How To Define "Scientist"?

[PoliticalChic]

We've seen evolutionary changes in lizards introduced to a new habitat.

There's also the experiment of a Soviet geneticist in the middle of the 20th century who bred foxes with the single trait of tameness in mind, and got the surprising result of them looking and behaving like dogs. Ain't biology cool?

I must say, this article certainly supports your thesis.

But it was hardly an example of human-initiated experimentation that can be regularly replicated.

You could, to an extent. If you introduce a new species to a new island and leave it alone it will evolve separately from the host population you took it from. It's a basic method of speciation, via geographic isolation.

You're not going to get the same lizards to evolve the precise same way, but you'll get them to evolve.



Gratzi.

Still, I don't believe that the example represents any the validation of your premise: "Evolution is and has been replicated many times, in various scientific experiments."

Well that's a pity, because it does. Would you perhaps like some more examples? Maybe you're a fan of bacteria, my personal favorite is one that Richard Lenski did for over twenty years, centered around E. coli.

Let's see, if you like foxes, here's a link about the experiment the Soviet geneticist I described above did.

Do you like fish? John Endler did an experiment concerning guppy color and cameoflauge in the 1970s. Here's a PBS page that describes his experiment quite well.

I have more if you like, although if you still think this doesn't show evolution in organisms, I'm afraid I have to conclude you don't seem to understand the term 'evolution.'

Nor does it deny the aspects that a religious perspective adds to the theory.
But I did find it interesting.

I'm not sure what religious perspective you could add. Evolution makes no quibbles or qualms concerning religion. It really doesn't have much to do with it.

I referred the E. coli earlier...

Prokaryotes (as their name suggests) refer to cells which do not have a true membrane-bound nucleus. This type of cell includes most bacteria. As E. coli belongs to this category [its genetic material which includes genomic DNA (in the form of single-stranded DNA) and plasmid DNA (small circular DNA molecules in the cytoplasm of the cell) for some strains of E. coli e.g. DH5a] is sequestered in the cytoplasm of the cell in a region known as the nucleoid (rather than a true membrane bound nucleus), we may thus classify E. coli to be a prokaryotic cell.

Read more: Why is E. coli a prokaryotic cell

Domesticaton is the selection of traits that are mutation...rewarding adaptations.

It doesn't refer to the series of chages in nature that have produced the panorama we see today.

I would be happy to accept your explanation of 'evolution' as long as you accept that it is largely based on conjecture and faith...not reproducible research.

Not all work should be expected to be reproducible...especially in an area such as 'evolution'...and this is exactly why faith in a theory is such a large component. And why one can make up pretty much whatever one wishes.

The theory of evolution is incomplete with explaining the origins of the universe, and, therefore, the primordial gases.

 

[Woyzeck]

I must say, this article certainly supports your thesis.

But it was hardly an example of human-initiated experimentation that can be regularly replicated.

You could, to an extent. If you introduce a new species to a new island and leave it alone it will evolve separately from the host population you took it from. It's a basic method of speciation, via geographic isolation.

You're not going to get the same lizards to evolve the precise same way, but you'll get them to evolve.



Gratzi.



Well that's a pity, because it does. Would you perhaps like some more examples? Maybe you're a fan of bacteria, my personal favorite is one that Richard Lenski did for over twenty years, centered around E. coli.

Let's see, if you like foxes, here's a link about the experiment the Soviet geneticist I described above did.

Do you like fish? John Endler did an experiment concerning guppy color and cameoflauge in the 1970s. Here's a PBS page that describes his experiment quite well.

I have more if you like, although if you still think this doesn't show evolution in organisms, I'm afraid I have to conclude you don't seem to understand the term 'evolution.'

Nor does it deny the aspects that a religious perspective adds to the theory.
But I did find it interesting.

I'm not sure what religious perspective you could add. Evolution makes no quibbles or qualms concerning religion. It really doesn't have much to do with it.

I referred the E. coli earlier...

Prokaryotes (as their name suggests) refer to cells which do not have a true membrane-bound nucleus. This type of cell includes most bacteria. As E. coli belongs to this category [its genetic material which includes genomic DNA (in the form of single-stranded DNA) and plasmid DNA (small circular DNA molecules in the cytoplasm of the cell) for some strains of E. coli e.g. DH5a] is sequestered in the cytoplasm of the cell in a region known as the nucleoid (rather than a true membrane bound nucleus), we may thus classify E. coli to be a prokaryotic cell.

Read more: Why is E. coli a prokaryotic cell

That's a shame you wish to dismiss it outright. The experiment is fascinating, and produced some surprising results.

