Observed facts are never observed by a mind free of subjective existence. This is why Leftists, for whom emotion determines truth instead of observed reality, cannot effect scientific methodology. One must be a thinker, not a feeler, to comparatively analyze and discuss in a scientific manner.

How difficult is it to conceive? Please explain...

We all do both, fella.

$2 trillion in the first stimulus package, months to prepare, seems like we could have focused our energies more and been ready for the vaccine

And some very well.

The "only vaguely" bit was referring to your "explanation" of why the methodology was flawed, I didn't say that the study only vaguely correlates.

That is also why Leftists congregate in soft sciences where narrative may be substituted as fact.

True. I was talking about people who don't believe truth exists, not those who don't believe in logic. With those, I would point out that they themselves use logic.

Then explain how this correlates, where is that study on how this correlates? You've given me a study that is about something else other than your declaration, which has no bearing on this study. You're just making the assumption that it does. That's why it's flawed.

it takes work, obviously, but at the rate we're going now it will take 10 years to administer the vaccine to everyone that needs/wants it

> $2 trillion in the first stimulus package, months to prepare, seems like we could have focused our energies more and been ready for the vaccine
@meglide lol yeah you'd think so. Maybe a smidgen of that 2T went into some pockets that aren't entirely engaged in the onboarding effort.

The question is then are people in reality rational or merely rationalizing. The more thinker in orientation, I would suggest the more rational they are, but the more feeler in orientation the more rationalizing they are. This is why the Republican Party attracts thinkers and the Democratic Party attracts feelers.

you mean like giving prisoners unemployment checks?

It seems like you're not disputing the methodology, but my application of the study to the discussion here. I said " but the point is that it treated Trump even-handedly, unlike the other media it looked at. That doesn't suggest that Fox is of the right, unless you're saying that being on the right makes you fair (which is an argument I would be sympathetic to)."

Well oiled machine. @meglide

You're the one making the claim they're not right wing, not me! Fox being right wing is sort of something that most people agree with.

It's your onus of proof.

I think that's too black-and-white, but yes, I tend to agree with that.

... don't laugh the prisons are doing the best at administering the vaccine

Shipped weeks ago with millions already dosed strategically prioritized.

I do not have the onus of proof just because I'm in a minority. Those making a claim have the onus of proof, and the original claim was that it was right-wing. And I certainly don't have the onus of proof just because *it's claimed* that most agree; it seems that most on the left agree, but many others don't.

https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/ft_2020.04.08_factsonfox_02.png?w=640 k

There might be other reasons they are slow rolling. Scary reasons. Not saying guinea pigs but js. @inwa @meglide

There you go then.

Myers-Briggs as a Behavioral Typology trends in that direction. Thinker - Feeler is also the only polarity in the system that consistently demonstrates a gender divide. Most males test as thinkers and most females test as feelers.

That is also consistent with the study of moral development by Ann Higgins.

So unless you're about to call huffpo... center-left (lol)

Lmao

THAT is a misapplication of a study. That conservatives tend to watch a scarce neutral source more doesn't mean that the source is not neutral. It could just as easily be argued that conservatives prefer to hear both sides, unlike leftists.

Anything can be easily argued. Especially now that making ad hoc claims is the new thing.

"... conservatives prefer to hear both sides" ... guess Trump is not a conservative then?

Oof

Well at least my statement came with a study conducted that actually said the same thing. Just sayin'. Even if you want to deny it.

I did say "it could ... be argued that...". And of course that was a generalisation, not a defining characteristic, so no, your conclusion does not follow. Further, it's not in evidence that Trump is unwilling to hear both sides.

Trump is unwilling to hear both sides. I am willing to sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury.

Evidence.

Guess he's a RINO.

So submitted. Carry on.

Must be a leftist.

Close to a communist.

The methodology is flawed. It is based upon self-reporting by persons on a bell curve half of which are above average in their level of ignorance about the position of their ideological frame of reference. As persons that believe there are two sexes are considered to be "rightwing" science deniers, and persons that believe sex is sociological and not biological are considered center-left, that study you promote is inaccurate.

I wasn't saying that you didn't try to back up your claim.
And without checking your wording, I think you said "right", whereas your study was "centre right". Further, I questioned the objectivity of fact checkers. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-scS7FCrs4