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.
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.
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.
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.
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.