It is one thing to appear bold and brash while running for an elected office, but the content of your words still matters. Jon Ossoff has always appeared on ballots with little cause shown as to why anyone should vote for him beyong the capital ”D” beside his name. he never held a major office, failed in his bid for the House, and now is moving up to compete for a federal Senate seat?
It makes little sense. Ossoff trying to talk tough ends up sounding like an unproven bench-sitter trash-talking the competition during the playoffs
Imagine a Senate majority that believes in science.
— Jon Ossoff (@ossoff) January 2, 2021
When this is the crux of your platform you essentially are admitting you have little worrth listening to. You also expose your own obliviousness.
Respectfully, I really don’t like the phrase “believes in science.” It implies that it’s a leap of faith like other “beliefs.” It’s not. We may not have all the facts at any given time, but science IS fact-based. I don’t “believe” in it; I trust it.
— ISpeak4theAnimals (@grasshoppr93) January 2, 2021
Please use a different word like "respects" instead of "believes".
There's no "belief" required with science, it is all backed by evidence.
— Alt Spec (@SpecAlt) January 2, 2021
True. Using ”believe” to insist you rely on facts sounds contradictory. Ossoff sure sounds faith-based in reference to science, while mocking those who think in this same fashion.
Science is not a religion. Scientific thought always welcomed challenges and questioning. There are no “facts” either, but hypothesis which can or can’t be defended. The discussion is always going, unless of course 2+2= whatever the Party says it is.
— Mom4truth???? (@Liberty4817) January 3, 2021
Recommended
"believes in science"
Anyone who uses this phrase doesn't demonstrate an understanding of science at all.
— Peace_Creep (@Peace_Creep) January 2, 2021
"Believes in science" is such a stupid phrase. It's amazing how few people understand what science is or is intended to do in favor of "have blind faith in government employees."
— ⛓Anti-socialite⛓ ?⚖️? (@no1pastryfan) January 3, 2021
This is very true, and it is also exposed by those who question where Ossoff’s ”scientific” position rests.
Like this? pic.twitter.com/B5Wxq19zSt
— Jellenne ???? (@jellen805) January 3, 2021
Democrats only believe in "science" when it serves their purposes. When it doesn't, like the science of biology (male/female), they don't believe in science.
Come up with a better line.
— John Paul (@JoPauCor) January 3, 2021
How many genders are there?
— I got your #Unity right here (@jtLOL) January 3, 2021
How many genders trust fund baby?
— Doctor of Coding Thinkology (@bradcundiff) January 3, 2021
If we all "believe science", how many genders are there? We must all agree right?
— President Elect Mat H. Blockchain (@MatHBellum) January 3, 2021
Define “woman”.
— Red Dot in a Blue Dot in a Red State (@reddotinaustin) January 3, 2021
Um, you are no longer allowed to this. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House from the Party Of Science declared all pronoun references involving gender are now off-limits.
A baby in the womb.
Only 2 genders.Science.
— Kerry ?? (Parler: k1erry) (@K1erry) January 3, 2021
I’m so sick of this line. When you start believing biology, let me know.
— audrey (@audreyy_kaye) January 3, 2021
Oh please. Biology is secondary to more important disciplines.
Political science isn't science.
What grade did you get in Calculus?
— AmishDude (@TheAmishDude) January 3, 2021
We are guessing straight-”A”s. Political science IS science, according to politicians.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member