Scientific America Makes First Presidential Endorsement In History

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
19,708
Reaction score
1,177
Points
113
And it wasn't for dotard Trump? But Trump is basically a scientist himself.....he really understands all of that stuff.



Scientific American on Tuesday endorsed Joe Biden, the first presidential endorsement in the magazine’s 175-year history.

Its editors said they felt “compelled” to do so because of President Trump’s well-documented rejection of science, from climate change to the coronavirus, has cost tens of thousands of American lives.

“The pandemic would strain any nation and system,” the editors wrote, “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.

“Trump claimed, falsely, that ’anybody that wants a test can get a test,’” they continued. “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.”

The monthly magazine, with a circulation of 3.5 million, is owned by Springer Nature, an international academic and scientific publishing company.


According to data from Johns Hopkins University, more than 194,000 Americans have died from complications related to COVID-19, and more than 6.5 million have been infected.

The magazine’s editors seized on the revelations in Bob Woodward’s new book that the president knowingly misled Americans about the dangers of COVID-19.

“Trump repeatedly lied to the public about the deadly threat of the disease, saying it was not a serious concern and ‘this is like a flu’ when he knew it was more lethal and highly transmissible,” the editors wrote. “His lies encouraged people to engage in risky behavior, spreading the virus further, and have driven wedges between Americans who take the threat seriously and those who believe Trump’s falsehoods.”

They also sharply criticized the White House memo attacking Dr. Anthony Fauci, the country’s leading infectious disease physician and member of Trump’s coronavirus task force, calling it a “despicable attempt to sow further distrust.”

Trump’s rejection of science extends beyond COVID, the editors noted.

“He has repeatedly tried to get rid of the Affordable Care Act while offering no alternative,” they wrote. The president’s proposals to cut billions of dollars from the budgets of the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “increase the risk that new diseases will surprise and devastate us again.”

And Trump has “hobbled U.S. preparations for climate change, falsely claiming that it does not exist and pulling out of international agreements to mitigate it.”

The endorsement came a day after Trump, meeting with officials in California about the state’s catastrophic wildfires, dismissed global warming as an issue, saying “it’ll start getting cooler” — echoing his prediction at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic that the virus would disappear on its own.

Biden, in contrast, “comes prepared with plans to control COVID-19, improve health care, reduce carbon emissions and restore the role of legitimate science in policy making,” the magazine argued. “He solicits expertise and has turned that knowledge into solid policy proposals.”

“The 2020 election is literally a matter of life and death,” the magazine concluded. “We urge you to vote for health, science and Joe Biden for president.”



 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
8,088
Reaction score
505
Points
113
Communist Russia always supported its scientists...
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
8,088
Reaction score
505
Points
113
It's interesting how many times throughout history what people thought was solid observation and testing turned out to be wrong. Science can never be dogmatic because human observation and testing always has the potential to be flawed.
When scientists get into politics, there is only one reason. They want money so they can get their pet projects funded. In this case, this magazine endorses Biden because they imagine they can get more money out of the Democrats. They couldn't care less about what is best for the United States or for humanity. They just want money to fund whatever project in which they want a government grant.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
19,708
Reaction score
1,177
Points
113
It's interesting how many times throughout history what people thought was solid observation and testing turned out to be wrong. Science can never be dogmatic because human observation and testing always has the potential to be flawed.
When scientists get into politics, there is only one reason. They want money so they can get their pet projects funded. In this case, this magazine endorses Biden because they imagine they can get more money out of the Democrats. They couldn't care less about what is best for the United States or for humanity. They just want money to fund whatever project in which they want a government grant.
Still have a personal vendetta against scientists for making a joke out of creationism?
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
8,088
Reaction score
505
Points
113
Baseless assumptions from a science denier. A true creationist conspiracy theory.
Once again you refuse to address my point.
The reader can see I don't deny the scientific process. I do recognize that science, today, is a business where people write grants to have their research funded. My link shows that not all science is equally valid and in many times it is flawed.
Recognizing the flaws in the funding system is not denying the scientific method as the rather ignorant stalinker is attempting to do.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
19,708
Reaction score
1,177
Points
113
Once again you refuse to address my point.
The reader can see I don't deny the scientific process. I do recognize that science, today, is a business where people write grants to have their research funded. My link shows that not all science is equally valid and in many times it is flawed.
Recognizing the flaws in the funding system is not denying the scientific method as the rather ignorant stalinker is attempting to do.
So they decided to endorse a candidate for the first time in their 175 year history....because science became a business this year.

