SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
From the I've-heard-enough-and-won't-take-it-anymore department, http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39024648
The BBC reports that former Congressman Rush Holt, now part of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), is the spokesman for a movement "standing up for science".
His remarks reflect growing concern among researchers that science is disregarded by President Trump.
Scientists across the US plan to march in DC on 22 April.
[...] "To see young scientists, older scientists, the general public speaking up for the idea of science. We are going to work with our members and affiliated organisations to see that this march for science is a success."
Mr Holt made his comments at the AAAS annual meting in Boston as President Trump appointed a fierce critic of the Environmental Protection Agency as its head. Scott Pruitt has spent years fighting the role and reach of the EPA.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday February 21 2017, @05:17PM
A guy who went out of his way to promote blatant lies about the previous President's ethnicity, birthplace, family, religion, etc.?
There's a hilarious section of one of the debates where he skewers Hillary because he was doing that out of a favor to one of her minor functionaries. Names and places and details are called out... then that whole topic was kinda dropped from the campaign by the media because it made her look so bad. It is kinda funny that before she was his primary enemy, he was doing her favors, but that's politics for you.
Now only in the Democratic party could you have your own sec of state working against you by getting a billionaire to make fun of you as a sitting president, which is kinda funny. That party is soooo dysfunctional its often comedic. I mean you can't even make a sitcom about the Democrats because people would think it either non-fiction or unbelievable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21 2017, @06:17PM
Provided for the peanut gallery: Snopes [snopes.com].
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Tuesday February 21 2017, @07:24PM
a meta-comment about snopes...
i used to -not *depend* on them, but- consult them regularly for stupid shit i heard or saw online or wherever, and i would kind of get a reasonable cut at the credibility of that 'thing' from snopes...
but then i read a couple of their run downs on some issues/stuff (can't remember what, think one of them was about drones) where i think i had a little deeper knowledge, and they were being disingenuous, to say the least... (i know, a blog being disingenuous; jello sue-prees, as the froggies croak...)
also saw a couple 'debunked' stories which seemed to be substantially true, but they made some technical dissembling about it to call it 'untrue' or 'unlikely', or 'unproven' or some such mealy-mouthed claptrap...
don't run to them much anymore...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 22 2017, @04:00AM
^ This. Snopes has a liberal slant to their "fact checking". Snopes isn't going to say or do anything that might harm a progressive candidate.