Academic Writing, Wikipedia
Why is Wikipedia a bad source?
Answered Last
Wikipedia is not necessarily "a bad source". The key point is that the articles consist of user-generated content. In other words, anyone with internet access can contribute to it and it is not reviewed by experts. If possible, learn to use it critically and intelligently.
Obvious things to look out for include:
Articles and sections of articles written by people with an agenda of their own, people with their own little preoccupations and obsessions, which dominate their contributions and make them one-sided and unreliable. This kind of problem is likely to be greatest with controversial topics, for example, in articles on politics, ideologies and religion. Nevertheless, some contributors may turn other, seemingly uncontroversial topics into a battlefield.
Advertising and self-promotion.
Always have a look at the discussion page(s). These should give you some idea of whether there has been a lot of heated argument about the article. Always check the content of the articles against at least one other souce.
Another Answer:
Some believe that Wikipedia is a bad source because the articles are edited by anyone. A person may go on Wikipedia and post an article that is full of false information.
The site operates off of the idea that everyone's and anyone's contributions to a topic are equally valuable, which is illogical. There is no actual way of recognizing expert knowledge over inexpert opinion. Often what constitutes "research" are search engine results and prejudice. Wikipedia runs off the notion that poor articles will eventually be edited until they become good but they are really more likely to be edited until all but the most invested loose interest and give up trying. Thus, what proclaims itself as a kind of encyclopedia is a storehouse of opinions and even propaganda.
Significantly there is a lack of any required standard of writing, error-checking and libel policies which means that many if not most Wikipedia entries are not well written and are unreliable or even flagrantly wrong.
Muleman won't answer a single question. And once again he demands others answer him. People with room temperature IQ's tend to be that way. 😛
keller,
You are so right. But since I'm a kind & giving person, I'm going to provide muleboy some reading that should pacify him. There's plenty of specifics & meat here.
___________________________-
Quoting a pro-Hillary newspaper and freely edited wikipedia? You are a joke.
I didn’t think the liberals could state any accomplishment of Hillary. It is hard to list nothing.
You are in the same position a 2008. Obama had no professional accomplishments either.
Now the People know Obama is an incompetent leader and his management skills are non-existent.The American People won’t elect another amateur. We won’t get fooled again.
Discussing politics with you is like having a meeting with junior staff. Generally right out of college they still think that what their professors told them was accurate or what they read in a newspaper is actually news.
While most of them can be broken of bad habits or ideologies that are just wrong, some cannot. The cannots usually don’t last long.You would be one of the cannots.
They have opinions of what should be but have no idea how craft a plan, sell it or implement the plan. But they do have an opinion.
You asked for detail, and you got it. Sorry it doesn't meet your approval, but facts are facts. All along I thought I was doing something good by feeding an internet troll, as others on this board have previously pointed out. So much for kind acts.
As I've stated previously, you repeat yourself like an old parrot. I've never seen anyone on this site like you who says the same things in practically every post. Your lines are stale, and I will promise myself not to lower myself anymore to respond to your minutia. Pretty soon you will be an island unto yourself, as no one will respond to you. Then you can argue with yourself.
Research, liberals style:
State Department spokeswoman can't name Hillary Clinton's diplomatic achievements ... and neither can Hillary Clinton!
1. I am not a constituent of the GOP. Unlike my fellow Conservative I do not believe the upcoming shellacking of the Democrats means the country wants Republicans. It just means the country is rightly rejecting Obama.
Good point, and I agree.
Abandoning Conservative principals has reduced them to being a protest vote. A return to Conservatism will fix that problem. Explain it, sell it, enact it....Then explain why it's working. Never let up.
[Edited on 10/21/2014 by alloak41]
Can you drill down a bit deeper & provide some level of detail on how this will work for the GOP given its view and beliefs re: social issues such as 1) a woman's right to choose, 2) birth control, 3) gay marriage, 4) equal pay for women, 5) etc.? That should get you started.
Given the current stances taken in accordance with "Conservative principals" you alluded to, it seems like social issues is an area you will have a difficult time explaining & selling to an open minded society.
I KNEW that's the first place this would go. Despite every effort to steer the conversation in that direction, I would steer it back to a discussion of more pressing issues.
Great non-answer & no different than a conservative politician trying to avoid real issues. Are you incapable of detailing that answer, or are you so myopic that you can't believe that social issues are real, pressing, and make a difference to real people and at the booth? Maybe they aren't pressing issues to you, but they are to millions of impacted voters. This is the attitude & reason why conservative politicians will probably not win a national election for years to come. Economics is only part of the equation, and conservatives believe they can sweep social issues under the rug and pretend we live in times like 100 years ago. By not talking about them does not make these conservative LIABILITY issues go away. A narrow mindset on social issues is a guaranteed losing proposition.
