Science Proves Republicans Are More knowledgeable Than Democrats.

Jump to Last Post 1-4 of 4 discussions (56 posts)
  1. Readmikenow profile image95
    Readmikenowposted 8 months ago

    https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/14356173_f1024.jpg
    t's not me saying this...it is research that confirms what I already knew.  Read the article.


    “According to whom?  None other than the Pew Research Center, a left-of-center organization.  Moreover, Pew’s latest survey only reaffirms previous surveys demonstrating the same result. 
    In fact, the results weren’t even close.”

    http://www.cfif.org/v/index.php/comment … O0u2eHM3Ow

    1. crankalicious profile image91
      crankaliciousposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Your link goes to a survey from 2012 that refers to a study done in 2010. I didn't see the conclusions in that study that your link seems to suggest. Did you even read the original study or did you just believe the link without seeing if their conclusion was true? However, here's a more recent survey from Pew:

      https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 … esearch-c/

      Here's another interesting survey that suggests that both parties are wrong about each other:

      https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/de … democrats/

      1. Readmikenow profile image95
        Readmikenowposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        I realize the article was written in 2012.  Haven't found anything that controverts it.

        Your first study shows Democrats have more education than Republicans.  With the liberal indoctrination centers we refer to as higher education centers today, I'm not surprised.  To me, that proves nothing.

        The other study you provided is a link to a survey covering what one party knows about the other.  Doesn't deal with being more knowledgeable.

        I maintain my position nothing has changed since the pew survey was done.  I believe the behavior of Democrats and liberals only prove that point.

        I do respect you providing backup information to make your point. Too many people do not do such a thing.

      2. promisem profile image96
        promisemposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        It's another classic example of propaganda by a right-wing website.

        The actual 2012 survey from Pew says: "Overall, Republicans on average answered 8.7 items correctly, no different than Democrats (8.6) and independents (8.7)."

        https://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-conte … elease.pdf

        By the way, the owner of cfif.org is anonymous.

        https://whois.icann.org/en/lookup?name=cfif.org

        1. Randy Godwin profile image89
          Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          Naw! Mike doesn't post misleading stuff on the forums!  lol Did you see his obviously misleading poster claiming over 3000 terrorists were apprehended at the southern border?  Classic!  roll

          1. Readmikenow profile image95
            Readmikenowposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            Randy, I hate to inform you but that wasn't me claiming it, that was from the Department of Homeland Security.  You may not realize this but they do keep records.  I suggest you go to Google and type in "Department of Homeland Security Immigrant Statistics." Then press enter.  The website for the Department of Homeland Security will come up.  Click on it.  There are many PDS files that show the statistics on the meme I provided.  Some of them provide links to excel files.  You will then see how accurate the meme is in terms of statistics.

            That is called research.  Those are called statistics.  Read them and realize you are wrong.  It's not complicated.

            Waiting.

          2. promisem profile image96
            promisemposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            smile

        2. Readmikenow profile image95
          Readmikenowposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          Your first link in not the survey mentioned in the story.  It is dated 2013 and the article was written in 2012. 

          How could that happen?

          Nice try.

          1. promisem profile image96
            promisemposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            The "article" is the most recent version I could find of the Pew survey that you cite.

            The older 2010 survey doesn't even have the quote from the blog that makes the claim about it.

            I hope you share my concern that we should link to credible sources and not use anonymous blogs.

            1. Readmikenow profile image95
              Readmikenowposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              I agree, but I also believe it is counter productive and weakens your position when you post links that do not apply. 

              I'm like you.  You post a link I will click on it and check it out.  We are both alike in that way.

              1. promisem profile image96
                promisemposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                The link applies because it is the most recent version of the survey and because neither it nor the older one back up the cfif.org article.

                I'm glad you agree about using credible sources.

