03 May 20
The post that was quoted here has been removed"The assault on science does not end with the White House. Trump’s vocal disdain for evidence-based thinking has emboldened an army of quacks, pseudoscience groups and conspiracy theorists who have stepped up their proselytizing online and in protests across the country."
Yes indeed - And I see some of evidence of this right here in these forums. Self appointed experts who have little or no scientific education spouting Trump's deeply flawed quotes as if they are Gods own gospel.
OH, BTW - I just volunteered to follow sh76's example and make phone calls and text's on behalf of Joe Biden's campaign, as well as becoming a donor. Those tree hugging, educated liberals are looking pretty good to me. 🙂
03 May 20
@eladar saidEladar - I'm sorry you've gotten your undies in a twist over this, but like it or not, Trump's ridiculous comments about UV rays, injecting liquid cleanser, COVID-19 being a hoax, and those cases that will "magically disappear" soon is just plain wrong. Rather than admit this, the Trump folks pivot, and attack the scientific community, China, the media, Joe Biden, and of course the Liberals, rather than admitting how uninformed and just plain wrong they are.
@mchill
Glad you have so much in common with D. I have seen it for quite some time.
04 May 20
@eladar saidI know it means violating Godwin's Law, but FDR, a social Democrat, Churchill, a Conservative, and Stalin, a Communist, all agreed that Hitler needed to be defeated.
I am not upset about anything, just pointing out how you and D agree.
If a particular statesman draws united opposition from people of very diverse political opinions, that's probably evidence that that statesman is an extremist and that his policies are transparently unacceptable.
04 May 20
@teinosuke saidNice to see your limited knowledge of recent history.
I know it means violating Godwin's Law, but FDR, a social Democrat, Churchill, a Conservative, and Stalin, a Communist, all agreed that Hitler needed to be defeated.
If a particular statesman draws united opposition from people of very diverse political opinions, that's probably evidence that that statesman is an extremist and that his policies are transparently unacceptable.
Can you explain to me exactly how the US entered WW2?
04 May 20
@eladar saidFDR had already committed to a policy of "all aid short of war" to the Allies well before Pearl Harbor and the German declaration of war. He was of course opposed by the quasi-fascists of the America First committee, among whom eladar finds his spiritual ancestors.
Nice to see your limited knowledge of recent history.
Can you explain to me exactly how the US entered WW2?
It ought to go without saying that I wasn't of course seriously comparing Trump to Hitler; such a comparison would be absurd.
The basic point is this: when you notice moderates deserting a politician, the reason just might be that he is an extremist. If a whole range of people starting from divergent political perspectives despise a politician, that's pretty good evidence that he's objectively despicable.
04 May 20
@teinosuke saidWe entered the war to fight Japan, which was on Hitler's side.
FDR had already committed to a policy of "all aid short of war" to the Allies well before Pearl Harbor and the German declaration of war. He was of course opposed by the quasi-fascists of the America First committee, among whom eladar finds his spiritual ancestors.
It ought to go without saying that I wasn't of course seriously comparing Trump to Hitler; such a compariso ...[text shortened]... cal perspectives despise a politician, that's pretty good evidence that he's objectively despicable.
But let's assume your parallel has merit, where does Trump fit in this scenario?
