Going to have to ask you to stop right here. I read both publications and they aren’t great, either. Murdoch’s mutilation of the opinions page of the WSJ has made it a shell of it once was. Their columnists are not that great, either. Noonan is OKAY but she isn’t exactly setting the world alight with her political insights. McGurn is also a baby always crying about bias existing in cable news. Yeah, no shit. Every medium has bias in it. That he can say this with a straight face and not even mention the WSJ’s own bullshit is comical.
The National Review is also clownshoes these days. All they talk about is going after Hillary Clinton as if she’s their worst enemy. It’s sad that the magazine has turned into what it is. Sure, they still pull out some great writing from time to time, like their look into the jail system, but it isn’t what it was. Their witch hunt for Democrats they could pillory has made them lose focus.
So yeah, if you want to paint conservatives in this light go ahead. You’re just not doing yourself any favors.
I dunno how I’m supposed to take this seriously, after all the cheerleading for Gawker and Buzzfeed that you’ve done.
No you’re not. A large portion of spin revolves around invisible premises and how issues are framed. You can’t learn to be objective about those things until you read from media that adopts different premises and frames issues differently.
Can any of you guys give me a simple rundown of the major goals behind the guys that aren’t Trump or Carson? While I’m currently leaning towards Sanders because he seems a lot more straightforward, I would like to know a bit more about the other Republicans.
You have refuted nothing in my original post. Do you even read those publications or do you just parrot their names because you know they will register to the layman as conservative spaces of opinion?
I do what I advised Shogunz- I read a fair sampling of the articles aggregated by RCP. That includes alot of stuff from NR and WSJ.
You may not be impressed, but I find their articles have as good a chance (many times better actually) of being decent as articles from Washington Post, New York Times or The Atlantic have.
As for substance, I note that what you said basically amounted to “I read them but they suck”. Not sure what you were expecting me to address really.
My original point to Shogunz stands- if Conservative America just looks like a bunch of “guns and religion” clowns to someone, the problem has more to do with the media that person has imbibed, rather than the 50% of the population that has been so effectively othered by a large swath of what passes for journalism in America these days.
Not perfect, and clearly favours Cruz, but here you go:
The only thing I’ve gathered from reading those articles is the sheer lack of integrity that their authors have, particularly on issues such as climate change. When you’ve educated yourself on the topic and then read the nonsense that they spew, clearly with the intent of deceiving their readers, not only does it show that they have no integrity but also shows that they don’t respect their readers.
You can of course choose to believe that, and in doing so buy into the narrative that Conservatives buy into their ideology because they’re stupid, parochial, easily manipulated and superstitious.
Life is much simpler when one believes that you’re more enlightened than the unwashed masses and the world would be a much better place, if only people could be smarter and more ethical.
And then, you’ll be thoroughly surprised and confused when the other side ascends.
You’ll cry and bitch and talk about how the world is going to Hell in a hand basket, and you’ll just be pissed wondering why more people don’t understand things the way you do.
This will be your fate…until the day that you understand that politics is all about balancing the needs of constituencies- and entire constituencies don’t think the way they do because they’re more stupid or less ethical than you… But because they, like everyone else, have legitimate concerns that relate to their specific situations.
Global warming is real but what can and should be done to address it is a complex question.
The fact that the current administration and some members of the scientific community have been high handed and non-transparent in the way they approach the issue has severely undermined the cause.
(Yes, its Fox News, but you should hold your nose and read it anyway- Judith Curry is a very respectable scientist).
First, this is no secret - the NOAA and other organizations, openly state that they are adjusting their data. Climate change deniers, particularly the ones that are not educated in science, think it means that they are changing (or even deleting) data to make it fit their agenda.
Anyway, like you said, the approaches towards global warming might be questionable - but this is not what climate contrarians like the majority of republicans, are really focusing on - rather, they have been focusing on trying to discredit climate science as a whole by spreading misinformation about what the studies are saying, or trying to give the illusion that there is a big debate in the scientific community about global warming’s existence when the consensus is actually overwhelming (about 97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is real and driven mostly by human CO2 emissions).
There have been many proven cases of some scientists, organizations and the republican party, receiving funding from fossil fuel companies like Exxon Mobil, to spread this misinformation.
Well, I think republican lawmakers receiving payments from fossil fuel companies to deny global warming, is pretty relevant to this thread. Ted Cruz for example, has been a prominent figure in the battle against global warming.
Edit: Are you implying that theguardian’s or factcheck’s statement was possibly inaccurate in the accusations, because it was not a primary source? There is a federal investigation underway with regards to Exxon Mobil’s fraud, this is not simply an opinion or a theory.
No, I’m saying that the positions of candidates are open source and easily accessible.
If any of the current candidates are climate change deniers and running on climate change denial as a platform, its not hard for you to show that, with their own words.
Ben Carson says he has evidence that China’s military involvement in Syria… Complete and total nonsense but lets just entertain the idea that he does have evidence…
What does that prove? Why are Republicans so eager to play on dumb Americans misguided fears of the rest of the world. China is a buzz world most Americans don’t understand, like world… or culture. Yea I’m picking on Carson because he is in the lead, this whole idea that ISIS could easily be defeated is also garbage and it shows his foreign policy and military affairs understanding is going to need some brushing up for his eventual failure in the polls.
For those who missed it, apparently Carson said he has a source on Syria better than the white house source? I gotta keep pinching myself to assure myself it isn’t a joke.