The most popular conservative news websites

[_Some Schmo]

I never cease to be amazed by what Americans call "conservatism."

All it seems to mean in this country is whatever the latest talking heads are saying in "conservative" media. It's rare when someone says something that represents actual conservatism. It's a name more than an ideology (a name for their cult). When you read what they have to say, it sounds like they're all drinking from the same kool-aid fountain. You can tell because it's not tethered to any semblance of reality.

And if you're not in the cult, you must be a liberal socialist fascist commie... or worse. In fact, the moment the word "socialist" pops out, you can almost be guaranteed you're reading the screed of the uneducated/brainwashed.

[_Uncle Ed]

because they won't want to comment section to be flooded with Russian bots.

That is conspiracy theory crap. And it is asserting that the technology operating our social Medía is controlled by human launched A.I.. Ridiculous.

[_Uncle Ed]

It seems you don't know what the hell you're talking about and have been getting your information from the same idiots mentioned in the OP. I remember being fed this drivel back in the early 90's when I was still in college. It was being fed to me by the Rush Limbaugh radio show. And yet I never recalled every meeting a self-proclaimed Socialist. I attended college for about 7 years at three different Universities and not once did I encounter Socialists. I was a Conservative back then so I just took his word for it and assumed these were all silent Socialists that only the smart people like Rush knew about. Until I got my head out of my ass and realized Rush never went to college.

Equating conservatism with "Constitutional thinking" is a pretty stupid comment as well given your Tyrant in Chief is about the most unConstitutional President in US history. You only care about the Constitution when you think you can use it to forward your Right Wing agenda, which is basically about forcing everyone else to abide by your preferred culture that's based on your religious upbringing.

"I was a conservative back then" pretty well shoots every point you rudely make in the head. You've been deceived. I said that socialists are very clever. Warning, Will Robinson!

Too late. Actually it's never too late. We are always learning.

You must not have noticed that this so-called conservative manipulated mainstream media lately has covered riots masquerading as "protests", almost entirely caused by liberal-leftie-socialists who LOST when their horrid candidate lost her bid to finish ruining the US. When the conservatives lost two elections in a row and Obama stayed the course two full terms, there was not a single riot or protest. Why is that?

The legendary "rules for radicals playbook" uses civil unrest as a weapon. It uses lies in every guise, especially calling things names that actually apply to the radicals themselves. They are all about toppling capitalism and the US constitutional form of gov't. They have corrupted our political parties. Socialists almost never stand in plain sight, because over here socialism has a very bad smell. So they call themselves other things and hide behind front groups like BLM and ANTIFA, using ignorant angry poor people to do their disruptive work. They are the main cause of gang warfare in our huge inner cities problem. They push state run welfare and increase the number of people dependent on "entitlements". Always and forever they are about control. So they push for disarming the civilian population, pretending that our "little pop guns" are useless against a corrupt Gov't, but wanting to take them any way they can; no matter how long it takes; no matter how many tiny steps it takes to arrive at effective gun bans, etc.

The Donald is YOUR president too, by the way. He was legally elected under our system of State representation. And how is he unconstitutional? By being rude, crude and unrefined? He rubs you the wrong way? He got Gorsuch into Scalia's spot: apparently an equally devoted constitutionalist who defends precedent instead of interpreting the law as he wishes it to be. Constitutional, not liberal, asserting that modern times require that the principles upon which the Constitution is founded are malleable and form a "living document" which requires constant reinterpretation and tweaking to suit modern problems. There is nothing about humanity that has changed in over two hundred years; we are just as stupid and dangerous and selfish as always. The principles of our founding documents remain unchanged while we remain the same. Rhetoric aimed to destroy the principles by redefining them out of existence is called treason. The President is no traitor by any evidence you can bring forward.

You missed the truth of the matter about "our right wing agenda" too: calling it black when it's white, or visa versa, I don't care which: the point stands: you assert that it is all about control, when it never was, it was always about personal liberty. You have bought into broad brushing an entire mindset with the extremism of the KKK and other radical "conservative" groups, just because they have been labeled as such. No right thinking person sides with Jim Crow laws, or marginalizes any group based on anything tagged to ID them whatsoever. You expect lilly white behavior out of a honeybunch of stink weeks: and if you don't get it, you assume that YOUR side must be right because you are flawless(?).

