First ever presidential endorsement by Scientific American

[Dutch Uncle]

I’m saying that Trump knows the great majority of his supporters will condemn BLM out of hand, with no argument required.

Here is the 10-point plan set out by BLM in 2015 to help address abuses by US police forces. Which of these points are wrong?

1. End “broken windows” policing, which aggressively polices minor crimes in an attempt to stop larger ones.
Remember Eric Garner who was choked to death in 2014 after being accused of selling loose cigarettes?

2. Use community oversight for misconduct rather than having the police department decide what consequences officers should face.
BLM asks for an independent body to review all cases of misconduct.

3. Standardize the procedure for reporting police use of deadly force.
BLM wants to standardize the reporting procedure and make the whole process more transparent.

4. Independently investigate and prosecute police misconduct.
Similar to #2. If a cop shoots someone, someone other than the cops should consider if the shooting was lawful.

5. Have the ethnic makeup of police departments reflect the communities they serve.
Self explanatory but probably utopian.

6. Require officers to wear body cameras.
Already implemented in many forces. The problem starts when it comes to when and why an officer can turn the camera off.

7. Provide more training for police officers.

8. End for-profit policing practices.
‘Civil Forfeiture’ - the police can legally take any property they claim is linked to a crime and use the property as they see fit, even if no one is convicted of the crime.

9. End the police use of military equipment.
Big guns + body armor = scared citizens.

10. Implement police union contracts that hold officers accountable for misconduct.
The police need unions to protect their rights, but the unions should play their part in weeding out bad apples. As things stand, they don’t.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34023751


Consider the Clam.

1. Nothing wrong with a "broken window" policy. There is a lot wrong with choking a petty criminal to death. The two are not inextricably linked.

2. The community oversight is from the city council, mayor, etc. I agree a bit more sunshine and clarification of procedures should be addressed. One aspect is funding and rules on body cams.

3. Agreed.

4. Agreed, although I think that's often done with state oversight. If not, then states should implement it.

5. I think that exists in most areas. The main problem is the pool of applicants and that goes back to access to education. If a cop is required to have a HS degree and pass a written exam on math, reading and comprehension, it's difficult for a person who is barely literate or poorly educated to pass the exam. This impacts job applicants for everyone. Amazon can have a job fair for 30,000 new employees, but the ones who are semi-literate will be at the bottom of the list. IMO, disparity in education is one of biggest problems facing our nation and is the fundamental problem in creating a larger pool of qualified workers in all fields.

6. Agreed. That's funding. Defunding the police isn't going to fix that. Better to review funding of police and other agencies.

7. Agreed. That's back to funding again.

8. Agreed. That is wrong in many different ways. Find a better system.

9. It depends because Democrats call anything that's green or is a weapon "military". Obama's "get weapons of war off our streets" including every gun on the market.

10. Agreed, but that varies by city. States need greater oversight. Additionally, one reason those contracts are so inflated is because politicians running of office often offer big Christmas presents to police, firemen and other city workers as a bribe for their endorsement. Stop allowing government employee endorsing politicians, and that may slow down or stop.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

The impending book burning won't affect that publication's readership at all. They don't even know what that mag looks like, let alone subscribe.

Just another gesture that will have no effect. Smart people telling smart people not to vote for a criminal idiot won't accomplish anything.

Exactly. We subscribers made up our minds long ago. Guess who we do not support? lol

 

[zymurgy]

Stop digging, idiot. You’ll see China soon. And you know what they have! No wait, they controlled their COVID problem.

you are confused.

my digging is just pointing out how you are an idiot easily fooled by shiny things

 

[Yakuda]

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

Because they used to be a supposedly objective scientific magazine. The media was supposedly objective too but as we've seen they have rid themselves of that "burden" and now instead of reporting the news they want to make the news. I think this magazine has just decided like the media to stop pretending.

 

[Cypress]

Because they used to be a supposedly objective scientific magazine. The media was supposedly objective too but as we've seen they have rid themselves of that "burden" and now instead of reporting the news they want to make the news. I think this magazine has just decided like the media to stop pretending.

So for the magazine's first 172 years - through both Republican and Democratic administrations - the magazine was non partisan, and only supposedly became partisan in the last 3 years?

It dies not sound like a credible excuse.

It actually sounds like something you pulled out of your ass

You know what sounds more credible?

That a science advocacy magazine would be horrified that Donald Trumpf thinks global warming is a Chinese hoax, and alarmed that Trumpf cannot lead a national response to a pandemic and has squandered U.S. leadership on the control of infectious diseases.

 

[Yakuda]

So for the magazine's first 172 years - through both Republican and Democratic administrations - the magazine was non partisan, and only supposedly became partisan in the last 3 years?

It dies not sound like a credible excuse.

It actually sounds like something you pulled out of your ass

You know what sounds more credible?

That a science advocacy magazine would be horrified that Donald Trumpf thinks global warming is a Chinese hoax, and alarmed that Trumpf cannot lead a national response to a pandemic and has squandered U.S. leadership on the control of infectious diseases.

Where the fuck did I say it only happened in the last 3 years?

Nobody gives a fuck what scientific American thinks. Its more bullshit to say trump has the power to make us breach some ethical standard after 172 years? Please! Put the crack pipe down. Only a leftist dimwit buys that shit.