I don't understand where you're coming from. I've heard Liberals for years advising the GOP on how they should go about winning elections, and their main criticism is usually the Republicans focus on social issues.
But my proposal to steer away from that is also wrong? Damn, you're pretty tough to please.
My answer would be that currently we have no official position on ________ from a national perspective nor will we in the future, and even if we did issues such as same sex marriage will be decided by the individual States. As a party, we currently have no official position.
Furthermore, we are not here to pander to any particular group or segment of any political party. We have no use for identity politics or special interests. We are here to concentrate on the most pressing issues. The only group that matters to us is the American people. The American people will be first in line and special interests will be last.
Next question?
[Edited on 10/22/2014 by alloak41]
1. I am not a constituent of the GOP. Unlike my fellow Conservative I do not believe the upcoming shellacking of the Democrats means the country wants Republicans. It just means the country is rightly rejecting Obama.
Good point, and I agree.
Abandoning Conservative principals has reduced them to being a protest vote. A return to Conservatism will fix that problem. Explain it, sell it, enact it....Then explain why it's working. Never let up.
[Edited on 10/21/2014 by alloak41]
Can you drill down a bit deeper & provide some level of detail on how this will work for the GOP given its view and beliefs re: social issues such as 1) a woman's right to choose, 2) birth control, 3) gay marriage, 4) equal pay for women, 5) etc.? That should get you started.
Given the current stances taken in accordance with "Conservative principals" you alluded to, it seems like social issues is an area you will have a difficult time explaining & selling to an open minded society.
I KNEW that's the first place this would go. Despite every effort to steer the conversation in that direction, I would steer it back to a discussion of more pressing issues.
Great non-answer & no different than a conservative politician trying to avoid real issues. Are you incapable of detailing that answer, or are you so myopic that you can't believe that social issues are real, pressing, and make a difference to real people and at the booth? Maybe they aren't pressing issues to you, but they are to millions of impacted voters. This is the attitude & reason why conservative politicians will probably not win a national election for years to come. Economics is only part of the equation, and conservatives believe they can sweep social issues under the rug and pretend we live in times like 100 years ago. By not talking about them does not make these conservative LIABILITY issues go away. A narrow mindset on social issues is a guaranteed losing proposition.
I don't understand where you're coming from. I've heard Liberals for years advising the GOP on how they should go about winning elections, and their main criticism is usually the Republicans focus on social issues.
But my proposal to steer away from that is also wrong? Damn, you're pretty tough to please.
My answer would be that currently we have no official position on ________ from a national perspective nor will we in the future, and even if we did issues such as same sex marriage will be decided by the individual States. As a party, we currently have no official position.
Furthermore, we are not here to pander to any particular group or segment of any political party. We have no use for identity politics or special interests. We are here to concentrate on the most pressing issues. The only group that matters to us is the American people. The American people will be first in line and special interests will be last.
Next question?
[Edited on 10/22/2014 by alloak41]
When did you become a GOP insider? 😛
I doubt Hillary could win a presidential election. The last time she tried she lost in the primary to an amateur with no resume.
Hillary herself has no resume. She tried playing lawyer but for a few shady real estate deals and sitting on Wal-Mart’s Board of Directors she has no professional experience.
Unless of course you count attending formal dinners and making speeches, many to Wall Street firms the liberals claim they despise (except for their money).
American is currently suffering from an amateur president and has had just about enough of him.In her tenure as a U.S. Senator she, like Obama, carefully avoided taking a position on anything.
As Secretary of State she brokered no peace treaties, no trade deals and intervened in no world problems. She did manage to get our ambassador to Libya and three other Americans killed by the gross incompetence of the State Department during a terrorist attack.
How did that reset with Russia work out for us?She did dance with the natives in Papua New Guinea.
When her husband was president she did try HillaryCare but that of course blew up in her face and her husband had to sit her down (not in his lap though, that spot was taken).
The Democratic Party primary will be interesting however. Hillary Clinton has always positioned herself as a centrist like her husband. Enter Elizabeth Warren who touts herself as a far-left liberal.
The Democratic Party doesn’t know who they really are now-a-days. Let the cat fight begin.It’ll be fun to watch!
Really? please advise who the GOP has at the present who has a prayer of beating her?
X2.
Let me take a crack at your question. The answer is probably not one of the GOP candidates that can be imagined.
Now let me take a crack at a couple of muleboy's points.
Point 1 & I quote, "Hillary herself has no resume."
Response - What a factually incorrect & clueless statement.
Point 2 & I quote, "The Democratic Party doesn’t know who they really are now-a-days. Let the cat fight begin."
Response - Really muleboy, really? Are you sure you're not describing the GOP. When the GOP candidates begin their individual runs for the nomination, you will see the real inner party fighting. Like 2012, there will be many GOP candidates. Do you really expect harmony between the GOP candidates? Last time there wasn't, and I doubt that will change. If they run, look at the egos of Perry, Paul, Cruz, Christie, etc. Do you expect any one of those to take a back seat and not take pot shots at the competition?
