Scientific American endorses Joe Biden

[Angry Floof]

Scientific American Makes First Presidential Endorsement In Its 175-Year History

Scientific American, the oldest continuously published monthly magazine in the United States, had not made a presidential endorsement in the publication’s 175-year history, until Tuesday, when the magazine’s editors wrote they felt “compelled” to endorse Joe Biden for president.

KEY FACTS

• The editorial begins by declaring that “the evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the U.S. and its people—because he rejects evidence and science.”
• The endorsement focuses primarily on the ineffective pandemic response by the Trump Administration and the sitting president's continued attempts to downplay the severity of the situation and the deadliness of the coronavirus, which he has frequently compared to the flu.
• “The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the Covid-19 pandemic, which cost more than 190,000 Americans their lives,” the editors wrote.
• The editorial states that Trump has also attacked environmental protections and medical care, and that his “refusal to look at the evidence and act accordingly extends beyond the virus.”
• Scientific American criticizes Trump's continued efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act while failing to offer an alternative, along with the president's proposed billion-dollar cuts to the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
• The editors argue that “Joe Biden, in contrast, comes prepared with plans to control Covid-19, improve healthcare, reduce carbon emissions and restore the role of legitimate science in policymaking” and that Biden willingly “solicits expertise and has turned that knowledge into solid policy proposals.”

 

[ideologyhunter]

Appropriate enough. In fact, bravo. (I think their core readership is already on board.)
It would be nice if Christianity Today's editors could see fit to do this -- on the sole ground that evangelicals who support Trump look like hypocritical dopes and the entire faith has been sullied.

 

[Rhea]

While I personally like this, I wonder if it is a net gain or not? Will it create an “anti-elitist” response in some who might otherwise have stayed home?

 

[Angry Floof]

While I personally like this, I wonder if it is a net gain or not? Will it create an “anti-elitist” response in some who might otherwise have stayed home?

Not sure. I was just astounded that they chose to endorse a candidate for the first time in 175 years. I'm also glad it's Biden, but then again, on what planet would Scientific American support Trump? lol. I'm with ideologyhunter, too, about Christianity Today endorsing Biden.

 

[Brian63]

"Scientists should stay out of politics!!!!

Just like actors and athletes!!!!!

You are asking about pastors? Well of course *they* should speak up on political issues." [/right-wing noise machine]

 

[Keith&Co.]

While I personally like this, I wonder if it is a net gain or not? Will it create an “anti-elitist” response in some who might otherwise have stayed home?

i really don't think SA will spur any anti-elitists any further than Nancy's salon appointment already has.

But they may have just lost Biden the crackpot vote. Those intellectual giants who are identified by their eternal efforts to free the lockstep minds of their cognitive inferiors, but funding-enhanced defenders of the dull but approved scientific mainstream, who wouldn't know a perpetual motion machine if it powered their outhouse. They'll vote for Trump just to piss off SA, and the whole near-sighted community.

 

[Patooka]

I guess reality does have a liberal bias.

 

[Metaphor]

Scientific American said:

“The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the Covid-19 pandemic, which cost more than 190,000 Americans their lives,” the editors wrote.

So - and I've already said this elsewhere - Trump is responsible for every single death by COVID in America? Had someone else managed the response, or had Trump managed it but not been 'inept' and 'dishonest', there would be zero deaths by COVID in America?

Why do people -- allegedly people who you might expect to understand rudimentary reasoning -- say things like Trump is responsible for 190,000 COVID deaths?

 

[Angry Floof]

OMG, y'all. He's not responsible for every single COVID death!

Well. I guess Scientific American should just change their endorsement. It's not like there isn't another 50,000 reasons to endorse Biden even IF that stupid argument made sense given that a large percentage of that number are damn well his responsibility.

 

[Patooka]

Scientific American said:

“The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the Covid-19 pandemic, which cost more than 190,000 Americans their lives,” the editors wrote.

So - and I've already said this elsewhere - Trump is responsible for every single death by COVID in America? Had someone else managed the response, or had Trump managed it but not been 'inept' and 'dishonest', there would be zero deaths by COVID in America?

Why do people -- allegedly people who you might expect to understand rudimentary reasoning -- say things like Trump is responsible for 190,000 COVID deaths?

Try reading it like this then. Covid-19 has costed more than 190,000 US lives and Trump's response was dishonest and inept. Feel better?

 

[JohnG]

Scientific American said:

“The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the Covid-19 pandemic, which cost more than 190,000 Americans their lives,” the editors wrote.

So - and I've already said this elsewhere - Trump is responsible for every single death by COVID in America? Had someone else managed the response, or had Trump managed it but not been 'inept' and 'dishonest', there would be zero deaths by COVID in America?

Why do people -- allegedly people who you might expect to understand rudimentary reasoning -- say things like Trump is responsible for 190,000 COVID deaths?

Um..read the quote again

 

[Metaphor]

OMG, y'all. He's not responsible for every single COVID death!

Scientific American's statement certainly attributes every single death to him. Here is its statement, again:

“The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the Covid-19 pandemic, which cost more than 190,000 Americans their lives,” the editors wrote.

Now, Scientific American isn't doing anything that I haven't seen a dozen times already - including people on this board - blithely blaming every single COVID death on Trump. By that reasoning, every leader in every country in the world is responsible for the exact number of deaths by COVID in their own countries.