              2. Randy Godwin profile image89
                Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                How much research did you do on that poster meme, Mike?  cool

                1. Readmikenow profile image95
                  Readmikenowposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  I checked it out just like I told you how to check it out.  DHS website has so much information.  I suggest taking a look.  Unless you think they are making up their statistics...then there is no hope.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image89
                    Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    Yes, they're same ones who said there has never been a foreign terrorist apprehended at the southern border, Mike. Your namesake, with a surname of Pence,  has stated several times over 3,000 terrorists were caught there. Untrue , of course. \I suggest you search websites with credibility instead of wasting your time trying to justify what you want to believe.

                    Or do you admit your meme was misleading? Do tell! Was that poster on the DHS website?

        3. GA Anderson profile image92
          GA Andersonposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          Promisem, I don't disagree with you comment, so there is no attack here.

          But, holy cow! Will you get off of this anonymous site ownership thing. I have seen you repeatedly use it to denigrate a source.  I pay extra to keep my sites' ownership information anonymous.  I am not CNN or some big corporation, but does that mean I have no credibility? I happen to think that in a couple niches I have very credible credentials.

          Do you realize that without that "protection" your personal, (at least in the case of individual ownership), phone number and address are available to anyone that searches for it? I get almost weekly calls from two old blogs I started -- without paying for anonymity -- wanting to know if I will buy their antiques or if I sell such and such wines.

          This anonymity thing is getting tedious. If you want to attack the sources, there must be better ways than looking for an ownership name. If that were the criteria, your only valid sources would be corporately owned.

          GA

          1. Randy Godwin profile image89
            Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            Bull cookies, GA! I trust no anonymous sources unless they're vetted by known sources. No wonder you ride the fence so expertly!!!

            1. GA Anderson profile image92
              GA Andersonposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              Randy, my first thought was that you have to be kidding. But, my second thought was that you would only accept a paid-for-view corporate  source as legitimate.

              So have at it. By your thinking there are no independent credible sources, only those of corporate or monied ownership.

              I think you are wrong. But that is just an opinion. I don't think you need monied support to be credible.

              And.. do you really think this has anything to do with "riding fences?"

              I think it has everything to do with you grabbing for straws. I can't imagine anything I said having to do with your "fences" comment., so why make it?

              How about this Randy, if my thought on anonymity is so wrong, how about posting you phone number and address here, now. You do want to establish your credibility don't you? You wouldn't want us to think you don't stand behind your claims do you?


              GA

              1. promisem profile image96
                promisemposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                Again, legitimate website businesses post their business contacts and not their personal contacts.

                Anonymous owners do so to hide their funding sources, i.e., Russians.

                Your personal blog is not nearly the same as a business, foundation, political or most other types of sites

              2. Randy Godwin profile image89
                Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                My phone # is 229 460 2581 and my address is 546 North Union Rd. Lenox, GA 31637.


                Send me a note or call me. Makes no difference to me, GA.  I'm not anonymous, nor do I want to be considered afraid to stand behind my opinions. How about you?

                1. GA Anderson profile image92
                  GA Andersonposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  Hmm... Do you think I hide behind anonymity Randy?

                  Well damn! That really was your number! You are a braver soul than I.

                  GA

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image89
                    Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    As I said over the phone GA, I'm not afraid for people to know who I am and what I stand for. Anyone who wants to find me is welcome to do so. However, where I live the circumstances will allow any stranger to be known long before they arrive at my home. I ain't stupid!  tongue

            2. promisem profile image96
              promisemposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              What, you don't believe what you read on anonymous propaganda sites?

              Of course they wouldn't deceive you.  smile

            3. GA Anderson profile image92
              GA Andersonposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              Good for you Randy, trust is a good thing. How you come by that trust is an important thing.

              GA

              1. promisem profile image96
                promisemposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                And yet you trust an anonymous site?

                Would you give your credit card information to a site without knowing who owns it or whether government agencies can oversee the legality of their operations?

                "Wouldn't it be reassuring to feel confident you know what you are talking about?" - Gus A. Anderson

          2. PrettyPanther profile image83
            PrettyPantherposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            I'm with you, except with regard to news sites.

            1. GA Anderson profile image92
              GA Andersonposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              On that I agree.