________________________________________________________
Okay, please list her accomplishments and as you love to say, be specific
________________________________________________________
Point 2 & I quote, "The Democratic Party doesn’t know who they really are now-a-days. Let the cat fight begin."
Response - Really muleboy, really? Are you sure you're not describing the GOP. When the GOP candidates begin their individual runs for the nomination, you will see the real inner party fighting. Like 2012, there will be many GOP candidates. Do you really expect harmony between the GOP candidates? Last time there wasn't, and I doubt that will change. If they run, look at the egos of Perry, Paul, Cruz, Christie, etc. Do you expect any one of those to take a back seat and not take pot shots at the competition?
____________________________________________________You obviously follow the Democratic Party talking points.
When you have nothing, attack the GOP with unintelligible rants.The Hillary camp is already attacking Elizabeth Warren. The Elizabeth Warren camp is already attacking Hillary. Why such dissent in the Democratic Party.
All the GOP candidates, if and when they announce, will be tight with the conservative policies that America is crying for to be put into law. You will see the proof on Nov. 4th.
Back to Hillary: list her accomplishments and as you love to say, be specific.
Translating your answer : the GOP currently has no candidates with a chance of beating Hillary in. 2016.
I doubt Hillary could win a presidential election. The last time she tried she lost in the primary to an amateur with no resume.
Hillary herself has no resume. She tried playing lawyer but for a few shady real estate deals and sitting on Wal-Mart’s Board of Directors she has no professional experience.
Unless of course you count attending formal dinners and making speeches, many to Wall Street firms the liberals claim they despise (except for their money).
American is currently suffering from an amateur president and has had just about enough of him.In her tenure as a U.S. Senator she, like Obama, carefully avoided taking a position on anything.
As Secretary of State she brokered no peace treaties, no trade deals and intervened in no world problems. She did manage to get our ambassador to Libya and three other Americans killed by the gross incompetence of the State Department during a terrorist attack.
How did that reset with Russia work out for us?She did dance with the natives in Papua New Guinea.
When her husband was president she did try HillaryCare but that of course blew up in her face and her husband had to sit her down (not in his lap though, that spot was taken).
The Democratic Party primary will be interesting however. Hillary Clinton has always positioned herself as a centrist like her husband. Enter Elizabeth Warren who touts herself as a far-left liberal.
The Democratic Party doesn’t know who they really are now-a-days. Let the cat fight begin.It’ll be fun to watch!
Really? please advise who the GOP has at the present who has a prayer of beating her?
X2.
Let me take a crack at your question. The answer is probably not one of the GOP candidates that can be imagined.
Now let me take a crack at a couple of muleboy's points.
Point 1 & I quote, "Hillary herself has no resume."
Response - What a factually incorrect & clueless statement.
Point 2 & I quote, "The Democratic Party doesn’t know who they really are now-a-days. Let the cat fight begin."
Response - Really muleboy, really? Are you sure you're not describing the GOP. When the GOP candidates begin their individual runs for the nomination, you will see the real inner party fighting. Like 2012, there will be many GOP candidates. Do you really expect harmony between the GOP candidates? Last time there wasn't, and I doubt that will change. If they run, look at the egos of Perry, Paul, Cruz, Christie, etc. Do you expect any one of those to take a back seat and not take pot shots at the competition?
________________________________________________________
Okay, please list her accomplishments and as you love to say, be specific
________________________________________________________
Point 2 & I quote, "The Democratic Party doesn’t know who they really are now-a-days. Let the cat fight begin."
Response - Really muleboy, really? Are you sure you're not describing the GOP. When the GOP candidates begin their individual runs for the nomination, you will see the real inner party fighting. Like 2012, there will be many GOP candidates. Do you really expect harmony between the GOP candidates? Last time there wasn't, and I doubt that will change. If they run, look at the egos of Perry, Paul, Cruz, Christie, etc. Do you expect any one of those to take a back seat and not take pot shots at the competition?
____________________________________________________You obviously follow the Democratic Party talking points.
When you have nothing, attack the GOP with unintelligible rants.The Hillary camp is already attacking Elizabeth Warren. The Elizabeth Warren camp is already attacking Hillary. Why such dissent in the Democratic Party.
All the GOP candidates, if and when they announce, will be tight with the conservative policies that America is crying for to be put into law. You will see the proof on Nov. 4th.
Back to Hillary: list her accomplishments and as you love to say, be specific.
Translating your answer : the GOP currently has no candidates with a chance of beating Hillary in. 2016.
____________________________________
No translation needed. There are no declared candidates for the 2016 Presidential Election.
Currently there are no candidates period, including Hillary Clinton.
We are here to concentrate on the most pressing issues. The only group that matters to us is the American people. The American people will be first in line and special interests will be last.
What Party is this?
Seriously Alloak the Republican Party has never come close to that statement in word and certainly not in deed.
Why do you support a Party that does not embrace your ideal?
Currently there are no candidates period, including Hillary Clinton.
True. But when the first one declares in either party, the circus will be in town. Stock up on the popcorn.
Currently there are no candidates period, including Hillary Clinton.
Sure but you and Mule are in denial if you think Hillary will not run and be the runaway Dem nominee.
Care to make a friendly wager?
It is 2 years until the election. Declaring now would just make the candidate a target until others jumped into the fray.
We are here to concentrate on the most pressing issues. The only group that matters to us is the American people. The American people will be first in line and special interests will be last.
What Party is this?
Seriously Alloak the Republican Party has never come close to that statement in word and certainly not in deed.
Why do you support a Party that does not embrace your ideal?
I was answering another poster what I would do from my standpoint. Read the exchange at 21:48. I'm not saying that's how things are now in reality. Not yet, anyway.
I hate the ceaseless roar of the next Presidential election.
How is it that freedom of choice boils down to 179 different brands of toilet paper, 47 brands of hemorrhoid cream, and just two ar$e holes for President?
I was answering another poster what I would do from my standpoint. Read the exchange at 21:48. I'm not saying that's how things are now in reality. Not yet, anyway.
I realized that. I'm just saying that no Party strives for the ideal you represent. It there were on that did represent that ideal I'd join.
I think the two Partys are the problem with American politics. I see you supporting the Republican Party and don't know why. I'm surprised you aren't a registered Independent.
I was answering another poster what I would do from my standpoint. Read the exchange at 21:48. I'm not saying that's how things are now in reality. Not yet, anyway.
I realized that. I'm just saying that no Party strives for the ideal you represent. It there were on that did represent that ideal I'd join.
I think the two Partys are the problem with American politics. I see you supporting the Republican Party and don't know why. I'm surprised you aren't a registered Independent.
1. Thank you.
2. I'm not a big fan of the Republicans right now, but they still come closer to representing my political views than the Democrats. I'd like to see a viable third alternative come along. Until then, though, I have to settle for the best I can get.
1. I am not a constituent of the GOP. Unlike my fellow Conservative I do not believe the upcoming shellacking of the Democrats means the country wants Republicans. It just means the country is rightly rejecting Obama.
Good point, and I agree.
Abandoning Conservative principals has reduced them to being a protest vote. A return to Conservatism will fix that problem. Explain it, sell it, enact it....Then explain why it's working. Never let up.
[Edited on 10/21/2014 by alloak41]
Can you drill down a bit deeper & provide some level of detail on how this will work for the GOP given its view and beliefs re: social issues such as 1) a woman's right to choose, 2) birth control, 3) gay marriage, 4) equal pay for women, 5) etc.? That should get you started.
Given the current stances taken in accordance with "Conservative principals" you alluded to, it seems like social issues is an area you will have a difficult time explaining & selling to an open minded society.
I KNEW that's the first place this would go. Despite every effort to steer the conversation in that direction, I would steer it back to a discussion of more pressing issues.
Great non-answer & no different than a conservative politician trying to avoid real issues. Are you incapable of detailing that answer, or are you so myopic that you can't believe that social issues are real, pressing, and make a difference to real people and at the booth? Maybe they aren't pressing issues to you, but they are to millions of impacted voters. This is the attitude & reason why conservative politicians will probably not win a national election for years to come. Economics is only part of the equation, and conservatives believe they can sweep social issues under the rug and pretend we live in times like 100 years ago. By not talking about them does not make these conservative LIABILITY issues go away. A narrow mindset on social issues is a guaranteed losing proposition.
I don't understand where you're coming from. I've heard Liberals for years advising the GOP on how they should go about winning elections, and their main criticism is usually the Republicans focus on social issues.
But my proposal to steer away from that is also wrong? Damn, you're pretty tough to please.
My answer would be that currently we have no official position on ________ from a national perspective nor will we in the future, and even if we did issues such as same sex marriage will be decided by the individual States. As a party, we currently have no official position.
Furthermore, we are not here to pander to any particular group or segment of any political party. We have no use for identity politics or special interests. We are here to concentrate on the most pressing issues. The only group that matters to us is the American people. The American people will be first in line and special interests will be last.
Next question?
[Edited on 10/22/2014 by alloak41]
Well alloak, I'm one liberal that would never advise GOP candidates on how they should go about winning elections. For the most part & with the exception of some checks & balances of having GOP representation, I feel the GOP platform, social agenda, & policies are detrimental to the American people. But I strongly believe that a strategy of obfuscation is disingenuous.
You stated & as to your suggestion of "As a party, we currently have no official position" and all that you articulated in that paragraph. My response is that, as a course of action is pure avoidance of the GOP belief. If the party is against things, then have the guts to take these conservative beliefs to the American people & explain why the party is against (in one shape or form) my list of social issues such as 1) a woman's right to choose, 2) birth control, 3) gay marriage, 4) equal pay for women, 5) etc. Campaign on these ideas & try to convince the American public 1) why a woman's choice is not a good thing & why the states should be closing down abortion centers, 2) why equal pay for women is not right, 3) why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, etc, etc. etc. Be proud of the conservative ideology & try to win votes on this ideology. The "no official position" is false & misleading. It is geared toward running away from the party beliefs, hiding the ideology, and not standing up for the conservative angle on issues. It is tantamount to attempting to garner votes without being upfront with what the party stands for on issues.
1. I am not a constituent of the GOP. Unlike my fellow Conservative I do not believe the upcoming shellacking of the Democrats means the country wants Republicans. It just means the country is rightly rejecting Obama.
Good point, and I agree.
Abandoning Conservative principals has reduced them to being a protest vote. A return to Conservatism will fix that problem. Explain it, sell it, enact it....Then explain why it's working. Never let up.
[Edited on 10/21/2014 by alloak41]
Can you drill down a bit deeper & provide some level of detail on how this will work for the GOP given its view and beliefs re: social issues such as 1) a woman's right to choose, 2) birth control, 3) gay marriage, 4) equal pay for women, 5) etc.? That should get you started.
Given the current stances taken in accordance with "Conservative principals" you alluded to, it seems like social issues is an area you will have a difficult time explaining & selling to an open minded society.
I KNEW that's the first place this would go. Despite every effort to steer the conversation in that direction, I would steer it back to a discussion of more pressing issues.
Great non-answer & no different than a conservative politician trying to avoid real issues. Are you incapable of detailing that answer, or are you so myopic that you can't believe that social issues are real, pressing, and make a difference to real people and at the booth? Maybe they aren't pressing issues to you, but they are to millions of impacted voters. This is the attitude & reason why conservative politicians will probably not win a national election for years to come. Economics is only part of the equation, and conservatives believe they can sweep social issues under the rug and pretend we live in times like 100 years ago. By not talking about them does not make these conservative LIABILITY issues go away. A narrow mindset on social issues is a guaranteed losing proposition.
I don't understand where you're coming from. I've heard Liberals for years advising the GOP on how they should go about winning elections, and their main criticism is usually the Republicans focus on social issues.
But my proposal to steer away from that is also wrong? Damn, you're pretty tough to please.
My answer would be that currently we have no official position on ________ from a national perspective nor will we in the future, and even if we did issues such as same sex marriage will be decided by the individual States. As a party, we currently have no official position.
Furthermore, we are not here to pander to any particular group or segment of any political party. We have no use for identity politics or special interests. We are here to concentrate on the most pressing issues. The only group that matters to us is the American people. The American people will be first in line and special interests will be last.
Next question?
[Edited on 10/22/2014 by alloak41]
Well alloak, I'm one liberal that would never advise GOP candidates on how they should go about winning elections. For the most part & with the exception of some checks & balances of having GOP representation, I feel the GOP platform, social agenda, & policies are detrimental to the American people. But I strongly believe that a strategy of obfuscation is disingenuous.
You stated & as to your suggestion of "As a party, we currently have no official position" and all that you articulated in that paragraph. My response is that, as a course of action is pure avoidance of the GOP belief. If the party is against things, then have the guts to take these conservative beliefs to the American people & explain why the party is against (in one shape or form) my list of social issues such as 1) a woman's right to choose, 2) birth control, 3) gay marriage, 4) equal pay for women, 5) etc. Campaign on these ideas & try to convince the American public 1) why a woman's choice is not a good thing & why the states should be closing down abortion centers, 2) why equal pay for women is not right, 3) why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, etc, etc. etc. Be proud of the conservative ideology & try to win votes on this ideology. The "no official position" is false & misleading. It is geared toward running away from the party beliefs, hiding the ideology, and not standing up for the conservative angle on issues. It is tantamount to attempting to garner votes without being upfront with what the party stands for on issues.
While it's true that a certain segment of Conservatives is pre-occupied with social issues, it's hardly representative of the entire group. Personally, I could care less about social issues. Plus, we've already made it clear that the GOP will not pander to any segment of any party moving into the future. The only group that matters is the American people. How is that dishonest? We've pretty much spelled it out. And we will have no official position moving forward.
Despite the fact that we will have already spelled it out clearly, are political campaigns grounded in honesty in the first place? Please.
If the evangelical wing of the party is upset at this, we will explain to them that you'll NEVER get everything you want in a political candidate, in a political party, much less life in general. The party is moving in a different direction, and we're confident are that you still feel what we have to offer is better than the alternative.
(All hypothetical, of course, and my comments on this topic are based on what I would do if I was leading the GOP -- and actually trying to WIN)
The Democrats have found a point of vulnerability with these social stances, and constantly use them to paint Conservatives as mean, old fashioned, uncool, "hating" this or that, ect. My plan would start to take that vulnerability away and leave the argument with nowhere to go.
1. I am not a constituent of the GOP. Unlike my fellow Conservative I do not believe the upcoming shellacking of the Democrats means the country wants Republicans. It just means the country is rightly rejecting Obama.
Good point, and I agree.
Abandoning Conservative principals has reduced them to being a protest vote. A return to Conservatism will fix that problem. Explain it, sell it, enact it....Then explain why it's working. Never let up.
[Edited on 10/21/2014 by alloak41]
Can you drill down a bit deeper & provide some level of detail on how this will work for the GOP given its view and beliefs re: social issues such as 1) a woman's right to choose, 2) birth control, 3) gay marriage, 4) equal pay for women, 5) etc.? That should get you started.
Given the current stances taken in accordance with "Conservative principals" you alluded to, it seems like social issues is an area you will have a difficult time explaining & selling to an open minded society.
I KNEW that's the first place this would go. Despite every effort to steer the conversation in that direction, I would steer it back to a discussion of more pressing issues.
Great non-answer & no different than a conservative politician trying to avoid real issues. Are you incapable of detailing that answer, or are you so myopic that you can't believe that social issues are real, pressing, and make a difference to real people and at the booth? Maybe they aren't pressing issues to you, but they are to millions of impacted voters. This is the attitude & reason why conservative politicians will probably not win a national election for years to come. Economics is only part of the equation, and conservatives believe they can sweep social issues under the rug and pretend we live in times like 100 years ago. By not talking about them does not make these conservative LIABILITY issues go away. A narrow mindset on social issues is a guaranteed losing proposition.
I don't understand where you're coming from. I've heard Liberals for years advising the GOP on how they should go about winning elections, and their main criticism is usually the Republicans focus on social issues.
But my proposal to steer away from that is also wrong? Damn, you're pretty tough to please.
My answer would be that currently we have no official position on ________ from a national perspective nor will we in the future, and even if we did issues such as same sex marriage will be decided by the individual States. As a party, we currently have no official position.
Furthermore, we are not here to pander to any particular group or segment of any political party. We have no use for identity politics or special interests. We are here to concentrate on the most pressing issues. The only group that matters to us is the American people. The American people will be first in line and special interests will be last.
Next question?
[Edited on 10/22/2014 by alloak41]
Well alloak, I'm one liberal that would never advise GOP candidates on how they should go about winning elections. For the most part & with the exception of some checks & balances of having GOP representation, I feel the GOP platform, social agenda, & policies are detrimental to the American people. But I strongly believe that a strategy of obfuscation is disingenuous.
You stated & as to your suggestion of "As a party, we currently have no official position" and all that you articulated in that paragraph. My response is that, as a course of action is pure avoidance of the GOP belief. If the party is against things, then have the guts to take these conservative beliefs to the American people & explain why the party is against (in one shape or form) my list of social issues such as 1) a woman's right to choose, 2) birth control, 3) gay marriage, 4) equal pay for women, 5) etc. Campaign on these ideas & try to convince the American public 1) why a woman's choice is not a good thing & why the states should be closing down abortion centers, 2) why equal pay for women is not right, 3) why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, etc, etc. etc. Be proud of the conservative ideology & try to win votes on this ideology. The "no official position" is false & misleading. It is geared toward running away from the party beliefs, hiding the ideology, and not standing up for the conservative angle on issues. It is tantamount to attempting to garner votes without being upfront with what the party stands for on issues.
While it's true that a certain segment of Conservatives is pre-occupied with social issues, it's hardly representative of the entire group. Personally, I could care less about social issues. Plus, we've already made it clear that the GOP will not pander to any segment of any party moving into the future. The only group that matters is the American people. How is that dishonest? We've pretty much spelled it out. And we will have no official position moving forward.
Despite the fact that we will have already spelled it out clearly, are political campaigns grounded in honesty in the first place? Please.
If the evangelical wing of the party is upset at this, we will explain to them that you'll NEVER get everything you want in a political candidate, in a political party, much less life in general. The party is moving in a different direction, and we're confident are that you still feel what we have to offer is better than the alternative.
(All hypothetical, of course, and my comments on this topic are based on what I would do if I was leading the GOP -- and actually trying to WIN)
The Democrats have found a point of vulnerability with these social stances, and constantly use them to paint Conservatives as mean, old fashioned, uncool, "hating" this or that, ect. My plan would start to take that vulnerability away and leave the argument with nowhere to go.