You have to get this information to the people, creationist!
 

Wally

Active member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
891
Reaction score
221
Points
43
It's interesting how many times throughout history what people thought was solid observation and testing turned out to be wrong. Science can never be dogmatic because human observation and testing always has the potential to be flawed.
When scientists get into politics, there is only one reason. They want money so they can get their pet projects funded. In this case, this magazine endorses Biden because they imagine they can get more money out of the Democrats. They couldn't care less about what is best for the United States or for humanity. They just want money to fund whatever project in which they want a government grant.
You know I had a class in grad school where they presented all these research projects that sounded like totally stupid bullshit research, we had to pick which ones to fund. At the end of the class they told us the amazing discoveries that came out of each research project that we had spent the class ripping apart in groups. You cannot know what you will find until you look.
 

Wally

Active member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
891
Reaction score
221
Points
43
Once again you refuse to address my point.
The reader can see I don't deny the scientific process. I do recognize that science, today, is a business where people write grants to have their research funded. My link shows that not all science is equally valid and in many times it is flawed.
Recognizing the flaws in the funding system is not denying the scientific method as the rather ignorant stalinker is attempting to do.
Your link only tells me that scientific research must be verified, something anyone with two brain cells knows. The problem stems from results based science which yes alot of it is, it's a difficult problem because those writing grants want a product to result from it. It's also why places with a more open ended researchers can create some of the bigger breakthrus, think Bell Labs and Google who let people run with ideas. It's very difficult to run with an idea when you constantly need new grants but also you need accountability so it's a trade-off and no good solution has found yet. I think the most important thing is robust institutions with excellent leadership. Oh O we are FUCKED...
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
45,316
Reaction score
3,564
Points
113
So they decided to endorse a candidate for the first time in their 175 year history....because science became a business this year.

You have to get this information to the people, creationist!
Has he condemned you to burn yet? You have to be getting close?
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
8,088
Reaction score
505
Points
113
So they decided to endorse a candidate for the first time in their 175 year history....because science became a business this year.

You have to get this information to the people, creationist!
I have no idea why they went political. But, funding is what they want. Why else would they go with Jeff Durham's puppet as their endorsement?

I provided a link for you regarding science and funding. It's interesting you refuse to address the problems.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
8,088
Reaction score
505
Points
113
Your link only tells me that scientific research must be verified, something anyone with two brain cells knows. The problem stems from results based science which yes alot of it is, it's a difficult problem because those writing grants want a product to result from it. It's also why places with a more open ended researchers can create some of the bigger breakthrus, think Bell Labs and Google who let people run with ideas. It's very difficult to run with an idea when you constantly need new grants but also you need accountability so it's a trade-off and no good solution has found yet. I think the most important thing is robust institutions with excellent leadership. Oh O we are FUCKED...
You answered the reason why this magazine wants Biden. They get money without needing to be held accountable. Kaching.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
8,088
Reaction score
505
Points
113
How did I say that?

Trump has no plan for science and he definitely doesn't put the best people in charge.
The Department of Energy has poor leadership?
.
Dr Chris Fall is unqualified?
.

Just admit you're clueless and you spoke with irrational emotion. We can move on.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
19,708
Reaction score
1,177
Points
113
I have no idea why they went political. But, funding is what they want. Why else would they go with Jeff Durham's puppet as their endorsement?

I provided a link for you regarding science and funding. It's interesting you refuse to address the problems.
They went political this year because one of the candidates is openly deifying science....despite really understanding it really well.

There's no problem here. Just that dotard science deniers like you cannot understand why things like creationism are laughed at.
 