              GA

            2. promisem profile image96
              promisemposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              Remember the yellow pages? Businesses listed their business phones and not the home phones of the owners.

              Web publishing is no different. Imagine trying to buy something from a site and not knowing who owns it or where it came from.

              1. GA Anderson profile image92
                GA Andersonposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                Well damn promisem, Yellow pages?

                Take a look at Sole Proprietor business registration info and consider your statement.

                You seem to place a lot of faith in appearances. I would look more at substance.

                Brietbart is incorporated, and their Whois information is business information, so you trust them right?

                GA

                1. promisem profile image96
                  promisemposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  Do you have a point about the yellow pages? Hard to tell.

                  Anonymous is substance but declaring ownership is only appearances?

                  I don't trust the content of Breitbart because the content is propaganda.

                  I don't trust the ownership because it won't list any business contacts in its site registration.

                  "Wouldn't it be reassuring to feel confident you know what you are talking about?" - Gus A. Anderson

                  1. GA Anderson profile image92
                    GA Andersonposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    Does it matter where the substance comes from if it can be validated promisem?

                    Do you automatically accept Fox News content, or CNN content as authoritative because the presenter, (business), can be identified?

                    GA

            3. GA Anderson profile image92
              GA Andersonposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              Think about that PrettyPanther. Fox News is also a news site. I am with Reagan on this one; "Trust but verify"

              GA

              1. promisem profile image96
                promisemposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                Trust something that is anonymous? Exactly how do you verify an anonymous business?

                "Wouldn't it be reassuring to feel confident you know what you are talking about?" - Gus A. Anderson

                1. GA Anderson profile image92
                  GA Andersonposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  Do you need to identify, [ADDED: validate], the business or the content? Is it more important to identify, [ADDED: validate], the business than the content?

                  GA

          3. promisem profile image96
            promisemposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            It's not an attack, BUT ...

            Come on, GA. I dont understand why you defend right-wing propaganda sites.

            Do you really want HP readers to think these anonymous  sites are legitimate?

            Holy cow back at you.

            By the way, that privacy comment has no basis in reality. Professional websites post their business contact information and not their home information.

            Your personal blog is not close to being the same thing.

            1. GA Anderson profile image92
              GA Andersonposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              Now where did you get that I was defending "right-wing propaganda sites?"

              And do you really think all anonymous -- as in owner's personal information not available -- sites are automatically bogus?

              And to your by-the-way... I am not talking about personal blogs. (although the two I mentioned - before I wised-up, were personal blogs).

              I am not a corp. entity, I am a sole proprietor, so my business information required for site registration is my personal information. So yes promisem, that comment was based on reality.

              If I ever get successful enough to warrant incorporation, then your point would be correct - my contact info would not be my private info. Does that mean you only trust incorporated business entities?

              Somehow I get the feeling that your use of "personal blog" is a negative inference. Why don't you check out my two main sites and see if they fit your description of personal blogs.

              Wouldn't it be reassuring to feel confident you know what you are talking about?

              GA

              1. promisem profile image96
                promisemposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                All of my posts about anonymous sites are in the context of questionable political and government information.

                So yes, by defending their anonymity, you are defending anonymous right-wing blogs. Once again, you somehow see this as a personal attack when it has nothing to do with you.

                No, all anonymous sites aren't automatically bogus. They are simply less trustworthy.

                No again, I don't trust only incorporated business entities. I'm a sole proprietor who knows how to publish online and does so for a living. It takes virtually no money and no effort to create separate business contact information.

                No for the third time -- the distortions of my comments are getting "tedious" to use your own word. A personal blog is not a negative.

                Strange that someone who has worked full time in the online industry for decades knows a lot less about online publishing than someone who has a camping website.

                "Wouldn't it be reassuring to feel confident you know what you are talking about?" - Gus A. Anderson

                1. GA Anderson profile image92
                  GA Andersonposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  That is twisting path you have taken promisem.

                  I spoke against automatically assuming anonymity was a bad thing, and you have taken it to the point of me supporting  "anonymous right-wing blogs."

