Jump to content

Scientific American makes first ever political endorsement in its 175 year history


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Spouting disinformation and engaging in attention-seeking behaviors is your whole bag.   You are a moronic troll.   Bill

EVERYONE got a tax break under the Trump tax cuts, ms. onASSis, and FEDERAL REVENUES INCREASED!   Get one of your nurses to research that for you.

Most of the money went to the fatcats at the top/ The Tax cuts were engineered by the Heritage Foundation with input from the last Koch  brother and his staff.

I will occasionally read Scientific American.  I have noticed however over the last 15 years that it has been very left-leaning, and the articles became less and less interesting.

 

I am noticing the same thing with Barron's as well.  I don't read either of those magazines for their political commentary which is completely unnecessary (and often flatly wrong).  When I've had enough, I'll switch over to a more technically oriented journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Toldya said:

Guess who it is?

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/scientific-american-backs-biden-in-first-ever-endorsement/ar-BB194408?li=BBnb7Kz

 

Attack the magazine and blame it on the evil librul plot in 3... 2...

 

Here's all one needs to know:

 

Does "Scientific American" believe in and propagate the myth of "anthropogenic global warming?"

 

If so, then the opinion of the rag means NOTHING.

 

Got it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Toldya said:

Guess who it is?

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/scientific-american-backs-biden-in-first-ever-endorsement/ar-BB194408?li=BBnb7Kz

 

Attack the magazine and blame it on the evil librul plot in 3... 2...

 

Nobody cares. An endorsement by a scientist weighs as much as an endorsement by an athlete or entertainer. 😆

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching what's happening to the media and *science* organizations makes me feel more and more like I'm living in the Soviet Union.  

 

Know what I mean, folks?

 

Better arm yourself and NEVER let them take your guns away.

 

Because that's the first thing that new communists states do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, BeAChooser said:

Watching what's happening to the media and *science* organizations makes me feel more and more like I'm living in the Soviet Union.  

 

Know what I mean, folks?

 

Better arm yourself and NEVER let them take your guns away.

 

Because that's the first thing that new communists states do.

 

Who do you plan on shooting?

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BeAChooser said:

Watching what's happening to the media and *science* organizations makes me feel more and more like I'm living in the Soviet Union.  

 

Know what I mean, folks?

 

Better arm yourself and NEVER let them take your guns away.

 

Because that's the first thing that new communists states do.

Yep. Media, public sector unions, deep state, even the science community has been penetrated and  indoctrinated by crazed leftists. We may very well need to fight for freedom and liberty from the state. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Str8tEdge said:

Yep. Media, public sector unions, deep state, even the science community has been penetrated and  indoctrinated by crazed leftists. We may very well need to fight for freedom and liberty from the state. 

 

^^^Whack-a-doodle.

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Skans said:

I have noticed however over the last 15 years that it has been very left-leaning, and the articles became less and less interesting.

 

And there it is right out of the gate.

 

Actually, the reason it seems to have been getting more left-leaning to you is because the right has been getting more anti-science.

 

Actual scientists tend to avoid things like delving into whether or not the Earth is 6000 years old or whether or not climate change is a hoax and a librul plot to impose socialism on the world... basically, they're not going to lie to you to make you feel good, and you reject any publication that doesn't do this as 'leftist'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BeAChooser said:

Watching what's happening to the media and *science* organizations makes me feel more and more like I'm living in the Soviet Union.

 

Maybe the reason they're not telling you what you want to hear is because what you want to hear isn't true. I think this is a lot more likely than the idea that America is becoming Communist.

 

I mean, it's not like you actually understand anything they write about in the first place... you just don't want to accept what the American right has become, so you choose bloggers and RWNJ loudmouths and phony experts with unrelated backgrounds over actual accredited scientists.

 

If it makes fun of libruls and tells you they're responsible for something that is bad, you automatically agree. You're basically not even an actual thinking person... you're just waiting for your next instruction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Toldya said:

Guess who it is?