Remember and never forget it: all sides are biased and lacking neutrality. Some sides are better than other sides. Pick the one that comes the closest to being right most of the time and try and make it better. Your diatribe castigates an entire class of voters based on memes pushed by the very mainstream media that you now believe is manipulated by the conservatives or "alt right", somehow. Eh? I already pointed out that we've been untrusting of the mainstream media for many years because they do not tell the truth, they exaggerate the ill that conservatives do and pass by the very same when liberals are guilty of even worse ills. They laud the agenda that promotes socialism (called anything but, while bearing identical agenda points) - reducing individual responsibility and rights while pushing so-called group rights; they make violent counter protesters look as if they share the same moral high ground as peaceful protesters; the list is practically endless. Meanwhile they shut down dialogue and debate by attacking "the messengers" of protest, e.g. not even including a forum on their websites to express opinions (giving stupid reasons like on this very thread like "Russian bots" infiltration, ye gods!). And you believe that the control freaks are the people who elected Donald Trump? They are fighting back to push the control freaks back into their little boxes and closets and out of our government institutions. The Donald has been busy all year replacing as many of Obama's liberal clones with conservative judges as possible. Conservatives rule on the side of individual rights, not groups rights; on the side of constitutional precedent, not amorphous interpretation. They uphold the law, not reinvent it according to modern preference.

Try again some other day. You've said nothing new and only shown your indoctrination.

[_Uncle Ed]

I never cease to be amazed by what Americans call "conservatism."

All it seems to mean in this country is whatever the latest talking heads are saying in "conservative" media. It's rare when someone says something that represents actual conservatism. It's a name more than an ideology (a name for their cult). When you read what they have to say, it sounds like they're all drinking from the same kool-aid fountain. You can tell because it's not tethered to any semblance of reality.

And if you're not in the cult, you must be a liberal socialist fascist commie... or worse. In fact, the moment the word "socialist" pops out, you can almost be guaranteed you're reading the screed of the uneducated/brainwashed.

People can call themselves whatever they want. I've already said that socialist mentality is clever. It lies constantly. And if there is one thing "people of the lie" fall for it's lying. They lie to themselves and end up believing their own lies.

Pointing out the undying existence of "socialism" does not plant me in some "cult". You are guilty of the same black and white thinking that IDs people simplistically. We all do it. So try and ID when you are falling for that tendency and turn away from it, again and again, as many times as it takes. Constant correction of the world view is required of everyone.

Socialism is like the undead: socialists are always with us, because out of group-think derives the panacea of finally being in control of our world, for the good of all; and the methodology is always the very same old-school control freak "solutions". Individualists will not fall for it. But they (we) will always be attacked rather than the message we bear: Fight the control freaks! They come in many guises and they even oppose each other because they belong to disunited camps. But they want the same things, so they will vote for the people they believe in: who make promises that life will be better if we the people just trust them to institute "sensible regulations". Always, more "sensible regulations". The gun rights battle is like a sharply focused battle within the overarching war against individual rights.

[_EAllusion]

You are guilty of the same black and white thinking

In this thread alone you argued that college campuses are run by socialists and declared socialism the same as fascism. And this was all in the service of dismissing the content of a study because it came from academics who, unsurprisingly, work out of a prestigious university. You might want to consider the possiblity that your thinking has a itsy bitsy problem with black and white hatting issues.

And I gotta say that your equating of modern movement conservatism with radical individualism, as if it were equivalent to hardcore libertarianism, is just bananas. Like, it bears no relationship to reality whatsoever to the point that one wonders if you are even aware of US politics.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

It'd be nice for the casual observers if the main contributors to this thread would define Conservative, Socialist, Liberal, and whatever else they're throwing around so we can understand their take on the politics at hand.

I find as soon as you describe someone as something they'll claim No True Socialist or No True Conservative because their idea about their affiliation doesn't mesh with what's being discussed.

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

It'd be nice for the casual observers if the main contributors to this thread would define Conservative, Socialist, Liberal, and whatever else they're throwing around so we can understand their take on the politics at hand.

I find as soon as you describe someone as something they'll claim No True Socialist or No True Conservative because their idea about their affiliation doesn't mesh with what's being discussed.