Domesticaton is the selection of traits that are mutation...rewarding adaptations.

It doesn't refer to the series of chages in nature that have produced the panorama we see today.

Domestication is evolution by human selection. Rest assured, domesticated animals underwent evolution to get to where they are. Evolution is defined very broadly as changes in an organism, after all.

I would be happy to accept your explanation of 'evolution' as long as you accept that it is largely based on conjecture and faith...not reproducible research.

Would you please not lie? You're the one who keeps poo-pooing all the experiments I presented. It's not 'faith based', I gave you reproducible research and you gave flimsy reasons for not accepting them. Faith does not enter into the equation here.

Not all work should be expected to be reproducible...especially in an area such as 'evolution'...and this is exactly why faith in a theory is such a large component. And why one can make up pretty much whatever one wishes.

You can reproduce Lenski's experiment if you wish, it's fully reproducable. As is the experiments of Endler (the link I gave you took you through how!), Belyaev, and the one about the lizards. The individual results of evolution will vary (as in, they will evolve and change in different ways), but it will reinforce the fact that evolution occurs.

There really isn't any faith in it. It's all fact and tried and tested experiments here.

The theory of evolution is incomplete with explaining the origins of the universe, and, therefore, the primordial gases.

Oh how cute. You think that actually pertains to the theory of evolution. You kids say the silliest things! You think biology, specifically evolution, should say something about cosmology!

Seriously, evolution makes no claims pertaining to how the universe began, or even how life started. Those are separate fields.

 

[rdean]

Republicans need to have "scientist" defined. One word among many others.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Republicans need to have "scientist" defined. One word among many others.

Definitions help people communicate intelligently. If everyone was like you and just made up definitions whenever they wanted, no one would be able to communicate.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Republicans need to have "scientist" defined. One word among many others.

What an excellent coda for this thread!

"Some of our Left-leaning friends love to claim that their side is the one allied with science, and imply that such cannot be wrong.
And the corollary…the Right is based on ignorance and anti-science. After all, only “6% of scientists are Republicans."


Talk about the alpha to the omega!

 

[percysunshine]

"Some of our Left-leaning friends love to claim that their side is the one allied with science"

Of course, some of our left-leaning friends are pathologic liars. So they have inadvertantly settled the issue.

 

[editec]

A scientist is one who explores reality without preconceptions about what will be discovered.

That obviously is not to say that they will never be wrong, merely that they are not convinced that they are right based on their own presumptions.

 

[percysunshine]

A scientist is one who explores reality without preconceptions about what will be discovered.

That obviously is not to say that they will never be wrong, merely that they are not convinced that they are right based on their own presumptions.

True. It is an empirical observation based epistimology that is independent of religious belief systems like Creationism and Global warminism.

 

[PoliticalChic]

A scientist is one who explores reality without preconceptions about what will be discovered.

That obviously is not to say that they will never be wrong, merely that they are not convinced that they are right based on their own presumptions.

Not the point, Techster...
...the point is the numbers of 'scientists' who lie and/or cheat.


"How common is scientific fraud? Nobody really knows. Defenders of science's purity often argue that such fraud is very rare, the product of a tiny number of "bad apples." But I doubt that. My suspicion is that the cases of fraud that are exposed are just the tip of the iceberg."

A recent meta-analysis of those surveys reveals that, on average, about 2% of scientists admitted to fabricating or falsifying data, and 14% said that they had personal evidence of such behavior in one or more of their colleagues.[3] The percentage admitting to fraud was highest among scientists doing pharmaceutical, clinical, and other medical research, which either means that researchers in those fields fabricate lab data more often or lie less often on questionnaires than do researchers in other fields.

As the author of the meta-analysis, Daniele Fanelli, points out, the 2% figure is the lowest possible estimate of the percentage of scientists who have deliberately falsified data. No respondents would say that they had behaved fraudulently if they hadn't, but many, even on an anonymous questionnaire, might be expected to lie in the opposite direction. The meta-analysis also revealed that a full third of the respondents to the surveys admitted to more subtle forms of scientific cheating, such as failing to report data that contradicted their theories or dropping data points from analyses because of a "gut feeling" that they were inaccurate.
Cheating in Science, Part I: The Tragic Story of a Young Man

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Fact is: When money or fame is on the line, people cheat. Not just scientists, but all people. We can document businessmen, politicians, soldiers, teachers, religious leaders, and yes, Scientists who have lied when there's money on the line. The fact that there are still "Scientists" that debate the link between lung cancer and smoking is a testimony to the sheer amount of money available if your result supports certain goals.

Hell, we're seeing this in history with the growth the cottage industry of "Historians" willing to support monsters or trash heroes just to score with the right political crowd and sell books.

