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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Dennis Donovan

(24,778 posts)
Mon Sep 16, 2024, 12:15 PM Sep 16

For only the 2nd time in our 179-year history, editors of Scientific American are endorsing a candidate for president



Scientific American
For only the second time in our 179-year history, the editors of Scientific American are endorsing a candidate for president. That person is Kamala Harris. | Editorial


Vote for Kamala Harris to Support Science, Health and the Environment

Kamala Harris has plans to improve health, boost the economy and mitigate climate change. Donald Trump has threats and a dangerous record

By The Editors
September 16, 2024

In the November election, the U.S. faces two futures. In one, the new president 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.

In the other future, the new president endangers public health and safety and rejects evidence, preferring instead nonsensical conspiracy fantasies. He ignores the climate crisis in favor of more pollution. He requires that federal officials show personal loyalty to him rather than upholding U.S. laws. He fills positions in federal science and other agencies with unqualified ideologues. He goads people into hate and division, and he inspires extremists at state and local levels to pass laws that disrupt education and make it harder to earn a living.

Only one of these futures will improve the fate of this country and the world. That is why, for only the second time in our magazine’s 179-year history, the editors of Scientific American are endorsing a candidate for president. That person is Kamala Harris.

Before making this endorsement, we evaluated Harris’s record as a U.S. senator and as vice president under Joe Biden, as well as policy proposals she’s made as a presidential candidate. Her opponent, Donald Trump, who was president from 2017 to 2021, also has a record—a disastrous one. Let’s compare.

/snip


Unexpected endorsement, but a welcomed one indeed!
56 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
For only the 2nd time in our 179-year history, editors of Scientific American are endorsing a candidate for president (Original Post) Dennis Donovan Sep 16 OP
K & R..................... Lovie777 Sep 16 #1
They laid out the evidence teran Sep 16 #2
It was Joe. Bantamfancier Sep 16 #6
Thanks! teran Sep 16 #37
Wow! Clouds Passing Sep 16 #3
Moved me to tears. Doodley Sep 16 #4
Me, too. 3catwoman3 Sep 16 #22
I hear you. Me, too. wordstroken Sep 16 #40
I'm so surprised! leftieNanner Sep 16 #5
I know, they also didn't choose johnnyfins Sep 16 #42
But, you know... leftieNanner Sep 16 #49
True johnnyfins Sep 16 #50
Well done. Magoo48 Sep 16 #7
Expect MAJOR boycott dweller Sep 16 #8
A boycott by both MAGAts that can read RainCaster Sep 16 #15
Perhaps a concept of science BattleRow Sep 16 #17
Not a problem North Coast Lawyer Sep 16 #19
Goes along with the xian evilgelicals who also only read fantasy - the bible. erronis Sep 16 #26
xian evilgelicals don't read either ancianita Sep 17 #56
Oh Guns&Ammo will reply with their big endorsement of the convicted felon. bluesbassman Sep 16 #27
MAGATS are already boycotting science mainer Sep 16 #28
Kick dalton99a Sep 16 #9
Kick. N/T Upthevibe Sep 16 #10
Science! Iggo Sep 16 #11
In Science We Trust. twodogsbarking Sep 16 #12
Good assessment of what a disaster Trump is. It needs to be repeated as often GoodRaisin Sep 16 #13
TY & Scientific American! Cha Sep 16 #14
K&R riverkittenDem Sep 16 #16
Very scientifically done! dchill Sep 16 #18
Who was the other endorsement? Bev54 Sep 16 #20
The most interesting magazine in the world? whopis01 Sep 16 #33
Big Woop. Donald has Taylor Swift's boyfriend's co-worker's wife... progressoid Sep 16 #21
She liked one of his tweets, or whatever they are called but I am not sure she has Bev54 Sep 16 #36
Yep. progressoid Sep 16 #38
No, Taylor did outright endorse her. Elessar Zappa Sep 16 #41
We are talking about Britany Mahomes Bev54 Sep 16 #45
Ah ok. Elessar Zappa Sep 16 #46
The tweet (xeet? truth? argle-bargle? ...whatever) that she liked, Chellee Sep 16 #47
SA: doing what science does. yonder Sep 16 #23
A lot of MAGATs are anti-science and anti-intellectual, so they probably Poiuyt Sep 16 #24
They definitely aren't scientific Americans Nasruddin Sep 16 #29
Something tells me this endorsement will have little influence Mysterian Sep 16 #25
Lib Republicans Nasruddin Sep 16 #30
I disagree. murielm99 Sep 16 #34
Been there and lived that Nasruddin Sep 16 #44
Too bad the first one wasn't Al Gore. LisaM Sep 16 #31
Because science matters! It's something we all take for granted, but without it, we'd all be worse off and ffr Sep 16 #32
The scientists get it: Chump can never be allowed back in the White House FakeNoose Sep 16 #35
Scientists are probably the demographic jfz9580m Sep 16 #54
Yay SA! jfz9580m Sep 16 #39
"The failing Scientific American magazine... johnnyfins Sep 16 #43
Correct except it would be jfz9580m Sep 16 #53
You can expect the orange monster to say this is fake news and Scientific American magazine is kimbutgar Sep 16 #48
K&R Blue Owl Sep 16 #51
This message was self-deleted by its author Chin music Sep 16 #52
Lots of good reasons to vote for Harris. Aussie105 Sep 17 #55

teran

(57 posts)
2. They laid out the evidence
Mon Sep 16, 2024, 12:19 PM
Sep 16

clearly and concisely, like good scientists do.