- Doc

I cited two studies that provided detailed operational definitions. The OP refers to conventionally understood conservative sources, "The Week" arguably excepted. Conservatism is whatever self-described conservatives generally believe at any given moment in time. This includes a lengthy list of ideological resemblances that can be discussed, but most people have a grasping sense of what aligns and does not align with modern movement conservatism. Outside of Uncle Ed, I don't think there is any dispute over how those words are being used. Defining it in terms of individualism vs. authoritarianism is just off the charts wrong, and it is incumbent upon a person to make a case for such an extraordinary claim, especially in wake of the fact that modern conservatism is quite authoritarian and increasingly so in the Trumpist era. Otherwise, I think all we can do is ignore him until he's ready to support his points. (In reality, there are both individualist and authoritarian viewpoints on both the right and left parts of the traditional one-dimensional political continuum.)

No evidence was supplied that 1) Universities are dominated by socialists or 2) That socialism is self-same with fascism or 3) That any research produced by academics with positions at a university is tainted with socialist/fascist bias because of this.

Those assertions are so in your face false - like insisting that Barack Obama was a communist bent on destroying America - that encountering them doesn't require a detailed analysis anymore than we needed to have a formal Lincoln Douglas debate with someone walking around with an "The end is near" sandwich board on his back.

Uncle Ed is Gish Galloping one false assertion after another. At one point, he argued that no one [from the right] protested Obama during his two full terms, which requires a level of reality denial that if not intentional gaslighting, it might as well be. The thing is, this is far off what's being discussed. It's just part of a random rant that he must've really needed to get out. If anyone has a problem with describing the websites listed in the OP as "conservative" they can explain why. When I argued there is good evidence that there is an asymmetric cloistering among conservatives around right-wing media that is rife with propaganda and disinformation, I supplied analysis showing where that comes from and how those terms are being used.

[_subgenius]

1) Universities are dominated by socialists

check!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Mar28.html
By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.
...
The findings, by Lichter and fellow political science professors Stanley Rothman of Smith College and Neil Nevitte of the University of Toronto, are based on a survey of 1,643 full-time faculty at 183 four-year schools. The researchers relied on 1999 data from the North American Academic Study Survey, the most recent comprehensive data available.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la ... story.html
Do liberals predominate on faculties? They do. Back in 2006, sociologist Solon Simmons and I conducted a national survey of professors’ politics. Advocates of reform such as psychologist Jonathan Haidt, political scientists Jon Shields and Joshua Dunn, and New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof have used our findings to characterize college campuses as bastions of progressivism.

https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content ... r-politics

2) That socialism is self-same with fascism

should not have to beat this one to death - even the most sophomoric of intellectuals understands that these two ideologies share the same father and have negligible differences.
Both are collectivist dreams.
Both regard the state over the individual.
Both are obsessed with works projects and managing the economy.
Both see the ends as justifying the means.

3) That any research produced by academics with positions at a university is tainted with socialist/fascist bias because of this.

Maybe not as an absolute with regards to "any project", but since you favor hyperbole it seems that any rebuttal would do likewise.
nevertheless, this notion is supported by the response to (1) above and here:

Liberal bias in academia is destroying the integrity of research
https://nypost.com/2014/10/12/liberal-b ... -research/

etc...
https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content ... r-politics

(and while you may find exception with my rebuttal here, it should be noted that the rebuttal, even without conclusion, negates your assertion of "in-your-face-false")

Those assertions are so in your face false

and yet - once again - your presuppositions are proven to be, at best, hyperbole - at worst, just plain wrong - and most likely, just misinformed and biased.

[_Uncle Ed]

You are guilty of the same black and white thinking

In this thread alone you argued that college campuses are run by socialists and declared socialism the same as fascism. And this was all in the service of dismissing the content of a study because it came from academics who, unsurprisingly, work out of a prestigious university. You might want to consider the possiblity that your thinking has a itsy bitsy problem with black and white hatting issues.

And I gotta say that your equating of modern movement conservatism with radical individualism, as if it were equivalent to hardcore libertarianism, is just bananas. Like, it bears no relationship to reality whatsoever to the point that one wonders if you are even aware of US politics.

Socialism breaks into different permutations, the most unapologetic and blatant being fascism. The state own/controls all: if a paper "ownership" exists it is not anything more than a toothless legality, when State controls emasculate the "owner's" ability to use his property.