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/scientific-american-backs-biden-in-first-ever-endorsement/ar-BB194408?li=BBnb7Kz

 

Attack the magazine and blame it on the evil librul plot in 3... 2...

 

After 175 years of staying out of the political spot light, is anyone really surprised that Scientific American would back a candidate that isn’t a science denying, climate denying, COVID denying piece of ignorant shit like Donald J Trump? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mirabeau said:

Does "Scientific American" believe in and propagate the myth of "anthropogenic global warming?"

 

There isn't a single reputable science publication that does not accept AGW.

 

Not one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Toldya said:

 

And there it is right out of the gate.

 

Actually, the reason it seems to have been getting more left-leaning to you is because the right has been getting more anti-science.

Yeah, Skans reads the Scientific American religiously. We are supposed to believe that?

 

Actual scientists tend to avoid things like delving into whether or not the Earth is 6000 years old or whether or not climate change is a hoax and a librul plot to impose socialism on the world... basically, they're not going to lie to you to make you feel good, and you reject any publication that doesn't do this as 'leftist'.\

Climate change is the reason the Scientific American endorses  Biden: because Trump endorses Big Oil over the health of the planet. It is not like Trump himself will have to live with the results: he is surely not going to live long enough. Just as the CEO's of Big Oil will perhaps continue in there jobs for another 20 years at most. Their concern is the bottom line for the next four quarters at most. Sell that oil before a replacement is found: convert it to plastic and litter the world with it.

 

Like Big Oil execs and Trump, Skans will be pushing up the daisies before much of the planet becomes unlivable.  He needs that money to purchase another dozen fancy rifles.

Like

2 hours ago, Toldya said:

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mirabeau said:

Mighty bold talk for a woman who is so ancient she obviously grew up in a time when females were not allowed to go to school

I am not a woman, and women have been attending schools in this country since 1800. I am obviously not 220 years old.

Mirabeau does not know diddly-squat about climate change. He is just another rustic peckerwood from the days of yore.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Mirabeau said:

There are many.

 

Let's start with this one, but let me warn you that the list of those who believe the myth of man-made global warming who have been vanquished by Mirabeau is a long one.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Skeptic-Comprehensive-Earths-Climate/dp/0984782915

 

That’s the same loser that claimed the 2010 dip was “proof” that sea levels weren’t rising. 
 

https://images.app.goo.gl/wuLfq2uAy5u1Sfu28

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, theLion said:

That’s the same loser that claimed the 2010 dip was “proof” that sea levels weren’t rising. 
 

https://images.app.goo.gl/wuLfq2uAy5u1Sfu28

 

Cowardly Lion:

 

Do you REALLY want to debate Mirabeau about CLIMATE CHANGE PREDICTIONS?

 

DO YOU REALLY WANT TO GO THERE?

 

MIRABEAU CAN FILL THIS BOARD WITH PREDICTIONS FROM IDIOT "SCIENTISTS" THAT HAVE NOT EVEN COME CLOSE TO BEING ACCURATE!

 

Repeat:

 

DO YOU REALLY WANT TO GO THERE?

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, XavierOnassis said:

I am not a woman, and women have been attending schools in this country since 1800. I am obviously not 220 years old.

Mirabeau does not know diddly-squat about climate change. He is just another rustic peckerwood from the days of yore.

 

ms. onASSis forgets that RETARDED WOMEN were not allowed to go to most schools until fairly recent times.

 

That explains EVERYTHING.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mirabeau said:

 

Cowardly Lion:

 

Do you REALLY want to debate Mirabeau about CLIMATE CHANGE PREDICTIONS?

 

DO YOU REALLY WANT TO GO THERE?

 

MIRABEAU CAN FILL THIS BOARD WITH PREDICTIONS FROM IDIOT "SCIENTISTS" THAT HAVE NOT EVEN COME CLOSE TO BEING ACCURATE!

 

Repeat:

 

DO YOU REALLY WANT TO GO THERE?

So that’s a “yes”, then. Thanks. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...