Why do you think reason.com is a POS site? It’s a libertarian news site, so you’re going to get a mix of articles pro-democrat policy, and pro-republican policy but from a different perspective. I go there occasionally to see what they are up to, and while I find they’re kind of repetitive, I wouldn’t label them as a POS.
Wisdom and Aphorisms from President Trump: Great Leader, Great Teacher, Great Supreme Commander, Great Helmsman of our Nation
Reason has a mix of reasonable (hurrr) articles, and total trash.
They are one of the better right-ish sites out there. They are at least somewhat consistent, and will post against things like civil asset forfeiture.
They have their issues, but are at least one can discuss on a reasonable basis on.
I mean, I get that, just why in THAT way? Who does that work on? It’s like the dumbest, weirdest thing to do. Go hug the flag? It’s totally bizarre.
He’s an infantile man-child and a con. He has golden toilets because he thinks that’s how rich people live. He hugs flags because he thinks that’s what patriotism means. He’s just an utter moron… and somehow people elected him president. My only conclusion is there’s a lot of morons out there, and that’s who it works on I suppose.
He is a poor man’s idea of a rich man.
Heard this quote recently on Ana Maria Cox’s insightful podcast discussing the relationship between Trump and the women in his life.
Edit to add: Short answer, Koch money. More details in link below and one highlight.
Reason Foundation Called Out for Blocking Action on Climate Change
In July of 2016, nineteen U.S. Senators delivered a series of speeches denouncing climate change denial from 32 organizations with links to fossil-fuel interests, including the Reason Foundation. Sen. Whitehouse (D-RI), who led the effort to expose “the web of denial” said in his remarks on the floor that the purpose was to,
"shine a little light on the web of climate denial and spotlight the bad actors in the web, who are polluting our American discourse with phony climate denial. This web of denial, formed over decades, has been built and provisioned by the deep-pocketed Koch brothers, by ExxonMobil, by Peabody coal, and by other fossil fuel interests. It is a grim shadow over our democracy in that it includes an electioneering effort that spends hundreds of millions of dollars in a single election cycle and threatens any Republican who steps up to address the global threat of climate change. . . . [I]t is long past time we shed some light on the perpetrators of this web of denial and expose their filthy grip on our political process. It is a disgrace, and our grandchildren will look back at this as a dirty time in America’s political history because of their work.”
Reason covers a lot more than climate change. It seems misguided to just discount then entirely because they disagree with you on a single policy position.
I know nothing about Reason, but is it a policy position or outright lying about climate change?
Like any magazine or think tank, they have lot of different people who focus on different policies.
For instance, the guess working about police abuse aren’t necessarily the same guys writing about climate change regulations.
“Reasonable people can disagree about whether the only planet we have available should remain hospitable to human life”?
I mean, reasonably, we should all be hair-on-fire focused on this issue.
I had no idea there were so many immigrants on Duke’s campus…/s
thisX 11 million
At least we can comfort ourselves on being right while the world burns =/
I went in & did a search on climate and reading about 5-6 articles in the past 6 months, nothing jumped out at me other than they don’t like the new green deal. They admit it’s a problem, but are not embracing that solution.
So, I’m not seeing anything recent. It very well may be that in 2016 when Sheldon Whitehouse and other senators brought attention to this, it might have worked to tone them down.
In any regards, thanks for the heads up. I’ll be abit more scrutinizing in the future knowing past events.
I don’t really think that’s a good way to think about climate change. If Reason was e.g. pro-slavery, I wouldn’t say it’s misguided to discount them over one policy position. Would you?
Again, Reason isn’t a person. It’s a whole bunch of different writers and academics.
Granted, but if the reasonable ones don’t boot the other ones, they all get the same fleas. Association is free, but not free of consequence.