02-14-2020, 11:41 AM
(02-14-2020, 11:12 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: A buddy shared an opinion piece from GQ that stated the premise that the "mainstream media keeps attacking Bernie" and it defended that premise by citing two TV pundits and two tweets.
I tried to explain that it's disingenuous for an opinion writer to equate 2 pundits and 2 opinion writers to the mainstream media and that those 4 personalities are being paid to do what she is doing: write their opinion not report unbiased facts.
That wasn't received well, but at least he isn't calling other Democratic candidates "rats" and "snakes" or "mayo" or "cheat".
Here's the amazing thing to me. Bernie is not even a Democrat, yet his followers (which are very cult-like in their demeanor) are so insufferable that they have taken over the local party.
I had to call this guy an irrational actor, today, because he has continued to attempt his argument. My point with him has been that by calling objective data "fake" he makes any other argument he makes questionable. He could be correct in his discussion of the interpretation of these numbers, and he mostly is, but when you open up with the whole "alternative facts" type of argument you cause your own credibility to be an issue. Why should I, or anyone, engage with someone in a legitimate discussion over these numbers if that is the starting point?
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