The biggest issue I've heard of in science as far as cheating is related to the Chinese right now, who are heavily plagiarizing the results of their peers for promotion.

Right now the best defense against this remains the Peer Review system. Most of the errors, lies, and outright fabrications in grant proposals are found once the results are submitted for Peer Review. Ditto the plagiarizing issue. It isn't perfect, but it remains the best we have.

I'm curious though what you see the solution as being? Defund scientific research? Keep in mind we won WWII and the Cold War thanks to the massive amounts of money pumped into scientific research. We've saved millions of lives every year thanks the medical research we've pumped into Biology, Genetics, and Chemistry and the applications to medical treatments. We save literally thousands of lives and WIN WARS based on our research into accurate weather prediction. So is the solution to really let a few bad apples win out and ruin it for everyone?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Fact is: When money or fame is on the line, people cheat. Not just scientists, but all people. We can document businessmen, politicians, soldiers, teachers, religious leaders, and yes, Scientists who have lied when there's money on the line. The fact that there are still "Scientists" that debate the link between lung cancer and smoking is a testimony to the sheer amount of money available if your result supports certain goals.

Hell, we're seeing this in history with the growth the cottage industry of "Historians" willing to support monsters or trash heroes just to score with the right political crowd and sell books.

The biggest issue I've heard of in science as far as cheating is related to the Chinese right now, who are heavily plagiarizing the results of their peers for promotion.

Right now the best defense against this remains the Peer Review system. Most of the errors, lies, and outright fabrications in grant proposals are found once the results are submitted for Peer Review. Ditto the plagiarizing issue. It isn't perfect, but it remains the best we have.

I'm curious though what you see the solution as being? Defund scientific research? Keep in mind we won WWII and the Cold War thanks to the massive amounts of money pumped into scientific research. We've saved millions of lives every year thanks the medical research we've pumped into Biology, Genetics, and Chemistry and the applications to medical treatments. We save literally thousands of lives and WIN WARS based on our research into accurate weather prediction. So is the solution to really let a few bad apples win out and ruin it for everyone?

I'm a conservative, meaning that I agree with Madison (Federalist #51)...we aren't angels, nor will any system of laws or government make us so.

Checks and balances in government, and the peer judgement that you point out.

From my perspective, we do exactly what we are doing here...spotlight the issues, show the motivations that might increase the temptations...

And have faith that truth will out: as in East Anglia.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

From my perspective, we do exactly what we are doing here...spotlight the issues, show the motivations that might increase the temptations...

And have faith that truth will out: as in East Anglia.

That's a good solution. The truth always wins out in the end.

The story I'd like to see written about is where the hell all the money in support of Global Warming Research is coming from. It can't all be public money.

I've said before, I agree that the climate is changing and we're warming up, but the research that shows Mankind is the cause of and source of the problem, or that we can even really solve it, has always been.... fishy. Seems like its more about selling a few more electric cars than an actual pursuit of truth.

And even when a theory is right (Like Evolution) that doesn't stop folks from twisting it to fit their own agendas. The Mechanism for evolution is about as rock solid as any other theory we've ever had in the history of Mankind. But it doesn't really address the origin of Mankind or the Origin of the universe, despite what people may think.

 

[PoliticalChic]

From my perspective, we do exactly what we are doing here...spotlight the issues, show the motivations that might increase the temptations...

And have faith that truth will out: as in East Anglia.

That's a good solution. The truth always wins out in the end.

The story I'd like to see written about is where the hell all the money in support of Global Warming Research is coming from. It can't all be public money.

I've said before, I agree that the climate is changing and we're warming up, but the research that shows Mankind is the cause of and source of the problem, or that we can even really solve it, has always been.... fishy. Seems like its more about selling a few more electric cars than an actual pursuit of truth.

And even when a theory is right (Like Evolution) that doesn't stop folks from twisting it to fit their own agendas. The Mechanism for evolution is about as rock solid as any other theory we've ever had in the history of Mankind. But it doesn't really address the origin of Mankind or the Origin of the universe, despite what people may think.

Exxon gave $125,000 for research

US $2.1 billion

EU $3 billion


$94 billion in Green Stimulus, wind and solar

Nuclear is most heavily subsidized alternative energy

From Jerry Taylor, CATO Institute

Most folks don't realize that 'Big Green' or Big Sierra sets the agenda, not Big Oil. Delingpole wrote a book called "Watermelons" (green on the outside but red on the inside) which makes the point the issue is political at its heart.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

From my perspective, we do exactly what we are doing here...spotlight the issues, show the motivations that might increase the temptations...

