Oh, I now see what a certain US Politician has been trying to sell.
I won't debate anyone politically as this is not PRSI.
Well, I'm an historian by training, which means that I have an unusual respect (perhaps reverence) for facts.
While the basis of those facts (the who, the what, the when, the where) are not usually a matter for debate or dispute in history, and are rarely contentious, the why and the how are a lot more open to scrutiny and admit differing interpretations.
However, while people may remember - or misremember - what they attempt to argue as facts, this is something I have little sympathy for (and less interest in).
Firstly, factually, they are wrong.
Something either happened, or it didn't. And what happened, when and where and to whom it happened are rarely a matter for dispute, unless you are watching "fake news", are misinformed, (and being misinformed does not make or render your information valid and no matter how much one "feels" that something happened differently does not mean that t happened that way, and to attempt to argue otherwise is silly) or are incarcerated in a sealed media bubble (such as a totalitarian state) where correct information is hard to come by.
Secondly, as citizens they ought to inform themselves (accurately) of what is taking place.
