Comment

Comment on Supreme Court weakens federal regulators with Chevron overturning, threatening net neutrality, right to repair, big tech regulation, and more

<- View Parent

EatATaco@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

I’m sure the facts don’t matter to you, but I’ll post it anyway just in case someone else comes in here and thinks your argument is rooted in reality:

"A 2018 book by political scientists John M. Sides, Michael Tesler and Lynn Vavreck found that the amount of news coverage Sanders received exceeded his share in the national polls in 2015. Throughout the campaign as a whole, their analysis showed that his “media coverage and polling numbers were strongly correlated.”[1] They write that “Sanders’s appeal, like Trump’s, depended on extensive and often positive media coverage.”[1] Furthermore, “media coverage brought Sanders to a wider audience and helped spur his long climb in the polls by conveying the familiar tale of the surprisingly successful underdog. Meanwhile, Clinton received more negative media coverage.”[1]

source

Sort:hotnew top

retrospectology@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Ohh, a political “scientist” said it, must be a fact. I take back everything I posted, I will now pretend that Wasserman Schultz didn’t actively admit to trying to rig the convention against Sanders and that the court literally said in plain english that’s what was happening.

Must’ve just been a coincidence!

source
- EatATaco@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  Ohh, a political “scientist” said it, must be a fact.
  
  No, a political scientist didn’t “say” it, they did a study with an attempt to objectively determine what actually happened, and the evidence led to a certain conclusion. You just don’t like that the evidence contradicts how you feel so you’re sarcastically trying to hand-wave it away. This isn’t to say I know for a fact that what they say is the truth, but their evidence-based position is 1000x more reliable than your feelings.
  
  I will now pretend that Wasserman Schultz didn’t actively admit to trying to rig the convention against Sanders and that the court literally said in plain english that’s what was happening.
  
  Neither of these statements is true.
  
  The way you people try to rewrite history is insane.
  
  Projection. Notice how I’ve been providing facts and links, all you’ve done is provide how you feel about it. You are just like the Trump supporters that think they know the 2020 election was rigged against Trump. It turns out cultists are not all that different from other cultists.
  
  source
  - retrospectology@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    So you ignore the facts you don’t like, and take the ones you do. And I’m projecting…
    
    Why the fuck do you think Wasserman Schultz stepped down? What is your explanation if it’s not the scandal involving her bias as chair exposed in the emails? Coincidence? What possible benefit to you gain from this denial of established reality?
    
    source
    EatATaco@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    
    So you ignore the facts you don’t like, and take the ones you do. And I’m projecting…
    
    How can I ignore that which you did not provide? All you’ve done throughout this is give your opinion about what happened, no actual facts. I would be more than happy to address any fact you have, because having had this discussion so many times already, I’m pretty confident I’m on the right side of it, and if not, I would like to learn how so and change my position. As I already have.
    
    Why the fuck do you think Wasserman Schultz stepped down?
    
    You made a claim as to why, so why not back it up?
    
    hat is your explanation if it’s not the scandal involving her bias as chair exposed in the emails?
    
    You’re claim was that she tried to rig the convention against Sanders, and you’re already backtracking it. Amazing.
    
    What possible benefit to you gain from this denial of established reality?
    
    lol You really have no idea how out-classed you are in this. I clearly challenged you to actually provide some facts, and all you are doing is attacking me instead.
    
    Don’t worry, I’ve had this same type of discussion with hundreds of Trump/Sander reality-deniers before, and I know no way in hell you can admit to yourself at this point that you’ve been fooled for so long. But It’s sill funny watching you squirm.
    
    Again, let me be clear: provide your sources for your empty ass claims that I’ve already called out. Anything short of that is an admission that you realize the facts are not on your side.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments