National Review devoted a full article to explaining why Donald Trump, unlike Mitt Romney (who supported abortion and Obamacare), George W. Bush (who grew the federal government more than any president since Lyndon B. Johnson) and Marco Rubio (who supports illegal immigration) is not a true conservative.
The article is full of energy and enthusiasm. It is easy to see why National Review is a hit among young people.
Glenn Beck has an article explaining how you can develop a stronger masculine identity by scamming old people and crying on TV.
Erik Erickson has an article chastising America’s youth for engaging in sinful conduct such as gluttony and self-indulgence.
John Podhoretz, who inherited a once-successful (now failing) magazine from his father, writes about the importance of masculine self-reliance.
Donald Trump is in big trouble.
Demographics are destiny, and here are some fascinating reader demographics from National Review.
- 50% of its readers are over 66 years old.
- Only 5% of its readers are 25 or younger.
Anyone who has looked at an actuary table knows National Review has been living off of rich GOP donors rather than readers. National Review keeps moving the goal post to define conservatism as, “Whatever our sugar daddy tells us conservative means.”
I’d like to see a full accounting from both NR and its staff writers.
Who pays for their staff writers lunches, dinners, and vacations?
Who keeps NR operating?
Hint: It’s the same GOP elite who wanted Jeb Bush in office and who now want Rubio in office.
National Review is a propaganda pamphlet funded by globalists who look down on real Americans.
National Review is a globalist organization, and its latest power play has already backfired in hilarious ways.