Scientific American makes a first ever political endorsement.
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 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 195,000 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, “Rage,” 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.”
Link: https://www.yahoo.com/news/scientific-american-mag-endorsement-biden-trump-first-in-175-years-172808739.html
Replies to: Scientific American makes a first ever political endorsement.
No.1
(no message)
There are still magazines?
Will this increase their ad revenues?
I thought internet porn ended the need for magazines?
(no message)
Just curious... do you trust science on gender as well? Or is that more about feelings?
(no message)
I'm sure that science has figured out by now male and female. For you is it just a feeling?
In reality, I have no idea what your question is about. Maybe you could take a little more time and think about what it is you're asking and what it is you want answered.
Good Luck.
I think what he's asking is why do liberals eschew science
When it comes to gender assignment? That's it not Necessarily scientifically assigned in the womb but rather assumed later in life.
But you're a bright guy. I think you knew what he was asking. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since we're friends and all.
SRD
And how do "Liberals eschew science when it comes to gender"?
It's nice to see you guys stick up for one another - No, I don't think he knows what question he's asking nor does your take on his question make sense.
If you're talking about gender dysphoria, you're talking medical not science.
I don't assume you're a bright guy seeing you defended the indefensible -
Genetics, DNA, that kind of thing, for determining sex. Also, biology as to when life begins.
(no message)
You're offering an opinion?
(no message)
Noting facts...where the Left denies science.
(no message)
And those facts are, what? Please note the science in your opinions.
It would be best if you could get your facts from Scientific American and another science entity that disputes their claims.
Otherwise, you're selling an opinion based on nothing.
XX chromosomes = female; XY = male. I guess if you don't know science, it is easier to deny it.
(no message)
BOOM.
(no message)
Wow. Just trying to help. Not sticking up for anyone, Mr. Cranky Pants.
(no message)
Yeah it always helps when you invent things like
"Libera's eschew science when it comes to gender".
*
(no message)
Good that you re-re-read the thread.
(no message)
Yeah, it's just a lot of fun trying to chat. You're very angry. Have a good night.
(no message)
What? Don't invert things. You attacked Liberals on science sticking up for an
ill thought out gotcha question by one of your fifth column pals. Don't call me, very angry when it is you who got angry.
I asked IrishMac to clarify his nonsensical gotcha question and you came to his defense.
The thread opening is about "Scientific American making its first ever political endorsement" and has nothing to do with
gender inequality or the medical news on gender.
If you want to be angry, be angry at the constant change of thread motives by your knuckleheaded pals for some political gotcha remark.
Defend that, why don't ya?
Saw that too. Good for them.
(no message)