I don't believe your last paragraph is accurate. The Dems. haven't "found a point of vulnerability with these social issues". There is an expression that goes - don't fight a fact...deal with it. The fact of the matter is that the conservative / GOP ideology is what it is...narrowly focused, exclusionary, injecting religion into politics, attempting to control people's lives based upon social ideology. It is a vulnerability of your own making.
Your suggestion as stated is, "My plan would start to take that vulnerability away and leave the argument with nowhere to go." So you want to disguise reality & not own up to who you are? And you think that will make the vulnerability hidden? If you believe in your principles, you should be proud and run on these instead of running away from them.
The Democrats have found a point of vulnerability with these social stances, and constantly use them to paint Conservatives as mean, old fashioned, uncool, "hating" this or that, ect. My plan would start to take that vulnerability away and leave the argument with nowhere to go.
Are you saying you would de-emphasize the social issues in favor of economic issues? I don't think you have said that you would change the actual positions on those issues, but rather just not talk about them. And that, as I said earlier, is a recipe for failure IMO. The only way to "take that vulnerability away" would be to take a different position.
I said it before and I'll say it again....Chris Christie is the ONLY chance for Republicans, but they will be too stubborn to nominate him for being too moderate. I don't think he could beat Hillary but it'd be close. I love Christie and he would get my vote. While I may not agree with all of his politics, I trust that he can get sh*t done, instead of the gridlock we see now. If Hillary gets elected, we'll see the same BS by Republicans blocking every single thing she tries to do, just out of spite, while the only ones who suffer are the American people. Politics as usual I guess.
I agree that Christie would be a great candidate AND probably a competent and effective president. I hope he runs and I disagree that he has no chance. There is no obvious front runner this year. It is a myth that the GOP nominates hard core right wingers. They nominate middle of the road conservatives who are tarred as far right wingers by the Democratic party. Just as the Democrats used to be tarred as far left extremists back in the Republican salad days. Sooner or later a good straight talking Republican candidate will thread the needle as Clinton did back in 92 and the Democrats will not get away with it. Given the likely hangover after 8 years of Democratic misrule, I think Christie could get the nomination AND win the presidency.
If he went to North Dakota and got the Bakken oil money people behind him, he could win. He also represents many of the people in the Midwest with his straight forward, don't sugar coat it points of view. He tells it like it is, people like that. If he helps the farmers out in those other states there, he could be a formidable candidate. Down with Chinese GMO corn!
Fox News to young women: Don’t worry about voting, just focus on your Tinder profile
On Tuesday’s edition of “The Five,” Fox News host Kimberly Guilfoyle suggested that young women, who apparently lack important conservative wisdom, should just go ahead and excuse themselves from voting in the midterms. According to Guilfoyle and her co-hosts, females of a certain age just “don’t get it,” which should probably disqualify them from serving on juries, or from exercising a crucial constitutional right they gained less than a century ago.
“It’s the same reason why young women on juries are not a good idea,” Guilfoyle said. “They don’t get it. They’re not in that same life experience of paying the bills, doing the mortgage, kids, community, crime, education, healthcare. They’re like healthy and hot and running around without a care in the world.”
He tells it like it is, people like that. If he helps the farmers out in those other states there, he could be a formidable candidate. Down with Chinese GMO corn!
I lived in Iowa for 3 and a half years. There are not that many farmers. Lots of machinery and some really big farms but not a lot of people working those farms. The folks that own those farms spend a lot of money getting folks elected.
Isn't ConAgra an American company? Don't they grow GMO corn?
Fox News to young women: Don’t worry about voting, just focus on your Tinder profile
On Tuesday’s edition of “The Five,” Fox News host Kimberly Guilfoyle suggested that young women, who apparently lack important conservative wisdom, should just go ahead and excuse themselves from voting in the midterms. According to Guilfoyle and her co-hosts, females of a certain age just “don’t get it,” which should probably disqualify them from serving on juries, or from exercising a crucial constitutional right they gained less than a century ago.
“It’s the same reason why young women on juries are not a good idea,” Guilfoyle said. “They don’t get it. They’re not in that same life experience of paying the bills, doing the mortgage, kids, community, crime, education, healthcare. They’re like healthy and hot and running around without a care in the world.”
LOL, And the GOP wonders why women don't vote for them.
So much for changing the culture of the GOP party to win back the minority and poor voters. If this guy is the GOP's great white hope for 2016 I think they are in even bigger trouble then I thought. If Hillary runs it could be one of the biggest landslide victories in Election history.
White House, New Jersey residents slam Gov. Christie over his minimum wage dismissal
Fox News to young women: Don’t worry about voting, just focus on your Tinder profile
On Tuesday’s edition of “The Five,” Fox News host Kimberly Guilfoyle suggested that young women, who apparently lack important conservative wisdom, should just go ahead and excuse themselves from voting in the midterms. According to Guilfoyle and her co-hosts, females of a certain age just “don’t get it,” which should probably disqualify them from serving on juries, or from exercising a crucial constitutional right they gained less than a century ago.
