Then you haven't bothered to look. I voted for him because he said he would end the opaqueness of the federal government that was the Bush administration, which I despised.
I don’t think the “scientific American” would ever have a flat earther on their payroll, much less printing stories in the magazine.
What are you even copy-pasting?Not at all.
The problem with Clinton's modification to the Community Reinvestment Act (which has been around since the 1970's) is that it had no effect on the banking crisis. In fact, CRA loans were far more closely scrutinized
CRA Myth and Fact » NCRC
Myth: The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) caused the foreclosure crisis.ncrc.org
The majority of subprime loans were originated by non-CRA covered financial institutions. In fact, only about 25 percent of sub-prime loans were made by institutions covered by CRA.¹
CRA was passed in 1977. The explosive growth in subprime lending occurred more than two decades later, nearly doubling from 2001-2006 alone. No major changes to CRA were enacted during this time.
CRA does not mandate banks to make only home loans. Banks are encouraged to examine credit needs and lend appropriately based on these needs (for small business, home, and other types of loans).
CRA penalizes banks for reckless, irresponsible K and otherwise predatory lending.
What caused the 2008 Crash was 1) Banks making reckless loans to middle class people without income verifications to buy houses they planned to flip quickly, and selling those garbage mortgages as investments. The SEC provided very little oversight to this activity.
Nobody believes you were ever a Republican. People don't tend to lose wisdom with age.
I agree for the most part. But what political opinion do you think he expressed in his interview with Maher?
Have you read the entire article that is in question?
I don’t recall claiming that he expressed a political opinion in that interview.
Here’s what they said. It’s an absolute claim:
He acknowledged that she was fired and no longer writes for the mag and that the reputation of the mag shouldn’t sit on the actions of one editor.
Here’s some more “science”
So you you say that he expressed political opinions i his interview with Maher or not?
And the point was that her political spew had nothing to do with science which is ironic at best in a magazine about science.
I say the editor discussed something about non science related in a scientific magazine.
Well since I read the article I understand the context and it makes much more sense than when you only read a sentence or paragraph.
Why would the authors contradict themselves in their own article?Well since I read the article I understand the context and it makes much more sense than when you only read a sentence or paragraph.
The article goes into extreme details about the biological differences. Lays them out on a cellular, physical, hormonal, metabolic, and historical levels.
The quote you posted three times is about INEQUITY Not being about the inherent physical differences between males and females.
The authors then went on to explain the inequities and why they believe there is much more research and understanding to be had about the female body and how it can perform.
Here. Do yourself a favor before you continue playing expert off partial information and just read what the piece is actually about….
The Theory That Men Evolved to Hunt and Women Evolved to Gather Is Wrong
The influential idea that in the past men were hunters and women were not isn’t supported by the available evidencewww.scientificamerican.com
Perhaps you’re not understanding the context of inequality they are speaking of… unequal treatment
Ok… but the OP and many in this thread are dogging on Tyson for being woke and taking that position. Is that what you saw as well? Him expressing a woke opinion?
Nope. He just chose to be obtuse towards what Maher was saying.