 

[Metaphor]

Scientific American said:

“The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the Covid-19 pandemic, which cost more than 190,000 Americans their lives,” the editors wrote.

So - and I've already said this elsewhere - Trump is responsible for every single death by COVID in America? Had someone else managed the response, or had Trump managed it but not been 'inept' and 'dishonest', there would be zero deaths by COVID in America?

Why do people -- allegedly people who you might expect to understand rudimentary reasoning -- say things like Trump is responsible for 190,000 COVID deaths?

Um..read the quote again

Scientific American's statement certainly attributes every single death to him. Here is its statement, again:

“The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the Covid-19 pandemic, which cost more than 190,000 Americans their lives,” the editors wrote.

The meaning could not be plainer.

If instead, Scientific American had meant to say:

"The COVID-19 death toll in America, at more than 190,000 lives, is undoubtedly higher than it could have been but for Trump's dishonest and inept response".

Then they should have said that.

 

[Metaphor]

Scientific American said:

“The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the Covid-19 pandemic, which cost more than 190,000 Americans their lives,” the editors wrote.

So - and I've already said this elsewhere - Trump is responsible for every single death by COVID in America? Had someone else managed the response, or had Trump managed it but not been 'inept' and 'dishonest', there would be zero deaths by COVID in America?

Why do people -- allegedly people who you might expect to understand rudimentary reasoning -- say things like Trump is responsible for 190,000 COVID deaths?

Try reading it like this then. Covid-19 has costed more than 190,000 US lives and Trump's response was dishonest and inept. Feel better?

No, I don't feel better. I feel worse that people understand why Scientific American's sentence is inept and dishonest, but they don't care.

 

[Patooka]

Um..read the quote again

Scientific American's statement certainly attributes every single death to him. Here is its statement, again:

“The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the Covid-19 pandemic, which cost more than 190,000 Americans their lives,” the editors wrote.

The meaning could (not) be plainer.

If instead, Scientific American had meant to say:

"The COVID-19 death toll in America, at more than 190,000 lives, is undoubtedly higher than it could have been but for Trump's dishonest and inept response".

Then they should have said that.

See what I did to your quote? I'll give you a minute to think about it.

 

[Angry Floof]

OMG, y'all. He's not responsible for every single COVID death!

Scientific American's statement certainly attributes every single death to him. Here is its statement, again:

“The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the Covid-19 pandemic, which cost more than 190,000 Americans their lives,” the editors wrote.
Now, Scientific American isn't doing anything that I haven't seen a dozen times already - including people on this board - blithely blaming every single COVID death on Trump. By that reasoning, every leader in every country in the world is responsible for the exact number of deaths by COVID in their own countries.

Really? You're really concerned about that number? No one can know the actual number who would have died had Trump been at all competent or self aware, or had he not been obliviously senile, not to mention utterly callous and without conscience. But we do know that the number would be far fewer if we had an actual leader in our country when this pandemic hit. You know it, too. What exactly are you defending anyway?

OMG this microscopic thing is not 100% accurate!11!!!!11!! OUTRAGE.

 

[Patooka]

No, I don't feel better. I feel worse that people understand why Scientific American's sentence is inept and dishonest, but they don't care.

You're absolutely right. We should ignore the other five points made and completely disqualify the endorsement because of your throbbing erection for semantics. That's the honest way to go about this isn't it?

 

[Treedbear]

Appropriate enough. In fact, bravo. (I think their core readership is already on board.)
It would be nice if Christianity Today's editors could see fit to do this -- on the sole ground that evangelicals who support Trump look like hypocritical dopes and the entire faith has been sullied.

You're probably aware that they ("the nation's pre-eminent evangelical publication") already called for his removal back in Dec2019 -
Trump blasts evangelical magazine after it calls him 'profoundly immoral,' seeks his removal
The president was reacting to a scathing editorial in Christianity Today.

 

[Treedbear]

Try reading it like this then. Covid-19 has costed more than 190,000 US lives and Trump's response was dishonest and inept. Feel better?

No, I don't feel better. I feel worse that people understand why Scientific American's sentence is inept and dishonest, but they don't care.

If he would admit having been wrong and demonstrate a change in attitude maybe people would cut him some slack. But apparently he's not done yet. People are lining up to make sure 190,000 is a conservative estimate.

President Donald Trump said that he was not afraid of catching the coronavirus during a crowded indoor rally in Henderson, Nevada, on Sunday night.

Speaking to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the president said: “Because you know why, I’m on a stage, it’s very far away, so I’m not at all concerned.”

The president did not seem concerned for the health of the thousands that had gathered to hear him speak and who were standing in close proximity for hours ahead of his speech.

He brushed past the reporter’s question about the safety of the crowd, joking: “I’m more concerned about how close you are.”

That's because Trump doesn't believe losers count.

 

[laughing dog]

Try reading it like this then. Covid-19 has costed more than 190,000 US lives and Trump's response was dishonest and inept. Feel better?

No, I don't feel better. I feel worse that people understand why Scientific American's sentence is inept and dishonest, but they don't care.

I seriously doubt that Scientific American could have worded that statement to avoid the outrage of some pedant somewhere in the world.

Turning to the actual OP content, I think Scientific American's main point should have been to endorse any candidate who exhibits/endorses scientific literacy and warn against anti-science candidates such as Mr. Trump.