‘A Matter of Life and Death’: After 175 Years, Scientific American Backs Biden With Magazine’s First-Ever Endorsement

Homepage | Forums | Main Forums | 2020 Elections | President | ‘A Matter of Life and Death’: After 175 Years, Scientific American Backs Biden With Magazine’s First-Ever Endorsement

Viewing 6 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #358855
      eridani
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 6,220

      https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/09/15/matter-life-and-death-after-175-years-scientific-american-backs-biden-magazines

      Although SciAm had refrained from supporting any political candidates up until now, “this year we are compelled to do so,” the editors explain in an endorsement published online. “We do not do this lightly.”

      “The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the U.S. and its people—because he rejects evidence and science,” the editors charge, calling “his dishonest and inept response to the Covid-19 pandemic” just the “most devastating example.”

      SciAm’s editors note that in addition to his “catastrophic” handling of the ongoing public health crisis, Trump “has also attacked environmental protections, medical care, and the researchers and public science agencies that help this country prepare for its greatest challenges.”

      “That is why we urge you to vote for Joe Biden, who is offering fact-based plans to protect our health, our economy and the environment,” they write. “These and other proposals he has put forth can set the country back on course for a safer, more prosperous, and more equitable future.”

      Jesus: Hey, Dad? God: Yes, Son? Jesus: Western civilization followed me home. Can I keep it? God: Certainly not! And put it down this minute--you don't know where it's been! Tom Robbins in Another Roadside Attraction

    • #358873
      h-32
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 107

      I grew up with SciAm, subscribed to the paper edition for most of my younger years.  Sad to see them fall so far.

    • #358875
      Ohio Barbarian
      Moderator
      • Total Posts: 16,209

      They endorse someone in obvious cognitive decline in the name of science. Got it.

      It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

      Show me a man that gets rich by being a politician, and I'll show you a crook.--Harry Truman

    • #358882
      djean111
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 4,456

      So, Scientific American is endorsing a candidate who assures us he will not ban fracking.

      There is not an endorsement in the universe that could get me to vote for Biden or Trump.

    • #358900
      salemcourt
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 1,823
    • #358917
      jbnw
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,036

      it’s anti-Trump not pro-Biden.

    • #359045
      a little weird
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 674

      It’s like a real-life Kobayashi-maru test – there’s no way to win.  When I hear people like SA argue that Trump is a dangerous, anti-science demogogue who’s tearing apart our country and actively undoing the few good environmental protections we have (among other things), well they’re right and I can’t argue with them.  By their reasoning, we have to pick Biden as the lesser evil and try to weather the storm of his administration until we get someone who’s actually good in office next time.  I’ve followed this line of thought myself in other elections so I understand where they’re coming from even though I no longer believe that reasoning is sound.  The problem that we see over and over is that the neo-liberals in power will never actually let someone who’s actually good anywhere near the nomination.  We saw the most blatant example with Sanders who was on track to make it this time if they hadn’t all come together to put a stop to it.

      By the same token, when I hear people say that it’s the current, broken neo-liberal system that got us here to this point in the first place by forcing us to choose between ever-increasing evils based on whoever will hurt us least.  I can’t argue with that either.  In 2016, I knew people who pulled the lever for Trump simply because he was not one of the neoliberal elites that have taken over both parties.  Yes he was shit, almost everyone agreed on that*, but it was like giving a giant ‘fuck you’ to the people in power that keep perpetuating this madness.  Their reasoning was that if we have to have evil anyway, we may as well get someone who might fuck over the elites too.   *I realize he had (and still has) a dedicated base of supporters who think he’s the bee’s knees and love his inflammatory rhetoric and racist dog-whistles but I’m talking about the voters that actually think about their vote instead of automatically picking team red or team blue.

      So – it’s a no-win scenario.  I can’t really imagine an outcome that won’t have me falling into a pit of depression either way and just praying we make it for the next four years.  So I will not fault anyone for making a different decision for me.  Everyone’s calculus is a little different based on their life experiences, the type of media they consume, and probably other things as well.  I plan to cast my vote for the Green Party – it will be like spitting in the wind but at least I can symbolically vote against the two party system.  I might have a lot more soul-searching to do if I lived in a swing state and thought my vote might matter one way or another.

       

       

Viewing 6 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.