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
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: For only the 2nd time in our 179-year history, editors of Scientific American are endorsing a candidate for president [View all]teran
(57 posts)2. They laid out the evidence
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?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
12 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
56 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
For only the 2nd time in our 179-year history, editors of Scientific American are endorsing a candidate for president [View all]
Dennis Donovan
Sep 2024
OP
Oh Guns&Ammo will reply with their big endorsement of the convicted felon.
bluesbassman
Sep 2024
#27
Good assessment of what a disaster Trump is. It needs to be repeated as often
GoodRaisin
Sep 2024
#13
She liked one of his tweets, or whatever they are called but I am not sure she has
Bev54
Sep 2024
#36
Because science matters! It's something we all take for granted, but without it, we'd all be worse off and
ffr
Sep 2024
#32