Scientific American Endorses Kamala Harris,
Marking Only 2nd Presidential Endorsement
in 179 Years
Breitbart,
by
Joshua Klein
Original Article
Posted By: Beardo,
9/18/2024 12:43:03 AM
In a historic move, Scientific American magazine has endorsed Democrat Vice President Kamala Harris for president — after having made its then-sole exception by endorsing Joe Biden in 2020 — citing science, healthcare, abortion, gun rights, technology, and climate action as key reasons.
On Monday, Scientific American, one of the oldest and most respected science publications in the U.S., made headlines by endorsing Kamala Harris for president. “Vote for Kamala Harris to Support Science, Health and the Environment,” the publication advocated.
Post Reply
Reminder: “WE ARE A SALON AND NOT A SALOON”
Your thoughts, comments, and ideas are always welcome here. But we ask you to please be mindful and respectful. Threatening or crude language doesn't persuade anybody and makes the conversation less enjoyable for fellow L.Dotters.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
skacmar 9/18/2024 1:39:20 AM (No. 1797666)
Ok, so they don't like how Trump handled Covid. Nobody handled it well and Trump was 100% correct to question everything about Covid. Turns out he was right about a lot of it. They also don't like that he questions .man made climate change. What is wrong with that? The climate has been changing by itself since the beginning of time. Isn't the point of science to question things?
32 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
qr4j 9/18/2024 2:35:28 AM (No. 1797680)
Scientific American is donating because they see Harris as a multi trillion dollar experiment they don’t have to pay for.
12 people like this.
I wonder in which direction the needle of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists will move if Trump or Harris are elected.
6 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
Jesuslover54 9/18/2024 5:18:17 AM (No. 1797686)
Scientific American like many other so called scientific journals have been captured by the commies and the lgbtq people. The result is heavily tilted articles in which the science doesn't actually support their claims. The articles have gotten very hard to read and they're always weeping and gnashing their teeth over the poor diwntrodden scientists.
19 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
Californian 9/18/2024 5:27:05 AM (No. 1797687)
Yet another once great American institution corrupted by the far left.
28 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Bur Oak 9/18/2024 5:31:46 AM (No. 1797689)
The true name of the publication is The "Unscientific Unamerican." Fifty years ago it was worth reading.
21 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
anniebc 9/18/2024 5:53:04 AM (No. 1797694)
What's so historic if they just endorsed biden in 2020? He lost the election bigly, but it was still stolen for him. Seems to me Unscientific UnAmerican is on the wrong side of sanity.
16 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
ARKfamily 9/18/2024 6:06:54 AM (No. 1797708)
In response to #1, just like Kamala Harris is border czar, Mike Pence was delegated leadership for covid. So if I am going to have a beef with Donald Trump, it will be with Mike Pence. I have said all along, Ben Carson would have been the better leadership. I guess Mike Pence would have had his feelings hurt if that had happened.
15 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
Venturer 9/18/2024 6:06:57 AM (No. 1797709)
They can take that endorsement and blow it out of their butt cheeks.
12 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
Rumblehog 9/18/2024 6:43:43 AM (No. 1797724)
She's starting to "channel" the late great comedian, Foster Brooks... ( https://youtu.be/FkW35T1jQB0?si=SaX1y0Fe3qQu8J7z )
8 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
WhamDBambam 9/18/2024 6:43:45 AM (No. 1797725)
That would be “Scientific” “American.”
3 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
Rumblehog 9/18/2024 6:45:41 AM (No. 1797728)
Sorry, I posted my response above to the wrong thread
2 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
5 handicap 9/18/2024 6:58:27 AM (No. 1797734)
Another magazine looking for Gov't handouts!
6 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
Ebenezer 9/18/2024 7:04:17 AM (No. 1797740)
Scientific American has gone the way of Nature, the New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, etc.--co-opted by hard core leftists who are more concerned with ideology than science or medicine.
12 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
Nimby 9/18/2024 7:36:08 AM (No. 1797768)
“Scientific ” publication it is not! Scientific journals don’t get sold in grocery stores at the checkout counter
7 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
NamVet70 9/18/2024 7:57:26 AM (No. 1797782)
Scientific American used to be an interesting publication with articles about scientific advancements. Now it is a work of fiction.
10 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
starsNstripes 9/18/2024 8:04:38 AM (No. 1797790)
Ergo: All Science is Political Science
4 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
VirtuDawg 9/18/2024 8:17:55 AM (No. 1797797)
I cancelled my subscription to this useless rag in the mid-1980s, after being a long-term subscriber, as it progressed (regressed) from actual science to political pseudo-science nonsense.
10 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
WV.Hillbilly 9/18/2024 8:39:25 AM (No. 1797803)
Scientific American is neither.
11 people like this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
Strike3 9/18/2024 9:27:40 AM (No. 1797830)
Science has become a dirty word ever since it was hijacked by the Climate Change crowd and the medical industrial complex. True science had always been about seeking out the truth and the effort to prove it through facts. Now it's just a cover word for every form of quackery.
6 people like this.
Reply 21 - Posted by:
Axeman 9/18/2024 9:43:53 AM (No. 1797837)
I used to subscribe in the '80s but stopped my subscription with a letter to the publishers which included an itemized list of many unproven, unscientific, opinionated, provably false, and just plain idiotic quotes from that magazine. It went downhill very quickly, as if academics were running it. (Academic is someone who is educated beyond their intelligence.) It hasn't been worth reading at anytime since.
A better publication is Quanta Magazine.
4 people like this.
Reply 22 - Posted by:
crashnburn 9/18/2024 9:45:07 AM (No. 1797839)
I canceled my subscription a longtime ago. It really hasn't been on my RADAR since. From what I've been reading here, I haven't missed anything.
3 people like this.
Reply 23 - Posted by:
Nashman 9/18/2024 9:45:55 AM (No. 1797840)
SA has long been co-oped by a group of nutbag women with the same old tired wrong leftist agenda. Nothing to see here. Won’t change a single vote.
3 people like this.
Reply 24 - Posted by:
Italiano 9/18/2024 9:58:55 AM (No. 1797850)
Follow the money. Hop on the Climate Change Hoax Gravy Train.
2 people like this.
Reply 25 - Posted by:
FLCracker 9/18/2024 10:12:08 AM (No. 1797860)
I gave up reading "Scientific American" sometime back in the 1990s, I think it was -- so far back in my past, I can't remember. But the reason why was because I got sick of taking my dose of propaganda with my science, and it was just too slick.
These days, I look at online "Science Daily" which posts articles by the PR departments of the various institutions (universities, professional - the "peer-reviewed" stuff, etc.) to see what interests me and then follow links to the actual documents. Because I am a dilettante.
The PR folk seem to be less biased than the journalist/reporters. They are more biased to the "see what wonderful thing my institiution did?", probably because that is what they are paid to do. Take it with a grain of salt.
I just checked. They are still too slick.
5 people like this.
Reply 26 - Posted by:
Right Time 9/18/2024 10:21:26 AM (No. 1797863)
As a scientist, I cancelled and stopped reading the Woke communist garbage that UnScientific Self-hating American spewed out in 1973, just when they shifted from global cooling to global warming.
7 people like this.
Reply 27 - Posted by:
DVC 9/18/2024 11:06:15 AM (No. 1797911)
I subscribed for decades, but stopped when it was taken over by political extreme leftists in the 90s. A worthless political rag now.
3 people like this.
Reply 28 - Posted by:
kono 9/18/2024 11:22:17 AM (No. 1797926)
SciAm used to be a veritable monument to American respect for science. While I resented being turned down for a lifetime subscription in 1985, every year since they sold out to pathological Warmism, my disappointment at that has become a deeper relief. I did love what they had been, though, and still mourn the death in America of reverence for the principles of science.
3 people like this.
I was a devoted reader of Scientific American until the late 1970s, when they began to publish political nonsense backing the Pentagon's outdated traditional position on a question on which the Pentagon itself cited my work and admitted I was then the leading expert. The older position was eventually (and reluctantly) abandoned as national policy. It was clear to me that the Scientific American's policy was to take sides in a political controversy without informing themselves about the question.
1 person likes this.
Reply 30 - Posted by:
snakeoil 9/18/2024 1:46:29 PM (No. 1798011)
I canceled my subscription to all magazines and newspapers years ago. Everything I want to read is on the internet. And I don't have to worry if the tree that was cut down was the home to birds and squirrels.
1 person likes this.
Reply 31 - Posted by:
paral04 9/18/2024 2:31:17 PM (No. 1798032)
Yes, we all know Harris is a brilliant nuclear physicist and was helping to develop nuclear fusion when she was drafted into the legal game. I can't wait for her lectures on how much progress had been made for her contributions.
2 people like this.
Reply 32 - Posted by:
caljeepgirl 9/18/2024 5:24:06 PM (No. 1798110)
Thank you, #10/12! You just made my afternoon....he was the best 'drunk' actor ever, bar none!!
2 people like this.
Reply 33 - Posted by:
skacmar 9/18/2024 6:22:51 PM (No. 1798134)
Scientific American's endorsement of Kamala Harris will have just as much influence over most American's decision on who to vote for as Taylor Swift's endorsement. ZERO! What the out of touch government funded scientists and liberal pop star think has no relevance in my life (or most other people's). They have no clue what our day to day issues and concerns are. I do not care what they think! Scientific American should do a study on the effectiveness of political endorsements. Taylor Swift can write a song about those of us who ignore he endorsement and wish she would just keep her opinions to herself and stick to singing.
1 person likes this.
Reply 34 - Posted by:
JimBob 9/18/2024 6:51:33 PM (No. 1798148)
In a similar vein,
Science News is a small weekly publication. Informative and easy to read -I always thought it was put out by the same people as Scientific American, but noodling around just now it looks to be a separate outfit- but it caught the same disease as Scientific American. I subscribed to it for several years, then it got to where every article had some gloom-and-doom paragraph inserted near the end as to how people were destroying the Earth.
Every. Single. Article.
I got tired of that garbage pretty quickly and cancelled my subscription.
That was back in the 1990's, if I recall correctly.
Too bad.... before it was infected by the Leftist Lunacy cancer, it was a pretty good little mag.
0 people like this.
Reply 35 - Posted by:
caljeepgirl 9/18/2024 6:58:23 PM (No. 1798152)
I certainly hope Ms. Harris is honored and delighted to be placed in that rarified air with FJB! Can I please have the 1950s back?!?
1 person likes this.
Reply 36 - Posted by:
MickTurn 9/19/2024 12:54:24 AM (No. 1798296)
Since we no longer have REAL Science, we have Political Hacks acting like scientists, this is just another low brow Democrap SCAM for SCAMala.
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Beardo"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
Calling Scientific American one of the oldest and most respected science publications in the U.S. - what was the author of this article smoking when he came up with that fantasy?