you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Look, antivax went from JFK Jr to Alex Jones. If you can't recognize that after reading the Mother Jones article, I can't help you.

[–]Velocity 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

What you're telling me is that Democrats abandoned a persecuted minority in favor of other minorities that are more lucrative since they don't affect donations from mega corporate Pharma sponsors to the DNC?

Just say that instead of beating around the bush next time.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Nope. Democrats are more influenced by scientist because after tobacco, leaded gas, climate change, evolution, homophobia, 5G... Those who have any regard for Science have mostly left the gop and now influence a more pro-science party. It isn't always identity politics.

[–]Velocity 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Those who have any regard for Science have mostly left the gop and now influence a more pro-science party.

In your opinion. You have no conclusive proof to support this opinion. You suggest that believing that men have periods and that there are 20 genders is pro science. I used to be a Democrat but they sold out to big money around 2004. No, I'm not Republican either. Believing in establishment narrated status quo does not equal pro science. It's all pro big money, are you truly this naive?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Don't let facts get in the way of your beliefs. Especially since you are not a scientist.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/

[–]Velocity 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You are trying to use an antiquated article from 2009, did you almost have to go to the internet article graveyard to find that?

Slightly more than half of scientists (52%) describe their own political views as liberal

This is statistically insignificant.

Intentionally obfuscating what political spectrum scientists marginally lean toward and using a Strawman to infer that this embodies the content of a political party is dishonest on your part.

The party of "science" is pure deceptive marketing. It's hard to comprehend people falling for this like you do. It's been said before...thinking is not your strong point, critical thinking is important...try it.

May also add that I identify as "liberal" too, yet I prove statements by tv talking heads....particularly when they wear lab coats with corporate money falling out of their stuffed pockets.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Don't let facts get in the way of your beliefs. Especially since you are not a scientist.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/15/politics/eric-lander-white-house-science-cabinet/index.html