Wally

Active member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
891
Reaction score
221
Points
43
The Department of Energy has poor leadership?
.
Dr Chris Fall is unqualified?
.

Just admit you're clueless and you spoke with irrational emotion. We can move on.
Department of Energy????????

Wow you are a Fucking moron. He appointed Rick Perry and Rick Perry didn't even know what the Department of Energy did. Wow, just wow.


 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
8,088
Reaction score
505
Points
113
No
They went political this year because one of the candidates is openly deifying science....despite really understanding it really well.

There's no problem here. Just that dotard science deniers like you cannot understand why things like creationism are laughed at.
No, not defying science. Defying scientists whose research is in question, yes, but not defying science. Questioning the assertions of some scientists, yes, but not questioning scientific method.
Do you understand the difference here?
I am presenting what good science does. It questions and doubts and tests hypothesis. It doesn't dogmatically shout down opposing ideas and shy away from questions.
Yet, you are shouting down all who question the assertions of scientists you agree with. If science followed your process it would still believe the sun revolves around the earth.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
8,088
Reaction score
505
Points
113
Department of Energy????????

Wow you are a Fucking moron. He appointed Rick Perry and Rick Perry didn't even know what the Department of Energy did. Wow, just wow.


Again, you don't review the way the various departments in the Executive branch are laid out, nor did you actually check the credentials of those running these departments. Instead, you stick your head up your arse and tell us you can see clearly now.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
19,708
Reaction score
1,177
Points
113
No

No, not defying science. Defying scientists whose research is in question, yes, but not defying science. Questioning the assertions of some scientists, yes, but not questioning scientific method.
Do you understand the difference here?
I am presenting what good science does. It questions and doubts and tests hypothesis. It doesn't dogmatically shout down opposing ideas and shy away from questions.
Yet, you are shouting down all who question the assertions of scientists you agree with. If science followed your process it would still believe the sun revolves around the earth.
You are dismissing science. Just like Trump has. Stupid people will always do that.

Go ahead and tell us how creationism is a joke. That would be a good start, Tiny.
 

Wally

Active member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
891
Reaction score
221
Points
43
Again, you don't review the way the various departments in the Executive branch are laid out, nor did you actually check the credentials of those running these departments. Instead, you stick your head up your arse and tell us you can see clearly now.
Yes appointing a fucking moron as head of the agency that overseas our nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants is a Great Move!!!!
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
8,088
Reaction score
505
Points
113
You are dismissing science. Just like Trump has. Stupid people will always do that.

Go ahead and tell us how creationism is a joke. That would be a good start, Tiny.
Nope. Scientific method is a nice inductive reasoning technique. It is meant to be questioned and tested.
You have your pet theories that you don't want questioned (climate change) and thus anyone questioning the data must hate science. It's a retarded conclusion on your part that simply exposes your desire for totalitarian communist rule. Thanks for sharing stalinker.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
8,088
Reaction score
505
Points
113
Yes appointing a fucking moron as head of the agency that overseas our nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants is a Great Move!!!!
This is hilarious since you are going to vote for a man with dementia, yet people far more brilliant than yourself are morons. Pass, pass, puff...
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
19,708
Reaction score
1,177
Points
113
Nope. Scientific method is a nice inductive reasoning technique. It is meant to be questioned and tested.
You have your pet theories that you don't want questioned (climate change) and thus anyone questioning the data must hate science. It's a retarded conclusion on your part that simply exposes your desire for totalitarian communist rule. Thanks for sharing stalinker.
Talk about ironic! I absolutely think that climate change should be scrutinized. However, I also think that there's plenty of evidence to suggest that climate change is real....and that common sense moves towards reducing pollution that contributes to it makes sense. But when we have science deniers like you....who still won't say that creationism (lol) is a joke....there is no middle ground. You default to any measures as being a move towards "totalitarian communist rule". Shutting down conversation because you're too stupid to consider it is your fault. Not mine, tiny.

Now go back to your coloring book and your tales of witches and wizardry. There's nothing scientific about the stories in the bible, dotard.
 
Top Bottom