Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

fleur-de-lisa

(14,624 posts)
Tue Sep 15, 2020, 11:08 AM Sep 2020

Scientific American has never endorsed a presidential candidate in our 175-year history--until now.

Scientific American @sciam

Scientific American has never endorsed a presidential candidate in our 175-year history—until now. The 2020 election is literally a matter of life and death. We urge you to vote for health, science and Joe Biden for President.

8:01 AM · Sep 15, 2020




Scientific American Endorses Joe Biden

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientific-american-endorses-joe-biden/

Scientific American has never endorsed a presidential candidate in its 175-year history. This year we are compelled to do so. We do not do this lightly.

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 most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which cost more than 190,000 Americans their lives by the middle of September. He has also attacked environmental protections, medical care, and the researchers and public science agencies that help this country prepare for its greatest challenges. That is why we urge you to vote for Joe Biden, who is offering fact-based plans to protect our health, our economy and the environment. These and other proposals he has put forth can set the country back on course for a safer, more prosperous and more equitable future.

The pandemic would strain any nation and system, 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. Testing people for the virus, and tracing those they may have infected, is how countries in Europe and Asia have gained control over their outbreaks, saved lives, and successfully reopened businesses and schools. But in the U.S., Trump claimed, falsely, that “anybody that wants a test can get a test.” 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.

It wasn't just a testing problem: if almost everyone in the U.S. wore masks in public, it could save about 66,000 lives by the beginning of December, according to projections from the University of Washington School of Medicine. Such a strategy would hurt no one. It would close no business. It would cost next to nothing. But Trump and his vice president flouted local mask rules, making it a point not to wear masks themselves in public appearances. Trump has openly supported people who ignored governors in Michigan and California and elsewhere as they tried to impose social distancing and restrict public activities to control the virus. He encouraged governors in Florida, Arizona and Texas who resisted these public health measures, saying in April—again, falsely—that “the worst days of the pandemic are behind us” and ignoring infectious disease experts who warned at the time of a dangerous rebound if safety measures were loosened.

28 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Scientific American has never endorsed a presidential candidate in our 175-year history--until now. (Original Post) fleur-de-lisa Sep 2020 OP
K&R n/t Spazito Sep 2020 #1
Kick and Rec... cayugafalls Sep 2020 #2
Good! Glad they're taking a public stand. calimary Sep 2020 #3
fleur-de-lisa...... Upthevibe Sep 2020 #4
Daaaamn Sympthsical Sep 2020 #5
That's great but... llmart Sep 2020 #6
Took the words right out my mouth. DFW Sep 2020 #13
K&R! cp Sep 2020 #7
Good news JDC Sep 2020 #8
If the orange murderer wins Javaman Sep 2020 #9
Trump supporters don't have the IQs to read yet alone understand the content of Scientific American. rkleinberger Sep 2020 #10
The picture in the tweet doesn't show Trump. Jim__ Sep 2020 #11
Oh, I missed that. Good catch! fleur-de-lisa Sep 2020 #12
K&R demmiblue Sep 2020 #14
This should be a huge story on M$Greedia malaise Sep 2020 #15
K&R, nt LanternWaste Sep 2020 #16
Rt.. tons of Rts & Likes! Cha Sep 2020 #17
I hope this becomes a regular thing going forward. warmfeet Sep 2020 #18
The thought of a Trumper tearing up or burning an issue of SciAm in protest cracks me up. tandem5 Sep 2020 #19
Only Six Percent Of Scientists Are Republicans: Pew Poll Buckeye_Democrat Sep 2020 #20
That's a very interesting stat. 3catwoman3 Sep 2020 #24
I'm bdamomma Sep 2020 #21
Excellent MyMission Sep 2020 #22
Unscientific Russian can endorse the other candidate nt IronLionZion Sep 2020 #23
Joe is great. However, to break such a tradition of non-interferance it's about stopping the damage. TigressDem Sep 2020 #25
You nailed it! burrowowl Sep 2020 #26
Thanks for posting Sherman A1 Sep 2020 #27
I saw the LBN yesterday and was really surprised BumRushDaShow Sep 2020 #28

llmart

(15,534 posts)
6. That's great but...
Tue Sep 15, 2020, 01:06 PM
Sep 2020

I doubt it would sway anyone that is still on the fence. GOP'ers don't "do" science and have probably never even seen a copy of Scientific American, and trump supporters don't read.

However, every little bit helps.

DFW

(54,302 posts)
13. Took the words right out my mouth.
Tue Sep 15, 2020, 01:58 PM
Sep 2020

It's not going to sway anyone because it comes from a publication that Republicans don't even know exists.

Javaman

(62,504 posts)
9. If the orange murderer wins
Tue Sep 15, 2020, 01:26 PM
Sep 2020

Expect a new kind of dark ages in science.

The nut jobs will reject anything that doesn’t immediately benefit them. Only later will they realize their fuck up, but like everything they do, it will be too late. For example: virus is a hoax then they themselves get it and die

warmfeet

(3,321 posts)
18. I hope this becomes a regular thing going forward.
Tue Sep 15, 2020, 07:55 PM
Sep 2020

Without science, many of us would not be here on this forum, nor anywhere else.

TigressDem

(5,125 posts)
25. Joe is great. However, to break such a tradition of non-interferance it's about stopping the damage.
Tue Sep 15, 2020, 10:24 PM
Sep 2020

It's like Dump is putting America's brain in a wood chipper and calling it "good".



BumRushDaShow

(128,529 posts)
28. I saw the LBN yesterday and was really surprised
Wed Sep 16, 2020, 10:04 AM
Sep 2020

because I don't recall ever seeing their name involved in politics.

There are so many hundreds of "major" scientific journals out there now, with even more online-only. SA used to be the most well known - the gold standard - and one of the old stalwarts, which until now, seemed to have faded in the background.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Scientific American has n...