First ever presidential endorsement by Scientific American

[Noking]

Sooo, you are saying Democrats champion BLM because they know their supporters are not to bright?

Popeye, anyone who supports a lying clown the likes of Donald Trump isn't too bright.

 

[Sailor]

Here Trumpet. Here gender confused dog. Good it. Sit. Come when I call.

 

[Nordberg]

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.

No, the conditions warranted them stepping out. They worry about the environment and science. Trump has no clues about them.

 

[Noking]

Here Trumpet. Here gender confused dog. Good it. Sit. Come when I call.

What's your problem Popeye, you keep repeating the same dumb line after line?????????????

 

[Nordberg]

Democrats contacted Herman Cain's family in 2012..and threatened them. He would have made a good president.

I certainly would have picked him over Romney.

Cain was nuts so I bet you would like him.

 

[Sailor]

Cain was nuts so I bet you would like him.

That sounds racist Nordberg.

 

[domer76]

Democrats contacted Herman Cain's family in 2012..and threatened them. He would have made a good president.

I certainly would have picked him over Romney.

Sure they did.

No need to now. He’s fucking dead after attending an indoor Trump rally, unmasked.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

If you hate scientists, then trump is looking pretty good right now. If you are normal, trump is a disgrace.

Translation: "If you hate black people, vote for Trump!"

Yes, Trump is a fucking moron but spreading lies because the Liar-in-Chief does it isn't the best way to win votes, sir.

 

[ExpressLane]

No, the conditions warranted them stepping out. They worry about the environment and science. Trump has no clues about them.

No they are just too stupid to realize its dumb for them to turn political.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Explain why, until this year, the venerable Scientific American has never endorsed a presidential candidate in 175 years

Sorry, but that it is extremely sad to me that Scientific American would become political. You and any intelligent person should know why.

While I'm on the topic of negativity, in the interest of truth and honesty, please don't ban assholes. Have the courage and belief in the honesty of good people to know they can spot the fucking morons without your censorship.

God Bless!

 

[zymurgy]

No, the conditions warranted them stepping out. They worry about the environment and science. Trump has no clues about them.

As I have proven - they have stepped out and been partisan since atleast 2007. They always use the same language - "we really hate doing this - but every 4 years we do"

 

[T. A. Gardner]

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



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?

It is the dimwitted elitist scientific quacks in academia and elsewhere driving this. Trump is no more or less qualified in a scientific sense than Biden or Harris. The one thing that differentiates them is that Trump clearly doesn't automatically accept what science advisors tell him, unlike Biden - Harris say they will do. I think that skepticism is a good thing and that scientific opinions should be listened to but not automatically accepted.

 

[domer76]

no - it isn't

2016 - "Donald Trump’s Lack of Respect for Science Is Alarming"

2012 - " Indeed, in this election cycle, some 236 years after Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence, several major party contenders for political office took positions that can only be described as “antiscience”: against evolution, human-induced climate change, vaccines, stem cell research, and more. A former Republican governor even warned that his own political party was in danger of becoming “the antiscience party.”

2007 - same ol shit


you are a joke

Where are the endorsements, you illiterate fucking moron?

 

[domer76]

LOL, shut up. You don't even know how water boils.

He is the Stupidest Motherfucker on the Forum. A pile of steaming shit has better comprehension skills than that moron.

 

[zymurgy]

Where are the endorsements, you illiterate fucking moron?

that is semantic shit

2007, 2012, 2016, and 2020 they verbally chastised one party

they are a liberal rag. they do this every 4 years - and even try to play it up as something that is so unusual for them.

you either are stupid and fall for or like to play around with the same bullshit because winning and power trumps honesty for you

 

[domer76]

that is semantic shit

2007, 2012, 2016, and 2020 they verbally chastised one party

they are a liberal rag. they do this every 4 years - and even try to play it up as something that is so unusual for them.

you either are stupid and fall for or like to play around with the same bullshit because winning and power trumps honesty for you

Semantics, my ass, moron.

Criticizing a party and an official endorsement of a candidate are two different things altogether.

Give it up, fool, before you embarrass yourself further.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Because quite frankly, politics has invaded science and the science in many fields is no longer "good" science but rather tainted with political ends in mind. You can find this is virtually every issue of SA today.

This right here.

LOL, shut up. You don't even know how water boils.

He is the Stupidest Motherfucker on the Forum. A pile of steaming shit has better comprehension skills than that moron.

T. A. is a lot more right than wrong as evidenced by the OP.

Notice which side introduced ad hominems first. That's why I'm voting against them.

 

[Guno צְבִי]

It is the dimwitted elitist scientific quacks in academia and elsewhere driving this. Trump is no more or less qualified in a scientific sense than Biden or Harris. The one thing that differentiates them is that Trump clearly doesn't automatically accept what science advisors tell him, unlike Biden - Harris say they will do. I think that skepticism is a good thing and that scientific opinions should be listened to but not automatically accepted.

lol good thing you sucked of the government tit for over 20 years as you couldn't have hacked it in college

 

[zymurgy]

Semantics, my ass, moron.

Criticizing a party and an official endorsement of a candidate are two different things altogether.

Give it up, fool, before you embarrass yourself further.

when it comes to a magazine becomes a partisan rag - it makes no difference

you tried, you failed.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

lol good thing you sucked of the government tit for over 20 years as you couldn't have hacked it in college

He's a Navy Chief, dude. He's earned that much respect even when I disagree with him when he's clearly wrong.

FWIW, government money paid my dad through the US Army for my entire 18 years as a military dependent, including my dad's two tours in Vietnam. Then the government supplemented my own military career of 21 years. In fact, due to my years in service to our nation, I'm collecting a military pension. Like with Chief T.A., not a single cent was given to either of us unless we earned it.

If you want to condemn the RW assholes for attacking military veterans as Trump has often done, I'll back you 100%, sir. Right is right.