We’ve never backed a presidential candidate in our 175-year history—until now

Albion said:

OK. Play or link us to each of those 20,000 then. Not to some smoke and mirrors reply, but 20,000 different instances. Otherwise, you are only verifying what I pointed to.

Click to expand...

There are websites where they're all collected.

Do your own work.

Albion said:

OK. Play or link us to each of those 20,000 then. Not to some smoke and mirrors reply, but 20,000 different instances. Otherwise, you are only verifying what I pointed to.

Click to expand...

Creationist Playbook, Page 10. Demand that EVERY SINGLE PIECE of evidence be presented on the internet "debate" forum before their existence is acknowledged.

MIDutch said:

There are websites where they're all collected.

Do your own work.

Click to expand...

As I said, "pulled out of thin air."

And it's not my own work; I wasn't the one who tried to get by with that 20,000 lies claim.

Albion said:

Not for the people who get their jollies from counting up and then announcing some fabulous but absurd number of "lies" pulled out of thin air.

Click to expand...

It's honestly not that absurd, when you think about it. Trump is particularly vocal, especially on Twitter. He has a habit of repeating things, too - so he might say one thing that's false, but he repeats that false thing dozens of times. For instance, his false statements about the US's mortality rate in comparison to Europe, which he's repeated more times than I honestly care to count, or his claim that Biden apologized to him about the China restrictions.

It's also worth pointing out that the article being referred to doesn't call them 'lies', but 'false and misleading information'. There is an important distinction there, not saying whether or not he's knowingly spreading untruth or if he's just wrong often.

Albion said:

As I said, "pulled out of thin air."

And it's not my own work; I wasn't the one who tried to get by with that 20,000 lies claim.

Click to expand...

Here's the first 5,000 or so as tracked by the Toronto Star from inauguration through June 2019.

And this is the Washington Post database of 20,055 (as of July 9 2020)

dayhiker said:

Thank you Scientific American

Click to expand...

Amen.

The fact that SA had never done this until its 175th year of operation is clear evidence you cannot have a more anti-science President than Donald Trump.

ChristianForCats said:

Amen.

The fact that SA had never done this until its 175th year of operation is clear evidence you cannot have a more anti-science President than Donald Trump.

Click to expand...

It's clear evidence of something. And that could be any number of things.

Albion said:

It's clear evidence of something. And that could be any number of things.

Click to expand...

Namely that Trump is one of the most, if not the most anti-science presidents we have ever had. We have a massive pile of corpses that puts that on vivid display. His administration purposefully led people die for political gain. He's a mass murderer.

Vylo said:

Namely that Trump is one of the most, if not the most anti-science presidents we have ever had.

Click to expand...

Easy to say but not factual. And by the way, Biden is for abortion on demand, Trump is not. Biden is for all the controversial sex/gender bending, Trump is not. So it looks like a better case can be made that Biden is a anti-science.

Oh yes, I know that the people who charge others with being anti-science are allowed to decided WHEN it's okay to be anti-science, but for the record, the rest of us aren't fooled.

Albion said:

Easy to say but not factual. And by the way, Biden is for abortion on demand, Trump is not. Biden is for all the controversial sex/gender bending, Trump is not. So it looks like a better case can be made that Biden is a anti-science.

Oh yes, I know that the people who charge others with being anti-science are allowed to decided WHEN it's okay to be anti-science, but for the record, the rest of us aren't fooled.

Click to expand...

No one is fooled by your obvious attempts to spin a narrative.

"I don't think science knows"

wing2000 said:

No one is fulled by your obvious attempts to spin a narrative.

Click to expand...

Would that be fooled or fueled?

In either case, I take it that you hadn't followed the discussion up to the point where you checked in.

Albion said:

Would that be fooled or fueled?

In either case, I take it that you hadn't followed the discussion up to the point where you checked in.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the correction.

I thought the thread was about science - no? Or did you throw in the abortion, gender bending topics by mistake?

Albion said:

Easy to say but not factual. And by the way, Biden is for abortion on demand, Trump is not. Biden is for all the controversial sex/gender bending, Trump is not. So it looks like a better case can be made that Biden is a anti-science.

Oh yes, I know that the people who charge others with being anti-science are allowed to decided WHEN it's okay to be anti-science, but for the record, the rest of us aren't fooled.

Click to expand...

Albion said:

Easy to say but not factual. And by the way, Biden is for abortion on demand, Trump is not. Biden is for all the controversial sex/gender bending, Trump is not. So it looks like a better case can be made that Biden is a anti-science.

Click to expand...

Neither one of those things has anything to do with science per se so his stance on them (which I'd hazard to guess you are misinterpreting) can not be anti science.

MIDutch said:

Neither one of those things has anything to do with science per se so his stance on them ....

Click to expand...

The reality of a living, breathing person is not science? The sex of a human is not a matter of science?

Then neither are most of the things that the self-proclaimed "science believers" push.

But it's not worth arguing too much since most people know that all of this jargon and posturing is just political theatre.

Albion said:

Easy to say but not factual. And by the way, Biden is for abortion on demand, Trump is not. Biden is for all the controversial sex/gender bending, Trump is not. So it looks like a better case can be made that Biden is a anti-science.

Click to expand...

Claiming that either of those things is anti-science is nonsensical.

Albion said:

The reality of a living, breathing person is not science? The sex of a human is not a matter of science?

Click to expand...

Science certainly has a lot to say about those topics.

...

Which doesn't make your anti-science claims any less nonsensical.

I've never heard of them until now. Why should I care what they think?