 

[Micawber]

Default
Quote Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
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.

Nope. The problem is science offends the business agenda that owns the low IQ voter on the right, so you attack the science on message boards instead of by publication in journals.

Tell you what, if the science is wrong,


GO GET SOME SCIENCE


You can't, you won't, you lose. Check and mate.

 

[Micawber]

Exactly. We subscribers made up our minds long ago. Guess who we do not support? lol

My father received that publication all his life without paying. Maybe they just send it out to National Academy members.

Anyway, I see the problem as rural v urban and low info consumers versus high. Analogy, we buy a president like a business making a ten million dollar
investment in some factor input like I don't know, a policy of liability insurance. We shop premium, coverage terms, the perils covered, the exclusions and endorsements,
the class action litigation waivers, the fine details. Republicans buy a president after being amused by a talking gecko. That's the fundamental problem.

They bought a defective product, and we were stuck with it.

 

[Sailor]

Default
Quote Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
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.





Nope. The problem is science offends the business agenda that owns the low IQ voter on the right, so you attack the science on message boards instead of by publication in journals.

Tell you what, if the science is wrong,


GO GET SOME SCIENCE


You can't, you won't, you lose. Check and mate.

Micabwer, I forgot more about science than you or any other dumb fuck Democrat will ever know. You all know that to be fact as you always lose when you try to take me on. But please, keep beating your chicken chest wimpy. It really is all you have. Certainly not intellect.

 

[Micawber]

Micabwer, I forgot more about science than you or any other dumb fuck Democrat will ever know. You all know that to be fact as you always lose when you try to take me on. But please, keep beating your chicken chest wimpy. It really is all you have. Certainly not intellect.

Your appeal to your personal authority (and with nothing to back it up or intelligence amassed in your body of trolling effort here) amuses me. It doesn't provide you with any science that impugns the state of the art,
just a right wing anti science meme. That won't get you into Nature, or Cell, or Science or Scientific American....


"I forgot more about science than you " - This is quite literally true, and explains why Scientific American came out with its unprecedented endorsement.
Your spanish inquisition party will not halt the advancement of humanity.

 

[Sailor]

Your appeal to your personal authority (and with nothing to back it up or intelligence amassed in your body of trolling effort here) amuses me. It doesn't provide you with any science that impugns the state of the art,
just a right wing anti science meme. That won't get you into Nature, or Cell, or Science or Scientific American....


"I forgot more about science than you " - This is quite literally true, and explains why Scientific American came out with its unprecedented endorsement.

I can see your ass still hurts from the beatings Micabwer. Feel free to take another one.

 

[Cypress]

Where the fuck did I say it only happened in the last 3 years?

Nobody gives a fuck what scientific American thinks. Its more bullshit to say trump has the power to make us breach some ethical standard after 172 years? Please! Put the crack pipe down. Only a leftist dimwit buys that shit.

I accept your tacit concession that the dim witted, science denying, pandemic-mishandling Trump is such a unique threat to American leadership in science that for the first time in almost two centuries, a preeminent science advocacy magazine took the unrepresented step of publishing a formal presidential endorsement

 

[Yakuda]

I accept your tacit concession that the dim witted, science denying, pandemic-mishandling Trump is such a unique threat to American leadership in science that for the first time in almost two centuries, a preeminent science advocacy magazine took the unrepresented step of publishing a formal presidential endorsement

An idiot could frame it that way but it just shows science has lost it's objectivity and is a political tool.

 

[Sailor]

An idiot could frame it that way but it just shows science has lost it's objectivity and is a political tool.

Which is what this is all about. Hence the faux intellect, outrage and falsely projected "superior" knowledge from the left. They cannot defend your correct statement. So they dodge.

 

[domer76]

You mean like riots and protests right?

Nope, that’s sure not what I mean, fucking idiot.

 

[domer76]

you are confused.

my digging is just pointing out how you are an idiot easily fooled by shiny things

Got a ladder? You need it, dumbfuck.

 

[IBDaMann]

America's preeminent scientific journal

No serious scientist lets Scientific American corrode his bandwidth. That "magazine" only has "Science" in its name to enable desperate warmizombies in fueling their fantasies of relevance. Any position held by Scientific American, however, is simply wrong.

Scientific American Endorses Joe Biden

Of course. They're batting 1.000 in "getting it wrong."

 

[Micawber]

I can see your ass still hurts from the beatings Micabwer. Feel free to take another one.

That'll be the day- Buddy Holly

 

[zymurgy]

Got a ladder? You need it, dumbfuck.

after proving they pull the same basic stunt every 4 years, you are left to just troll

I will let you have the last word shit stain - you bore me with your lack of actual debate

 

[Micawber]

Exactly. We subscribers made up our minds long ago. Guess who we do not support? lol

It is amazing that an editorial board of a science magazine thought it so important to make the statement. It must be hard to go unsung when a party
is incessantly attacking what it is you do and stand for. Personally I think they should have resisted the impulse.

If the Republican party insists on branding itself the anti science party, well, they will go the way of the dodo bird. After all, it's science. It doesn't care.
They will die out due to horrible results and failure to adapt. Foot dragging is not a genetic trait that protects an animal in it's niche, be it a jungle or a political jungle.