Sentences with phrase «side of the political debate»

No side of the political debate is happy with him.

It is fundamentally authoritarian - whichever side of the political debate it is on and whoever it is directed towards.

Groups that often find themselves on opposite sides of political debates have come together this year to oppose a constitutional convention in New York.

Both sides of the political debate naturally found ammunition...

To ban one side of a political debate from making its case is to condemn them in advance, denying them an opportunity to speak in their own defense.

«increasing levels of shrillness on both sides of the political debate, with the «warm side» steeped in moral panic and hyperbole»

Not exact matches

Both politicians are in need of a big political wins and both sides of this debate have continued to dig in their heels.

What will it mean for both sides in this debate — at least as it takes place among believers, in and for the church — to move beyond political ideologies and culture wars and stand together under God's word of law and gospel?

As the divine right monarchy came increasingly in the eighteenth century to defend its positions on the grounds of administrative reason and enlightened reform, the discourse of those resisting its rule also relied less on traditional religious appeals and more on secular ones, but the religious roots of all sides of the political and social debate were only obscured, never severed.

This recent ruling has global media commentators on all sides of the political aisle debating whether this issue is an affront to religious freedom or a victory to protect the foreskins of young male babies around the world.

Taney's application of the due process clause to the power of Congress was not entirely a new one; it had recently been used by both sides in the political debate.

With access to the strategists and opinion - makers on both sides of the political divide, The Battle for Britain goes straight to the heart of the great debate, providing an incisive, authoritative and occasionally trenchant guide to the most dramatic constitutional question of our times.

The debate over Scotland's future has, especially recently, served up the incongruous (and unromantic) image of a nation of «bean - counters» basing its decision about independence on the expected profitability of either outcome, yet calculating this expectation (on either side) off the back of political and economic assumptions that resemble nothing so much as declarations of blind fear or faith.

She offered a much more powerful and exciting sense of the possibilities of political life than I was getting, even from the communitarians in the liberal - communitarian debate, and certainly more so than the liberals, who are less committed to the public side of politics.

With barely a year since John Dramani Mahama lost the 2016 elections, there has been heated debates from both sides of the political divide over whether or not the defeated president will consider contesting the 2020 presidential race.

It surrounds our political debate every day, on both sides of the Atlantic.

That is a very different sort of smear, of a type that New Labour has in my view tended to favour over the years and one that has become, I think, more common on all sides as political debate has become less and less philosophically agonistic and more and more about branding.

Unfortunately the two sides can't ignore one another forever: financial markets have a habit of imposing themselves into the political debate.

ITV will also host a two - hour referendum debate on June 9th, airing at 8 pm, though political figures from both sides of the Brexit argument have yet to be announced.

«There aren't any of the political heavy weights that you find in this battle on the pro side, at least that I know of so far,» said Blair Horner of the New York Public Interest Research Group, which is remaining neutral in the con - con debate

In the end, despite eloquent reasoning between both sides of the lengthy Parks and Recreation debate, votes fell along political lines, with advocates of keeping Steve Noble's job representing the Noble faction on the common council, and the refuseniks hailing from «Team Gallo.»

ALBANY, N.Y. (WBEN / AP)-- Corruption and a rigged political system are battle cries of both sides in a debate over whether New Yorkers should vote this fall to rewrite the state constitution.

That is the issue of concern, and it matters little which side wins the debate since our political system is so badly broken.

I can understand why a politician says the science is settled — as Barack Obama did... in the State of the Union Address, where he said the «debate is over» — because if your mission is to create a political momentum then it helps to brand the other side as a «Flat Earth Society» (as he did last June).

I would rather spend my time on site that are hearing from voices on many spectrums: mainstream papers that have top - notch science coverage and a climate focus, or open - minded debates between environmentalists on both sides of the political arena.

What is at issue is not an interest in the public's understanding of the science, but their attachment to sides in the political «debate».

The more clearly the political right is identified with the anti-science side of this debate, the harder it will be to salvage any of its existing institutions.

> One side stands to lose a massive amount of influence in the public debate, whereas the other side is potentially ascendant (to the extend that this issue continues to have political saliency).

One side stands to lose a massive amount of influence in the public debate, whereas the other side is potentially ascendant (to the extent that this issue continues to have political saliency).

What's scary is that the side of this debate that is wrong, and that is wrong in a way that will very probably lead to worldwide disaster in a few generations, is taken seriously because it is the side taken by one of America's two dominant political parties.

For a bunch of wonky government regulations, the newly proposed EPA rule for existing power plants, announced yesterday, has inspired heated debate from both sides of the political spectrum — the most rabid, naturally, coming from the far right.

But both sides of the «debate» use personal attacks because they work [just like attack - adds in political campaigns], so are both guilty.

Remember: the goal of political debate is not to establish scientific truth, or even to establish which side is closer to it, but to triumph in the realm of public opinion and public policy.

But ironically, that only reinforces the main theme that I post on: (1) political ideology is largely determinative in how people align themselves in the climate debate and, (2) being that most posters at Climate Etc. are on the «skeptical» side of the debate, this site is solid evidence that rudeness and closed - mindedness (as represented by accusations of trollhood and thread - jacking) is equally well - represented on both sides of the climate debate.

It has nothing to do with law and order and everything to do with using the force of law to silence the other side in a decidedly unsettled political debate.

Whatever side of the debate you are on, you have to admire their political ambition.

Skeptical Science is a typical example of activists with a political axe to grind, whose real function is to chill debate by slandering those on the wrong side of the issue, trying to keep their papers out of the literature, etc..

On the plus side, countries like Britain now have something like a «mainstream» politics of climate — mainstream in the sense that the major political parties compete in pledging their commitment to green growth, and the issue is extensively debated in the news media.

It's only one side of the debate that is social and political costs for their views.

I thought Judith was a bit nutz when she posted a few psychological papers, but the political side of the political - science debate requires quite a bit of subject.

Instead, a positive reading of the right could have entailed a duty on the Council's side to facilitate a debate on questions of exceptional political significance, through the provision of highly relevant information that it holds on the matter.

The IRA is an organization affiliated with the Russian government that's known for creating fake online identities and entering into both sides of divisive political debates, according to allegations from FBI Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller.