And if Harris was the only candidate who won their primary, you'd be calling for voting for her for that reason. Ya, right. It's so pathetic the cult tries to grasp for things dishonestly.
I know, right? Trump never shows shame or embarrassment
That would be sooo much more convincing if you weren't spouting BS from a website entitled "Legal Insurrection."
Editors said they backed Harris because she "offers the country better prospects, relying on science, solid evidence, and the willingness to learn from experience."
"She pushes policies that boost good jobs nationwide by embracing technology and clean energy. She supports education, public health and reproductive rights. She treats the climate crisis as the emergency it is and seeks to mitigate its catastrophic storms, fires and droughts."
The magazine compared the two candidates' records on health care, reproductive rights, gun safety, the environment and technology. Harris came out on top in each category.
Scientific American magazine backs Harris with second endorsement in 179-year history
Scientific American magazine has endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris. It's only the second time the magazine has backed a presidential candidate in its 179-year history.In an editorial column published on Monday, the magazine warned that Republican nominee Donald Trump...www.rawstory.com
Now the trumpers will yell that this magazine has lost its mind, or something similar.
I didn't say she stole it. I said she was coronated without a vote. I'm sure we agree on that.
sorry
Tell me of Trump's primary in 2020.
Yup. This Republican was on the fence but I've decided to vote for Harris/Walz as well. Trump is just too toxic and vitriolic.Editors said they backed Harris because she "offers the country better prospects, relying on science, solid evidence, and the willingness to learn from experience."
"She pushes policies that boost good jobs nationwide by embracing technology and clean energy. She supports education, public health and reproductive rights. She treats the climate crisis as the emergency it is and seeks to mitigate its catastrophic storms, fires and droughts."
The magazine compared the two candidates' records on health care, reproductive rights, gun safety, the environment and technology. Harris came out on top in each category.
Scientific American magazine backs Harris with second endorsement in 179-year history
Scientific American magazine has endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris. It's only the second time the magazine has backed a presidential candidate in its 179-year history.In an editorial column published on Monday, the magazine warned that Republican nominee Donald Trump...
Now the trumpers will yell that this magazine has lost its mind, or something similar.
Correct but that was 50 years ago. No Republican from that period is alive now. All we have in Congress now is Republiclowns.
www.politico.com
Maybe the Republican party will swing back around to your way of thinking. I'm sure they've got another Mitt Romney in their future.
I think it's backwards. Science just is, science did not used to be political (in use)
I assumed everyone would understand when I said "without a vote", I meant without a state by state vote from the electorate. My apologies for not making that clear.
www.latimes.com
Ok, so for one thing Covid vaccines really weren't vetted, they were an decently educated guess.Scientists, historians, political scientists, psychologists, sociologists, etc... all agree: only one side has been actively trying to UNDERMINE it and sees science as a political foe. That's not in dispute. The interesting thing to study is the reasons why.
"“We are living at a time when people would rather put urine or cleaning chemicals in their body than scientifically vetted vaccines,” said Marshall Shepherd, a meteorology professor at the University of Georgia, speaking about discredited COVID treatments. “That is a clear convergence of fear, lack of critical thinking, confirmation bias and political tribalism.”
Science used to be something all Americans would get behind, said Rice University historian Douglas Brinkley.
“But we now see it falling prey to the great partisan divide,” he said. “The world of science should be a meeting house where right and left can agree on data. Instead, it’s becoming a sharp razor’s edge of conflict.”"
Americans' trust in science now deeply polarized, poll shows
Faith in science is falling among Republicans, while Democrats rely on it more than ever, with the trust gap in science widening during the pandemic.
I can't quite tell if you're mad at me or Donna Brazille. I had no part in taking down Bernie.
No.
www.edf.org
www.theguardian.com
No. There's only plain old science. Only the right believes in "alternative facts".