                  But, to that other private registration thing. In an effort to be confident I knew what I was talking about, I went looking at business registrations and registration info to see how I could do what you say; register my domains with business info instead of my private info.

                  Not much luck. I checked CNN.com and their registrant contact info was: Domain Name Manager, and their contact number was to Domain Name Manger Service desk. But, their organization name was listed as Turner Broadcasting System, Inc..  So I suppose that was an identifier. But it is also the same organization name for TCM.com. *shrug

                  Then I checked Foxnews.com, and their registrant contact name was: Intellectual Property Department, (maybe an internal department of Fox News?) *shrug But, like CNN their organization name was: Fox News Network, LLC, so you are right that was an identifier.

                  I checked a couple others, with similar results. An organization name was an identifier, but contact names and numbers were generally some type of service name and number.

                  So, although I could add an organization name to my domain info, since I am not successful enough to have my own in-house, or contracted domain management services, my personal data would still be public.

                  Since you mentioned decades of online experience with this, what I found didn't leave me confident I know what I am talking about. How did you register your domains with business information only?

                  One last note: I also checked Hubpages.com and it appears they are as anonymous as my site is. Their registrant name is: On behalf of hubpages.com owner, and their organization name is: Whois Privacy Service, (the same domain privacy service I use) Also, their registrant contact number was to Whois Privacy Service. So HP is an anonymous site with anonymous authors, like My Esoteric. Doesn't sound like a credibility booster to me. Yet, I still trust Hubpages.

                  Google couldn't help me find a way to be more transparent in my registration information without using an in-house department or other domain service like Fox and CNN used. Looks like maybe Hubpages isn't big enough for that either.

                  I really would like to find a way to do what you said you do, if you would share how.

                  GA

                  "Wouldn't it be reassuring to feel confident you know what you are talking about?" - Gus A. Anderson

                  1. GA Anderson profile image92
                    GA Andersonposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    Oops.

  2. Aime F profile image82
    Aime Fposted 8 months ago

    Vast majority of scientists believe that man-made climate change is real and is a problem:  THE SCIENCE IS IMPERFECT!

    One survey finds that Republicans know more than Democrats about some stuff:  SCIENTIFIC PROOF!

    1. Readmikenow profile image95
      Readmikenowposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      I don't think the vast majority of scientists believe man-made climate change is real.  If it was real...ALL scientists would believe in it. Again, it's not about belief in science, it is proof. Many scientist can't express themselves freely about this and be honest because they will be relentlessly attacked.  Here is a good balance of 10 scientists who believe in it and 10 who don't.

      https://thebestschools.org/features/top … cientists/

      Yeah, if you believe in man-made climate change, that should be enough proof Republicans know more than Democrats.

      1. Aime F profile image82
        Aime Fposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        “If it was real then all scientists would believe in it”

        That’s not how it works. Scientists are still human beings and not all of them will agree on every topic regardless of how much evidence there is to support it. Take vaccines for example. You can look through a journal database and find 10,000 articles with evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of vaccines. But then you’ll find one that argues those other 10,000. Then you’ll find 10,000 more. And then another one that argues those.

        If a scientist publishes solid research there will be nothing to “relentlessly attack”. I’d cite my credentials on this topic but I got them at a university and I know you see higher education as liberal mind-control bootcamp so there’s no point. You will always find a way to explain away things that you don’t like.

        1. Readmikenow profile image95
          Readmikenowposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          "That’s not how it works. Scientists are still human beings and not all of them will agree on every topic regardless of how much evidence there is to support it."

          Can we agree there are certain scientific theories that ALL scientist agree?  Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity comes to mind.  Newton had a few scientific theories that are considered settled science.

          Do you want to know my biggest problem with climate change?  There has been more than one incident of false data being believed as fact.  At this point I don't know if there is accurate data available.  That is not science.

