Scientific American POTUS endorsement

[Safiel]

And if you aren’t subscribed to Scientific American, why even care???

[WuWei]

@Safiel

@WuWei

■■■■ Scientific American. How about that?

I think it is overkill and unnecessary.

My newspapers have made plenty of endorsements over the years that I have opposed.

Never gave me cause for anger or outrage.

I’m not angry.

[wiley8425]

Such a dig.

[DougBH]

@Blackwolf

So far I’ve seen a lot of ad hominem attacks against the editors of SA, and against forum members to discredit the endorsement. Not a whole lot that directly addresses the points made in the article.

Those points have all been addressed back and forth in this forum for months now. They offered nothing new. Nothing particularly “sciency”.
If the magazine editors want to defend their accusations, let them post here.

[Blackwolf]

@DougBH

Those points have all been addressed back and forth in this forum for months now. They offered nothing new. Nothing particularly “sciency”.
If the magazine editors want to defend their accusations, let them post here.

Thank you.

[DougBH]

@Safiel

This absolute outpouring of utter hate and personal destruction against any opponent of Trump reeks of a cult of personality mindset and is far more disturbing than any endorsement that might be made for either candidate by any organization or publication.

Somebody call them deplorables?

[zantax]

@FloridaYankee

@DougBH

@tzu

Not ‘no deaths’.

This article claims that Trump’s mismanagement cost 190,000 deaths by the virus in the US by September. That is about the total amount of deaths for coronavirus in the US by September. Yes, they are in fact claiming that there would have been no deaths if Trump had handled it differently.

They are not. It’s just a poorly worded sentence meaning the pandemic cost 190,000 lives and Trumps response was lacking. That in itself is inexcusable for a scholarly magazine, but that’s another discussion.

They stopped being a scholarly magazine a long time ago. I watched it happen. They were more like Discover then the old SA the last time I checked. I would assume someone bought them out at one point and changed their business model.

[DougBH]

Well, if National Review decides to endorse Trump I promise not to start a thread saying “The National Review is a scholarly magazine and it endorses Trump. Read the magazine and see if you can prove them wrong on all the issues”.

[Blackwolf]

@DougBH

Well, if National Review decides to endorse Trump I promise not to start a thread saying “The National Review is a scholarly magazine and it endorses Trump. Read the magazine and see if you can prove them wrong on all the issues”.

There was no sarcasm intended on my part. You offered your opinion, I acknowledged it.

[Chris]

Trump is the most anti-science president in my lifetime.

[Ben_Natuf]

its the same dead talking points the dnc uses. already been addresses 1000 times. SA saying it doesn’t make the lies true.

[Ben_Natuf]

@DougBH

@Safiel

This absolute outpouring of utter hate and personal destruction against any opponent of Trump reeks of a cult of personality mindset and is far more disturbing than any endorsement that might be made for either candidate by any organization or publication.

Somebody call them deplorables?

bitter clingers?

[LucyLou]

Thanks Safiel, great post.

It’s a bizarre mindset.

[Ben_Natuf]

@Chris

Trump is the most anti-science president in my lifetime.

Really, why would anyone take a vaccine developed by medical science while he’s President.

[once-ler]

@coolidge

This ranks right up there with Obamas peace prize.

Not half as impressive as President Trump’s Bay of Pigs award 2 Noble nominations and Time cover.

[DisturbedGuy]

Facts make what SA wrote true. Spin is what keeps anything from ever being Trump’s fault.

[Ben_Natuf]

except of course they ain’t facts

[thinkingman]

@Safiel

I have not read the SA endorsement.

I have occasionally read stuff from Scientific American, but I am not now nor have I ever been a subscriber to their publication.

I am certain their endorsement is targeted to their subscribers and casual readers, not to the general public.

And even if I supported Trump, neither I nor anybody else has any good cause to vilify Scientific American for making an endorsement.

I may accept or reject endorsements that publications and organizations make. But I don’t vilify them for making such endorsements even if I oppose them.

This absolute outpouring of utter hate and personal destruction against any opponent of Trump reeks of a cult of personality mindset and is far more disturbing than any endorsement that might be made for either candidate by any organization or publication.

If you oppose the endorsement, you can do so without attacking SA. Just say you oppose it and move on. That’s it. If you are a subscriber and don’t like it, unsubscribe.

But the level of vitriol I am seeing against SA is disturbing.

it’s just one more thing that had to go full tilt political. they are not immune from criticism

[LucyLou]

@thinkingman

it’s just one more thing that had to go full tilt political

It’s so weird that it had to be now. Confusing. Why oh why? It’s such a mystery.

[Stormbringer]

So i heard the dude that made that decision at SCIAM is actually German. so is this foreign interference in an election and is it German-Biden collusion-Gate or what?