I didn't see a mention of the first time they endorsed, but I skimmed. Do you happen to know?

johnnyfins

(1,317 posts)
42. I know, they also didn't choose
Mon Sep 16, 2024, 04:08 PM
Sep 16

Bleach under your skin, like a cleaning for COVID Guy either. How about let's explode a nuclear device in the middle of a hurricane guy? Oh...same guy. My bad.

RainCaster

(11,504 posts)
15. A boycott by both MAGAts that can read
Mon Sep 16, 2024, 12:41 PM
Sep 16

What are the chances that any Republican has not only reading skills, but believes in science too?

erronis

(16,770 posts)
26. Goes along with the xian evilgelicals who also only read fantasy - the bible.
Mon Sep 16, 2024, 01:09 PM
Sep 16

Last edited Tue Sep 17, 2024, 10:07 AM - Edit history (1)

On edit - I meant to add "only read fantasy - the bible."

bluesbassman

(19,785 posts)
27. Oh Guns&Ammo will reply with their big endorsement of the convicted felon.
Mon Sep 16, 2024, 01:09 PM
Sep 16

So that'll calm the knuckle draggers down.

mainer

(12,157 posts)
28. MAGATS are already boycotting science
Mon Sep 16, 2024, 02:04 PM
Sep 16

This will not change their minds. And I doubt they subscribe to SA.

GoodRaisin

(9,568 posts)
13. Good assessment of what a disaster Trump is. It needs to be repeated as often
Mon Sep 16, 2024, 12:37 PM
Sep 16

as possible how horrible Trump is.

Bev54

(11,911 posts)
36. She liked one of his tweets, or whatever they are called but I am not sure she has
Mon Sep 16, 2024, 03:20 PM
Sep 16

openly endorsed him. I think now with the "I hate Taylor Swift" confession, Taylor might be a little guarded around them. I would be careful when I am not sure who the other guests might be.

progressoid

(50,713 posts)
38. Yep.
Mon Sep 16, 2024, 03:25 PM
Sep 16

I imagine Taylor has had to redouble her security efforts.

Not only because of the Austria terrorism event but also because of Drumpf and his unhinged cult.

Chellee

(2,207 posts)
47. The tweet (xeet? truth? argle-bargle? ...whatever) that she liked,
Mon Sep 16, 2024, 05:31 PM
Sep 16

she later deleted when she got push-back. So she's not his most steadfast supporter. But, I think you're right. I think Taylor should be more cautious around the Mahomes. When someone tells you who they are, believe them the first time.

Poiuyt

(18,272 posts)
24. A lot of MAGATs are anti-science and anti-intellectual, so they probably
Mon Sep 16, 2024, 01:06 PM
Sep 16

look at this statement as an affirmation of their admiration of Trump.

Mysterian

(5,193 posts)
25. Something tells me this endorsement will have little influence
Mon Sep 16, 2024, 01:08 PM
Sep 16

on that segment of our population which believe that vaccines contain microbots from that evil mastermind Bill Gates.

Nasruddin

(828 posts)
30. Lib Republicans
Mon Sep 16, 2024, 02:24 PM
Sep 16

A LOT of scientists and engineers fall into the Republican half of the pie
Many are old - fashioned liberal Republicans or Reagan Republicans
They can be reached.

Cult nut cases pretty unlikely. Pretty Routhian probably.

murielm99

(31,411 posts)
34. I disagree.
Mon Sep 16, 2024, 03:08 PM
Sep 16

My son works at Fermilab. He has been there for 22 years. The county used to go Republican all the time. That is changing, too. No matter how the county went, the Lab was Democratic. I don't think you can get more scientific than a gaggle of particle physicists.

Nasruddin

(828 posts)
44. Been there and lived that
Mon Sep 16, 2024, 04:21 PM
Sep 16

Very strong Republican element in scientific/engineering circles - been that way
since they were in high school. I went to school with them, I went to university with them,
& I went to work myself in a national lab and in industry with them. They are out there
and still alive and voting.

It was probably even more true before my time.

It's possible the youngest generation is more left-leaning.

ffr

(23,112 posts)
32. Because science matters! It's something we all take for granted, but without it, we'd all be worse off and
Mon Sep 16, 2024, 02:47 PM
Sep 16

dumb, like MAGAs.

FakeNoose

(35,508 posts)
35. The scientists get it: Chump can never be allowed back in the White House
Mon Sep 16, 2024, 03:15 PM
Sep 16

It's not surprising that they're endorsing Kamala, because 4 years ago they endorsed Joe Biden!

Thank you, Scientific American!

johnnyfins

(1,317 posts)
43. "The failing Scientific American magazine...
Mon Sep 16, 2024, 04:13 PM
Sep 16

blah, blah, blah. IMMIGRANT PET EATERS, HANNIBAL LECTOR, WHY DOESNT MY TOILET FLUSH, ELECTRIC BOAT BATTERY SHARK!!!!

jfz9580m

(15,345 posts)
53. Correct except it would be
Mon Sep 16, 2024, 11:54 PM
Sep 16

THE FAILING SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN MAGAZINE

Never speak when you can shout instead..

kimbutgar

(23,165 posts)
48. You can expect the orange monster to say this is fake news and Scientific American magazine is
Mon Sep 16, 2024, 05:48 PM
Sep 16

A propaganda rag!

But then I doubt any of his MAGAloon supporters even know about Scientific American magazine!

Response to Dennis Donovan (Original post)

Aussie105

(6,193 posts)
55. Lots of good reasons to vote for Harris.
Tue Sep 17, 2024, 02:03 AM
Sep 17

Unlike the Republican Doctrine, vote for us because we just hate everybody, just like you!

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»For only the 2nd time in ...