“It’s the same reason why young women on juries are not a good idea,” Guilfoyle said. “They don’t get it. They’re not in that same life experience of paying the bills, doing the mortgage, kids, community, crime, education, healthcare. They’re like healthy and hot and running around without a care in the world.”
LOL, And the GOP wonders why women don't vote for them.
Because of a remark by one TV commentator? Good grief.
[Edited on 10/23/2014 by alloak41]
Fox News to young women: Don’t worry about voting, just focus on your Tinder profile
On Tuesday’s edition of “The Five,” Fox News host Kimberly Guilfoyle suggested that young women, who apparently lack important conservative wisdom, should just go ahead and excuse themselves from voting in the midterms. According to Guilfoyle and her co-hosts, females of a certain age just “don’t get it,” which should probably disqualify them from serving on juries, or from exercising a crucial constitutional right they gained less than a century ago.
“It’s the same reason why young women on juries are not a good idea,” Guilfoyle said. “They don’t get it. They’re not in that same life experience of paying the bills, doing the mortgage, kids, community, crime, education, healthcare. They’re like healthy and hot and running around without a care in the world.”
LOL, And the GOP wonders why women don't vote for them.
Because of a remark by one TV commentator? Good grief.
[Edited on 10/23/2014 by alloak41]
Fox News is the voice of the GOP. Just another example of the conservative thought process and why they lost the female vote.
Fox News to young women: Don’t worry about voting, just focus on your Tinder profile
On Tuesday’s edition of “The Five,” Fox News host Kimberly Guilfoyle suggested that young women, who apparently lack important conservative wisdom, should just go ahead and excuse themselves from voting in the midterms. According to Guilfoyle and her co-hosts, females of a certain age just “don’t get it,” which should probably disqualify them from serving on juries, or from exercising a crucial constitutional right they gained less than a century ago.
“It’s the same reason why young women on juries are not a good idea,” Guilfoyle said. “They don’t get it. They’re not in that same life experience of paying the bills, doing the mortgage, kids, community, crime, education, healthcare. They’re like healthy and hot and running around without a care in the world.”
LOL, And the GOP wonders why women don't vote for them.
Because of a remark by one TV commentator? Good grief.
[Edited on 10/23/2014 by alloak41]
Fox News is the voice of the GOP. Just another example of the conservative thought process and why they lost the female vote.
_____________________________________________
Then why is Fox News the most watched (by far) and the most trusted news network on cable/satellite TV?
Fox News to young women: Don’t worry about voting, just focus on your Tinder profile
On Tuesday’s edition of “The Five,” Fox News host Kimberly Guilfoyle suggested that young women, who apparently lack important conservative wisdom, should just go ahead and excuse themselves from voting in the midterms. According to Guilfoyle and her co-hosts, females of a certain age just “don’t get it,” which should probably disqualify them from serving on juries, or from exercising a crucial constitutional right they gained less than a century ago.
“It’s the same reason why young women on juries are not a good idea,” Guilfoyle said. “They don’t get it. They’re not in that same life experience of paying the bills, doing the mortgage, kids, community, crime, education, healthcare. They’re like healthy and hot and running around without a care in the world.”
LOL, And the GOP wonders why women don't vote for them.
Because of a remark by one TV commentator? Good grief.
[Edited on 10/23/2014 by alloak41]
Fox News is the voice of the GOP. Just another example of the conservative thought process and why they lost the female vote.
_____________________________________
"The Five" is an opinion show, not a hard news show.
You seem unable to tell the difference.
You must be a MSNBC devotee.
Fox News to young women: Don’t worry about voting, just focus on your Tinder profile
On Tuesday’s edition of “The Five,” Fox News host Kimberly Guilfoyle suggested that young women, who apparently lack important conservative wisdom, should just go ahead and excuse themselves from voting in the midterms. According to Guilfoyle and her co-hosts, females of a certain age just “don’t get it,” which should probably disqualify them from serving on juries, or from exercising a crucial constitutional right they gained less than a century ago.
“It’s the same reason why young women on juries are not a good idea,” Guilfoyle said. “They don’t get it. They’re not in that same life experience of paying the bills, doing the mortgage, kids, community, crime, education, healthcare. They’re like healthy and hot and running around without a care in the world.”
LOL, And the GOP wonders why women don't vote for them.
Because of a remark by one TV commentator? Good grief.
[Edited on 10/23/2014 by alloak41]
Fox News is the voice of the GOP. Just another example of the conservative thought process and why they lost the female vote.
_____________________________________________
Then why is Fox News the most watched (by far) and the most trusted news network on cable/satellite TV?
First let me ask what that has to do with what I posted?
Then I have to ask watched by whom? you think gays, young women, and minorities that don't vote for the GOP actually waste their time watching Fox news?
