First ever presidential endorsement by Scientific American

Oh, ya think?
Link to your Master's thesis=-?

STFU you low IQ internet troll muppet. I got more brains than you ever considered having, get a real job!
You know what was stressed in my family? Education and hard work. Which of those do you like?

rofl.gif


I make more than you, because I have a real job, boy.

Jesus. Is your problem that your mommy never disciplined you or that daddy hit you too hard and too often?

4fsy0y.jpg
 
America's preeminent scientific journal


Scientific American Endorses Joe Biden

We’ve never backed a presidential candidate in our 175-year history—until now

-- Science Denial, Incompetent and Disastrous Pandemic Response Tops Issues of Concern --

Scientific American has never endorsed a presidential candidate in its 175-year history. This year we are compelled to do so. We do not do this lightly.

The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the U.S. and its people—because he rejects evidence and science. The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which cost more than 190,000 Americans their lives by the middle of September. He has also attacked environmental protections, medical care, and the researchers and public science agencies that help this country prepare for its greatest challenges. That is why we urge you to vote for Joe Biden, who is offering fact-based plans to protect our health, our economy and the environment. These and other proposals he has put forth can set the country back on course for a safer, more prosperous and more equitable future.

The pandemic would strain any nation and system, but Trump's rejection of evidence and public health measures have been catastrophic in the U.S. He was warned many times in January and February about the onrushing disease, yet he did not develop a national strategy to provide protective equipment, coronavirus testing or clear health guidelines. Testing people for the virus, and tracing those they may have infected, is how countries in Europe and Asia have gained control over their outbreaks, saved lives, and successfully reopened businesses and schools. But in the U.S., Trump claimed, falsely, that “anybody that wants a test can get a test.” That was untrue in March and remained untrue through the summer. Trump opposed $25 billion for increased testing and tracing that was in a pandemic relief bill as late as July. These lapses accelerated the spread of disease through the country—particularly in highly vulnerable communities that include people of color, where deaths climbed disproportionately to those in the rest of the population.

Continued
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientific-american-endorses-joe-biden/

Damn.............

Science is a hoax, everyone knows that, even the guy trump could kill on 5th ave.........
 
All true!...according to these guys:

we-doesnt-smoke-muslimjuanas-in-muskogee-real-murkans-loves-em-some-jesus-and-meth.jpg

That is just a strange photo. I doubt either of them know what root is, much less have ever had it, but the one on the left has a shirt saying "got root?" I am guessing he picked it up at a thrift store.
 
It's good they came clean and showed political bias to the left. They have hence discredited themselves as a solely 'science publication'.

"Overall, we rate Scientific American Pro-Science and Left-Center biased based on editorial positions that favor the left."
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/scientific-american/
That is really funny that your rightwing blog complained that Scientific American is too "pro-science".

The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst."[3] The Poynter Institute notes, "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific."[5] Alexandra Kitty, in a 2018 book on journalism, described MBFC as an apparent "amateur/civic outfit" and wrote that its founder's only qualification was a degree in communications.[4] - Wiki
 
That is just a strange photo. I doubt either of them know what root is, much less have ever had it, but the one on the left has a shirt saying "got root?" I am guessing he picked it up at a thrift store.

Lots of good bargains at the Thrift Store. :)
 
It's good they came clean and showed political bias to the left. They have hence discredited themselves as a solely 'science publication'.

"Overall, we rate Scientific American Pro-Science and Left-Center biased based on editorial positions that favor the left."
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/scientific-american/
That is really funny that your rightwing blog complained that Scientific American is too "pro-science".
Thanks to Stretch for the Media bias link. It's a reputable source and, as it notes in the reference, SA drew the LW bias for it's endorsement of Biden.

The "pro-science" comment was a testament to Scientific American's reputation...which they sullied a bit by becoming political. As noted previously, it's one thing to present facts on something like climate changed, stages of growth in a fetus including conscious awareness or sexual preference in males but it's another thing to take political stances on climate change, abortion or homosexuality. Scientific American crossed the line. Whether they choose to go back is up to them, but they burned a bridge and, if they choose to do so, will have to spend several years reguilding it.

IMO, it's all about the money. Like the History channel changed from being a great source of history to being the Nazi and Space Alien channel, it's a matter of profits for stock shareholders, not educating the public.

It's why CNN has become more political and fighting with MSNBC to be the top LW News source on cable. Fox owns the RW news niche....so far.
 
That is really funny that your rightwing blog complained that Scientific American is too "pro-science".

Yes. And, then they dragged politics into it.

Analysis / Bias

In review, Scientific American is a popular science magazine and website that covers general science, technology, health, psychology, the environment, and history. There is rarely the use of loaded language and all information is properly sourced. Scientific American covers science through the consensus on GMO’s and climate change. Editorially, Scientific American is not in favor of President Trump’s climate and deregulation stances as evidenced by this: Scientific American slams Donald Trump’s anti-science rhetoric in a rare op-ed. In general, this is a pro-science source that has remained mostly neutral in politics throughout its history, however, in 2020 they state “The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the U.S. and its people—because he rejects evidence and science.” Therefore, this is a pro-science source that offers left-leaning opinions.
 
Every time I go, I always think I should go more often... And then I don't go for a few years.

I buy all the latest welding, painting and yard work attire at thrift stores. They have the latest fashions for such activities for a low, low price. After a year or so, most end up as rags for, you guessed it, welding, painting and yard work.
 
Back
Top