or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Gibonius

It's not a word game. It's the difference between a disagreement within the scientific literature, and a paper being declared fraudulent.There's a huge difference in public perception. The non-expert community could look at the subject prior to 2009 and think there was still some discussion, not being experts and all. After it was officially withdrawn, that wasn't a plausible conclusion any longer. It was a major turning point in the public discussion, even if it was...
I feel this way when I see Democrats spiking the football in celebration. First of all, Trump hasn't lost yet. And second, it's good for the country to have two strong and viable parties. I have no idea where the Democratic party would go if the Republicans really end up imploding. One party rule isn't good for the country.You can see a good analogy in some of the more liberal states: Massachusetts, Maryland, California, etc. People are more often than not happy with...
A progressive that wants us to be a society of assholes? That's novel.
Why exactly did you think he was going to stop making these kind of mistakes? That's his entire personality. There was never any sign that he could turn it off. Giving a couple rehearsed speeches doesn't change who someone is.This is like the "Oh my god, he's going to run as Barry Goldwater!" thing. Trump is running as Trump. No shit?It bears repeating that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, although Bush almost certainly wouldn't have gone for them (and wouldn't have...
Some dumbshit Trump spokesperson got on CNN and tried pin the blame for Khan's death on Obama changing the rules of engagement. Khan died in 2004. Also, this shit with Trump refusing to back Paul Ryan in his primary race is fascinating. All over this idiotic Khan thing?
The immunology community is different from the general public though. It takes some time for scientific knowledge to percolate from the journals into the public consciousness after a question hits the public mind, and that didn't really happen until 2007 or so. A politician hesitating to commit to an answer a year or two after a scientific question really becomes public discussion? Meh.Obama and Clinton are hardly the only generally well-informed people to change their...
Entirely possible they were pandering or hedging, but it's one thing to do that at the beginning of a public discussion of a scientific issue and another after ten years of it. The public discussion always lags far behind the scientific consensus.There wasn't much of a public discussion until Jenny McCarthy's book blew up in 2007, so I still don't think it's that ridiculous for a politician to hedge at that point in time. Certainly they don't get any credit for it, but...
Anybody that was in the field would have known that, but it was a topic of pretty heavy public conversation. I don't think it's damning for a politician to have the wrong stance at that point in time. The final Wakefield retraction came out in 2010, the Omnibus Autism Proceedings was in 2009. You weren't automatically an anti-science moron for giving some credence to it. 2016 though?I wouldn't hold it against a politician who had statements not buying global warming...
It's almost like they change their opinion on things when new information becomes available.
Typical third party interest cycle, really. Interest in third parties tends to spike earlier in races when people aren't totally satisfied with the main candidates but don't know much about the alternatives. Then they learn more about the third parties, find some reason to not like them, and go back to the mainstream.See: Harambe the gorilla getting 5% in polls.
New Posts  All Forums: