this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2024
558 points (93.9% liked)

politics

19168 readers
4028 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] UsernameHere -1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

You're claiming a Sanders campaign could never stand up to the money and influence of the billionaire class, and it's you claiming all the evidence of Trump doing exactly that doesn't count.

I pointed out the fact that Sanders couldn’t win a primary without the added difficulty of funding a campaign.

That’s not a claim that’s a fact.

And while I neversaid Russian interference didn't affect the election, you'rethe one claiming that it was so influential that it invalidated the grassroots nature of Trump's campaign.

You’re the one claiming that Trump won because of a grassroots campaign without any evidence to support that. How can you verify a grassroots campaign is sole reason Trump won when there are Russian bots using social media accounts to tip the scales in his favor?

That’s called confirmation bias. You’ve provided no evidence of the claims you’ve made. While I have only stated facts.

[–] pjwestin 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

You’re the one claiming that Trump won because of a grassroots campaign without any evidence to support that.

Not what I said. I said that Trump ran a grassroots campaign (which is true and I even linked to an article about it), which I brought up to refute this statement of yours: "I don’t think Bernie would get any air time if he was just funded by grassroots donations." I didn't say being a grassroots campaign was the cause of his win, just that it clearly wasn't an obstacle for him. Given that Trump was successful with a grassroots campaign, and that both Harris and Clinton heavily outspent him, there is no reason to believe that Bernie wouldn't be able to succeed as well on a grassroots campaign with less funding.

So far, the only argument against this you've been able to present is that Russia has trolls and billionaires exist. While those are technically facts, they're not data that contradict any of my points. Since you don't seem to have any of that, I think we're done here.

[–] UsernameHere -1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

So far, the only argument against this you've been able to present is that Russia has trolls and billionaires exist.

The facts I stated did more than prove they exists. The facts I stated prove they influenced they outcome of the election.

Your claim was that if I can’t quantify the exact amount of votes that Russian bots and billionaires were able to influence, you get to claim Trumps wins were strictly because he had a grassroots campaign.

[–] pjwestin 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Right, so, TL;DR, no, you have no data that contradicts my point, but you will continue to insist that the fact that Russian bots and billionaires exist is proof. This is why your entire argument is vibes-based, not reality-based.

[–] UsernameHere 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Right, so, TL;DR

So you admit you don't read posts that prove you wrong and just base your response on emotions and assumptions.

[–] pjwestin 1 points 4 days ago

"Prove." Adorable.