Of course the anti-science/anti-intellectual crowd will not approve. 
They know Trump and his people ignore science and a lot of times be making things up based on money, status and feelings…just trifling.
1 Like
Anything in particular to what is said in the article that you object to, relevant to the evidence they cite for why they broke a 170+ year silence on POTUS endorsements?
A lib response to the police union endorsing the President.
2 Likes
its been gone over ad infinitum. there’s no reason to refute the ■■■■■■■■ talking points again. the President made his decisions based on what the cdc told him, the cdc confirms this. he followed the science, in every aspect but one; travel restrictions. thats facts. what they wrote, ain’t.
1 Like
the moment you go political to criticize politicians decisions is the moment you cease scientific objectivity
1 Like
Any comment about what is covered in the article?
Scientific American has been famously apolitical.
Why does this make them liberal?
i see the faces you post and know to ignore you
i dont read your posts
i thank you
Read thinkingman 
?
Thanks for proving my point.
2 Likes
Already did.
So, if a medical journal criticizes a Kennedy’s stance on vaccinations, it cannot claim medical and scientific objectivity?
is being “famously apolitical” a certain kind of merit?
SA editors are using science as their justification in endorsing a candidate for the first time in 175 years. Can you discuss where, specifically, their assessment of the Trump administration’s response to COVID is inaccurate?
Thank you for what you offered.
where did i say they were “inaccurate?
Do you find their assessment accurate?
oh now youre asking?
lol
why dont you just assume like the other posters?
Thank you, good talk.
2 Likes
Science is liberal?
1 Like
“The science show that Donald…” Pompous nonsense.
And “creating of obstacles in the voting process” is what the “science shows”?
