Detroit Police Officer and Sergeant Face Firing for Breaking Policy and Tipping Off...
America Owns Hockey: US Women Win OT Gold, Leave Canada Spiraling and Seething
Absentee Mom's Illegal Stay Leads to Daughter's Disney Visit Ending in 4-Month ICE...
Renee Good Memorial Burned in Firey but Mostly Peaceful Incident
Absurd Tara Palmeri Goes Nuclear: Accuses Michael Tracey of Being Paid to Smear...
Wife of Illegal Who Killed Georgia Teacher Says What Happened, Happened
WaPo: Some Say Atlantic Story ‘Felt Misleading’ Once They Learned It Was Made...
Elmo Wishes Ramadan Mubarak to All of His Friends
Brian Stelter: ABC News Has Admirably Insulated The View From Equal Time Rules
China's 'Killer Robots' Terrify Americans on X — Until Everyone Realizes It's Just...
WaPo: Dancers Reenact Shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Front of...
Bodies Buried at Epstein Ranch? New Mexico Allegedly Opens Disturbing Probe
President Trump to Obama: You Just Gave Classified Info on Aliens – Big...
'Insanity'! Here Are Some of NYC Mayor Mamdani's Spending Priorities (While Slashing the...
GOP WIN! Virginia Judge Grants Temporary Restraining Order Against Democrats' Illegal Gerr...

Scientific American Endorses Kamala Harris for all the Science She'd Bring

ImgFlip

We've written before how once-respected magazines and journals like Nature, Popular Mechanics, and Scientific American have all thrown away their credibility in the name of politics. Nature, for example, reported that establishing a legal definition of whether someone is male or female based on the genitals they are born with "has no foundation in science." Popular Mechanics asked scientists for "the best, safest ways" to bring to the ground "a statue that you decide you no longer like."

Advertisement

Scientific American essentially endorsed Kamala Harris back in July by saying that because her mother was a biomedical scientist, Harris would bring science to the forefront of her administration. Her father was also a Marxist and she brought that to her administration, so maybe it makes sense.

The editors write:

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.

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.

Guess when the first time was?

Advertisement

But look at the science! Look at Harris' record on climate change and reproductive rights!

Look at Joe Biden's scientific approach to allowing boys to play on girls' sports teams. Or the fact that he ended cancer as we know it.

That or the Q&A session she had with child actors about Space Force and NASA. Plus, Joe Biden put her in charge of overseeing artificial intelligence and set her to meet with the leading innovators.

Advertisement

It looks like this is going to be a thing now every four years at Scientific American.

Remember when TIME Magazine named Ahmed “Clock Kid” Mohamed to its Most Influential Teens of 2015 list for what Barack Obama called his "cool clock" with the numbers on the inside of the case? He even got invited to Science Night at the White House where he got to mingle with other renowned scientists like Bill Nye, the Science Guy.

And they wonder why we don't trust scientists anymore.

***

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement