Forget it, Jake. It's National Review.
But instead of attacking people who express this kind of opinion, why not try to convince them why they are wrong?
But instead of attacking people who express this kind of opinion, why not try to convince them why they are wrong?
..........................................................
Can you name one prominent media personality (over eternity) who was transformed by someone using your strategy?
Exactly - instead of attacking, why not convince them with winning arguments to YOUR side? Honestly, the amount of vitriol, ink, energy spent on anti-Trump stuff boggles the mind.
Forget it, Jake. It's National Review.
Its like explaining fire to a fish.
Because these are people who derive their current and future income from the lobbyist big government teat....
If this system is destroyed....their vacations, private schools for their kids, mortgages are all at risk.....
They will never listen to reason.....
This is why they would support Hillary over Trump....Hillary will maintain the status quo and eventually they know they will win an election again....
How about this idea. These two sources of bird cage liners, TNR & TWS, are all in for a self-servicing status quo, and are scared to death of the old power structure crumbling. Therefore they use the old Pravdaesque technique of distortion to try and rescue their sorry backsides. Most of us here long ago realized that this magazine looks down their nose as regular folks, and dismisses our opinions as ignorance to some notion that elites knows what’s better for us than we do.
WFB, the founder of National Review, was a leading proponent of reasoned debate and collected the leading conservative luminaries to argue for the conservative cause and argue out key points of controversy (e.g. was Lincoln right as a proponent of a moral order in the face of the abomination of slavery, or was he wrong in trampling the constitutional principal of states rights).
NR has all the tools and folks at its disposal to conduct a rational debate on the subject. If they were able to be convinced they would list reasons pro and con and debate the conclusion.
Instead we get the kind of impassioned drivel that we read going back and forth on twitter.
NR has betrayed its hallowed heritage.
Because you can’t fix stupid.
Convince some one on the interweb, no, right here on FR, that they are wrong......Gonna work out just fine...
But just this once, I will waste my time.
Trump, has Jeff Session, Newt Gingrich and other Conservatives advising him
Hillary Clinton has ZERO Conservatives on her team.
Trump “Wants to make American Great. Clinton/Sanders want to “fundamentally transform” the USA to “make it fair”. Conservative share a commonality of interests with Trump, they have no shared interests with Clinton.
Obama AG told the US Senate last month that the US DOJ has sent referrals to the FBI to criminalize criticism of climate change and Muslims. Hillary's AG will be happy to continue that work
And the list goes on and on and on and on and on and on but why bother reasoning with brain dead morons like David French, and the NRO clown posse, who are so utterly emotionally hysteric and rabidly ignorant they cannot see the obvious plain policy differences between Trump and Clinton.
Just vote Cruz and avoid both scenario’s.
“But instead of attacking people who express this kind of opinion, why not try to convince them why they are wrong?”
That would require people to address their arguments instead of just saying “Look at the source! This is trash!”, which is so much easier.