That said, you seem to misunderstand probability. The 18% probably of a Trump victory is greater than one in six. You are less likely to die playing a single round of Russian Roulette than for Trump to have won the election. Something can be 82% like and still not happen, and something can be 18% likely and happen. That's how probability works.
As for the USSC and the travel ban... what? I remember the USSC allowing the third revision of the ban to take effect while under appeal, but I'm drawing a blank on a unanimous victory. There were at least two justices who stated they were against even that temporary decision, as I recall it. I'm very interested in a source for "a 7-0 supreme court victory."
Yes, it was. The implication that predictions were not grounded in reality because they didn't come to pass is false.
An 80% chance of Hillary winning is a 20% chance of Trump winning. 20% is a big number. You wouldn't play Russian roulette, even though the probability that you die is less than that.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/19/us/politics/supreme-court...
Non-college educated Americans broke disproportionately toward Trump. It would seem given the relationship between college graduation and cognitive ability (the bottom 20% in cognitive ability rarely graduates from college) that this is reasonable support for the correlation of fake news belief with Trump support.
Please quote the part of the article where "they" say this, otherwise don't post this kind of nonsense. You're not flipping anything around; you're the one poisoning the well.
Flagged.
Weren't there multiple versions that went through the courts?
I don't think they're arguing in good faith, regardless of whether they're """playing""" devil's advocate.
It seems like most people on both ends of the political spectrum create a media-fed bubble of bias, and when the outcomes disagree with that bias (as in the case of Trump) it can create pretty damaging cognitive dissonance.
Google trends closely follows the usage of the word in the media.
The reason the Trends chart jumps after the election is because that's when the larger public learned about what is going on, and people were trying to figure out how it happened.
Pre-election examples from a quick search:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/30074...
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/24/facebook-...
http://meta.mk/en/macedonians-from-veles-open-propaganda-web...
http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/30/media/facebook-fake-news-pla...
http://fortune.com/2016/10/12/facebook-fake-news/
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/296211-facebook-steps-u...
and countless more...
They picked two stories for explaining the loss and pushed them extremely hard - this and the Russian conspiracy stuff.
Both stories share one salient characteristic - if both were reason for the election loss, neither the Democratic party nor Hillary could be blamed for it.
It is unlikely that news media that aligns with and donates money to the Democratic party are going to run stories about how Hillary was a terrible candidate who shouldn't have been allowed to run in the first place any more than Fox News might suddenly start supporting Democrats one day.
Fake news was a huge issue before the election. People I know were discussing it daily.
Of course the Democratic Party talked about it after the election. What else would be expected? Many people who were paying attention were talking about it before that as well. You should read those articles I posted.
The Democratic Party and its candidate had problems, but that doesn't diminish the role of fake news.