HN.

> malicious lies

just call it a lie. don't need biased adjectives.

I don’t think that’s a biased adjective. It describes the author’s intent in distributing an easily disprovable lie. Their intent was malicious.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com