First ever presidential endorsement by Scientific American

zymurgy said:
in 2016 they made the same claim -

in 2012 as well

in 2007 they faulted both parties - but the GOP was "the real problem"

sorry shit stain - your partisan rag was outed
Click to expand...

And yet they didn't make an actual endorsement. You lose. Again.

What's it like? Being such a dunce?
 
zymurgy said:
you can try to make this historic all you want - but the fact is every 4 years they politicize the magazine and say things to try to help democrats at the expense of republicans
Click to expand...

Still dodging and tap dancing.

The job of Scientific American is to stand up for the interests of science. Regardless of political party.

The magazine wrote Opinion articles critical of Obama

Obama’s Science Legacy: Uneven Progress on Scientific Integrity

U.S. agencies have adopted stronger policies but have not always followed them

Many researchers who watched Barack Obama’s inauguration in 2009 were thrilled by his pledge to “restore science to its rightful place”. But scientists and legal scholars say that, in many ways, Obama has failed to live up to that lofty promise.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...gacy-uneven-progress-on-scientific-integrity/
Click to expand...

The question you keep dodging is this:

Scientific American's formal presidential endorsement is unprecedented in it's 175 year history.

Plenty of Republicans and conservatives have run for Prez before now, but the magazine did not deem it necessary to issue a formal endorsement.

What is it about the dim-witted, science-denying, pandemic-mishandling Trump that caused the magazine to issue a formal presidential endorsement for the first time in almost two centuries?
 
Cypress said:
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/
Click to expand...

A ONCE GREAT, NOW CONSTANLY DEBUNKED, LEFTIST, PSEUDO-SCIENCE JOURNAL....DESPERATE FOR SOME "CLIMATISTA CASH" FROM A BIDEN ADM...ALA SOLYNDRA...




Scientific American media bias rating is Lean Left.


AllSides changed Scientific American's media bias from Center to Lean Left in June 2020 following an independent review from an AllSides editor. The editor found that many Scientific American articles are written from the perspective of critical race theory, a widely debated foundation for academic study and critical thought typically associated with left-wing academics and commentators. The editor noted numerous articles in which SciAm revealed an ideological slant toward critical race theory, including a piece that claims that concerns about obesity in African American women "reflects the racist stigmatization of black women’s bodies." Another article proclaimed, "Why Racism, Not Race, Is a Risk Factor for Dying of COVID-19," and another spoke of the "weaponization of medical language [that] reinforced white supremacy at the torment of Black Americans." Articles like this seem to indicate SciAm has adopted writers with a strong bent toward critical race theory, a movement and collection of activists and scholars engaged in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power. Critical race theory begins with the view that race is the predominant structural element of American (and other) societies, and its merits as a foundation for objective scientific study have been widely criticized and debated. Critical race theory is typically associated with the American left.



https://www.allsides.com/news-source/scientific-american



"BIRDS OF A FEATHER"...
 
Last edited:
Jerome said:
LOL, shut up. You don't even know how water boils.
Click to expand...

You know Jerome, fake scientists like Domer and others have learned what I know the hard way. Want to give it a shot? You will find out quickly that GED is still not working for you.
 
zymurgy said:
you believe everything you are told? They claim it was about Covid - but was already anti Trump before he did anything
Click to expand...

Trump seems to be unaware of the difference between evidence-based truth and self-serving falsehood. The choice between the two is purely a matter of convenience for him.

This was abundantly clear "before he did anything", i.e. by 2016 at the latest. May I suggest that the prospect of having such a person as POTUS was what bothered Scientific American then, and still does, regardless of politics. Doesn't it bother you?
 
Tranquillus in Exile said:
Trump seems to be unaware of the difference between evidence-based truth and self-serving falsehood. The choice between the two is purely a matter of convenience for him.

This was abundantly clear "before he did anything", i.e. by 2016 at the latest. May I suggest that the prospect of having such a person as POTUS was what bothered Scientific American then, and still does, regardless of politics. Doesn't it bother you?
Click to expand...

statistical science shows us that the BLM movement is a bunch of lies

why is that not a factor here? the democrats are is very much anti science when they claim systemic racism and use police violence as evidence

this is a partisan rag - no more, no less
 
zymurgy said:
statistical science shows us that the BLM movement is a bunch of lies

why is that not a factor here? the democrats are is very much anti science when they claim systemic racism and use police violence as evidence

this is a partisan rag - no more, no less
Click to expand...

LOL!

A. The Dems aren't anti-science
B. The Dems aren't claim that police violence as the only evidence for systemic racism.
C. Do you EVER post here when sober?
 
zymurgy said:
statistical science shows us that the BLM movement is a bunch of lies

why is that not a factor here? the democrats are is very much anti science when they claim systemic racism and use police violence as evidence

this is a partisan rag - no more, no less
Click to expand...

8890051.jpg
 
Cypress said:
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/
Click to expand...
This just in. Scientific American in 175 years have been smart enough to stay out of politics and not piss off half of their subscribers. The current editors just aren’t that smart.
 
zymurgy said:
statistical science shows us that the BLM movement is a bunch of lies
Click to expand...

I really believe that if Trump thought he could hold the presidency by championing BLM, he would do it like a shot. But of course he knows his supporters better than that.

He is a man of no principles and no respect for truth - perhaps no understanding of either of those concepts. If America gives him a second term in the White House, it will deserve what it gets.
 
Tranquillus in Exile said:
I really believe that if Trump thought he could hold the presidency by championing BLM, he would do it like a shot. But of course he knows his supporters better than that.

He is a man of no principles and no respect for truth - perhaps no understanding of either of those concepts. If America gives him a second term in the White House, it will deserve what it gets.
Click to expand...

Sooo, you are saying Democrats champion BLM because they know their supporters are not to bright?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top