          Here's an interesting article about the IPCC.

          https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/ … s-prove-it

          Yeah, I don't care about your credentials.  I say the same thing to my relatives who have PhDs, are lawyers, doctors and more.  Citing your education just tells me I'm right and you can't prove I'm wrong...so they beat their chest and say "Look at my education, I can't be wrong."  I tell them your education doesn't make you right, it just makes them unable to admit when they're wrong.

          1. Aime F profile image82
            Aime Fposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            I don’t think I can agree with that, no.  There are critics for everything. Doesn’t mean they have a leg to stand on but they do it anyway because an overwhelming consensus from the scientific community comes second to validating their own beliefs.

            It’s not about beating my chest it’s about providing a source for the information I’m sharing, similar to providing a source for something you might find online. It’s not saying “look how smart I am” it’s saying “I’ve spent a lot of time learning about this subject at the hands of qualified individuals.”

            I’d also like to point out that my example was never about claiming that climate change had been proven. Just that a vast majority of scientists feel there is enough evidence to support it, and it’s still dismissed easily by the right. Meanwhile you find one study that makes you feel special and are ready to declare it hard science.

            My point was that people take a shred of evidence for something they want to be true and present it as a fact while ignoring heaps of evidence for something they disagree with.

            1. Readmikenow profile image95
              Readmikenowposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              "My point was that people take a shred of evidence for something they want to be true and present it as a fact while ignoring heaps of evidence for something they disagree with"

              This is true. I can't argue with it. 

              There are a number of climate scientists who disagree on global warming being caused by man.  What about them?  Should the be dismissed? 

              Here's a Forbes article from 2013.  Has much changed is the past 5 years?

              https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylo … ng-crisis/

              1. Aime F profile image82
                Aime Fposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                That’s actually a really interesting article, thanks for sharing.

                I don’t identify as a climate change alarmist. Based on this article I’d say I’m mostly a “Regulation Activist” in that I don’t think climate change is strictly man-made but I think we definitely play a role. I am not however skeptical that it’s cause for concern.

                Ultimately if someone thinks climate change is bulltoot but they still see the importance in being kind to the planet we inhabit then I don’t really care.

                Climate change was just the first thing that came to mind when I was trying to be funny about your standards on what counts as reliable science. wink

                1. Readmikenow profile image95
                  Readmikenowposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  "bulltoot"...I love it.  You made me laugh.  That's funny.

                  There are times it is fun to post certain things and just watch what response it receives. 

                  Hope you have a good day.

              2. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                It's interesting that so many scientists are taking the view that the warming is natural and expected.  I think this is the result of our puny lifespans; we don't truly "get" the time scale that the earth operates on.

                The Great Barrier Reef, for instance, is bleaching out (dying) because of warming temperatures and predators.  The reef that took eons to grow is disappearing right before our eyes.  But the reef is only about 8,000 years old (multiples of the age of "civilization"); an eye blink compared to the age of the earth.

                Same for the Atlantic current that regulates the temperature of much of the world.  I see articles decrying that it is the slowest it has been in 1,000 or 1,600 years - again, just an eye blink in the history of the world.

                We live on a changing earth, but our memories are so short (as is our own history here) that we can't imagine anything but a static earth, unchanging.  It is not so.

  3. GoldenRod LM profile image96
    GoldenRod LMposted 8 months ago

    Great you posted this. For years I have listened to Democrats blast Republicans for being stupid. I have also listened to professors peddling the same stuff. I have read other studies to the contrary.
    Have you noticed how the left couches its words to the point of saying nothing, but making it sound like conservatives are bad juju?
    The education system in this country perpetuates the mythology. Now to listen to the left news and pols criticize the president's address.

  4. Live to Learn profile image83
    Live to Learnposted 8 months ago

    I stopped trusting surveys years ago when I read one claiming liberals were better at arm wrestling. Come to find out, they'd just gone by the outcome of a match at the G7 summit between Obama and Shinzo Abe. I said it didn't prove anything. Obama was stone cold sober and Abe had been drinking rice wine through most of that day's summit.

    Read between the lines folks. Surveys prove the point the people controlling the surveys want to prove.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)