College campuses are crammed with socialist preference and thinking. I don't dismiss the content of any study. I just look at the context of it in the first place: individualists are not concerned in the first place with conducting such studies, because by nature they approach teaching and learning from a freedom standpoint and unrealistically assume (until disabused by reality/facts) that others live likewise. Foolish hubris! The control freaks are at work making it look like individualists belong to "cults" seeking to impose their religious world views on humanity and pass laws forbidding all manner of individual expression. Their moral high ground is painted as some kind of evil ignorance, based on medieval thinking and "white privilege". It is portrayed as backward and controlling of women and minorities, just because ill-fitting elements within the majority thinking behind individual rights takes that freedom and creates evil excesses like Jim Crow laws, and forms into groups like neo Nazia/KKK/et al. genuinely screwed up ideologies that pose as "conservatism". "We" don't want anything to do with them anymore than you do. But we do want Gov't to stay the heck out of our personal lives as much as is reasonably possible to promote the general welfare. We see control freaks within our education system promoting all manner of minority mentalities, most of it not moral or good in any sense of the word: and we are supposed to just let it grow like a virus? Our laws proscribed prejudice from the getgo, but battled slavery and other inequities; and the raw cruelty and prejudice of individuals down through our history. But the PRINCIPLES are clear to anyone; and those will not be betrayed with impunity by any control freaks, call themselves what they may.

I see your world view is tainted by the Medía obfuscation of terms, broad brushing all conservatives in US politics. The vast majority who elected Donald Trump are not remotely "alt right" skinheads or the like. But the Medía never misses a chance to publish the least significant story of any of those nutjobs and make it connected to the President. Ludicrous distortion! Real US politics involves a great and growing majority of voters from everywhere who have been waking up, and they won't sucker for our corrupt government and political machines misusing the language to call things by their opposite names anymore.

That is my faith. And the last year has strengthened it.

[_EAllusion]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Mar28.html
By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.


...
The findings, by Lichter and fellow political science professors Stanley Rothman of Smith College and Neil Nevitte of the University of Toronto, are based on a survey of 1,643 full-time faculty at 183 four-year schools. The researchers relied on 1999 data from the North American Academic Study Survey, the most recent comprehensive data available.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la ... story.html
Do liberals predominate on faculties? They do. Back in 2006, sociologist Solon Simmons and I conducted a national survey of professors’ politics. Advocates of reform such as psychologist Jonathan Haidt, political scientists Jon Shields and Joshua Dunn, and New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof have used our findings to characterize college campuses as bastions of progressivism.

"Liberal" is not the same as "socialist." If he said that most college campuses are largely liberal, that would've been uncontroversial.

should not have to beat this one to death - even the most sophomoric of intellectuals understands that these two ideologies share the same father and have negligible differences.

Steve Bannon and Bernie Sanders: basically the same thing - Subgenius.

Fascism is an ultra-nationalist movement focused on shared identity through restoration of the state, police state / military worship, and ethnic, political, or religious scapegoating. Its economics tend to be corporatist. Socialism focuses on public ownership of and control of economic functions. They're superficially similar in that both are collectivist, which is a point you manage to restate three times while trying to brainstorm 4 similarities to call them effectively identical.

Fascism and socialism, the mortal enemies of the 20th century, are commonly understood to be distinct things, so to try and seize the mantle of common knowledge is neat. This is a theme that leading intellectual posters on this board such as Droopy, BCSpace, and Ldsfaqs liked to return to again and again, though. Here's an example in which I replied to that reasoning:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34100

Funny how familiar my pre-Trump description of a prototypical fascist seems...

And yet another:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=22729&view=previous

Liberal bias in academia is destroying the integrity of research
https://nypost.com/2014/10/12/liberal-b ... -research/

This is an op-ed in the New York Post that points out a case of academic fraud, attributes it without evidence to a network of uncritical liberal self-reinforcement while denigrating peer review in general, points out research indicating social sciences are dominated by liberals, then offers several dubious examples of where research is tainted by liberalism because the foundation of the research contains what the author sees as liberal-friendly presuppositions. As a tell for the quality of this op-ed's thinking, the first one refers to research on climate change denial, which the author finds objectionable because the research seems to explain denialism in terms of terror-management theory. The author refers to the possibility of an ecological crisis as "modern environmentalist propaganda" rather than, you know, well established science.

Notably, what this tabloid op-ed does not do is establish a pervasive bias in academic research due to socialist (now liberal apparently) politics of the researchers, nor does it explain how one can dismiss any research that comes from an academic because that bias produces irrevocable flaws thus allowing people like subgenius and Uncle Ed to out of hand dismiss detailed research demonstrating things that make American conservative culture look bad.