And have faith that truth will out: as in East Anglia.

That's a good solution. The truth always wins out in the end.

The story I'd like to see written about is where the hell all the money in support of Global Warming Research is coming from. It can't all be public money.

I've said before, I agree that the climate is changing and we're warming up, but the research that shows Mankind is the cause of and source of the problem, or that we can even really solve it, has always been.... fishy. Seems like its more about selling a few more electric cars than an actual pursuit of truth.

And even when a theory is right (Like Evolution) that doesn't stop folks from twisting it to fit their own agendas. The Mechanism for evolution is about as rock solid as any other theory we've ever had in the history of Mankind. But it doesn't really address the origin of Mankind or the Origin of the universe, despite what people may think.

Exxon gave $125,000 for research

US $2.1 billion

EU $3 billion


$94 billion in Green Stimulus, wind and solar

Nuclear is most heavily subsidized alternative energy

From Jerry Taylor, CATO Institute

Most folks don't realize that 'Big Green' or Big Sierra sets the agenda, not Big Oil. Delingpole wrote a book called "Watermelons" (green on the outside but red on the inside) which makes the point the issue is political at its heart.

Well, I can certainly see how it has become political at heart. The Environmental folks see this as the "smoking gun" and have staked a lot on it. Economic Concerns stand to lose big time if this becomes the driving policy behind regulation. This has political battle written all over it. And once politics enters the picture, objective truth leaves the picture.

 

[flacaltenn]

From my perspective, we do exactly what we are doing here...spotlight the issues, show the motivations that might increase the temptations...

And have faith that truth will out: as in East Anglia.

That's a good solution. The truth always wins out in the end.

The story I'd like to see written about is where the hell all the money in support of Global Warming Research is coming from. It can't all be public money.

I've said before, I agree that the climate is changing and we're warming up, but the research that shows Mankind is the cause of and source of the problem, or that we can even really solve it, has always been.... fishy. Seems like its more about selling a few more electric cars than an actual pursuit of truth.

And even when a theory is right (Like Evolution) that doesn't stop folks from twisting it to fit their own agendas. The Mechanism for evolution is about as rock solid as any other theory we've ever had in the history of Mankind. But it doesn't really address the origin of Mankind or the Origin of the universe, despite what people may think.

We all HOPE the truth wins out BEFORE any real damage is done.

There's a corollary to the "cheating" aspect of the OP.. I run into this constantly on USMB. And that is partisian objections to scientists acting in defense of industries or interests that the left have deemed undesirable. Not realizing that you cant' just DECLARE said industry guilty and deny them a defense, they build up huge encyclopedic volumes of resumes showing even the vaguest connection of a researcher to a "damned" cause.

Truth is -- usually there are solid scientific arguments to be made for chemical companies, energy discoverers, maybe even fast food establishments. It is NOT fraud, lying or cheating if it is valid scientific work. And it pisses me off no end -- that NOW -- a large fraction of the left is NOT willing to discuss issues when the messenger doesn't vet out as one of their own.

But in a complete act of hypocrisy, WE can't even question the morals, ethics or motives of THEIR govt sponsored messengers. No sir.. Not allowed. How damn convienient. Doesn't it kinda remind you of an official Inquistion rather than free inquiry?

 

[whitehall]

The definition of "scientist" is blurry and muddy enough to include just about everyone in the world including the guy who spits on your windshield and squeegies it off for a dollar.

 

[Dante]

"Can people trust, fully trust a convicted felon?"

Exxon gave $125,000 for research

US $2.1 billion

EU $3 billion


$94 billion in Green Stimulus, wind and solar

Nuclear is most heavily subsidized alternative energy

From Jerry Taylor, CATO Institute

Most folks don't realize that 'Big Green' or Big Sierra sets the agenda, not Big Oil. Delingpole wrote a book called "Watermelons" (green on the outside but red on the inside) which makes the point the issue is political at its heart.

Jerry Taylor, CATO Institute?

"Jerry Taylor used to be global warming skeptic but has now changed his position to become a climate activist."

"After being challenged by Joe Romm to fact-check sources, Taylor changed his prior beliefs because 'the scientific evidence became stronger and stronger over time.'"

Fact-checking - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Can people trust, fully trust a convicted felon?"


note: thank you NewsVine_Mariyam

 

[Dante]

Some of our Left-leaning friends love to claim that their side is the one allied with science, and imply that such cannot be wrong.
And the corollarythe Right is based on ignorance and anti-science. After all, only 6% of scientists are Republicans.

Of course, such a view ascribes a certain honor and repute to the word scientists and neglects to remember that scientists are, in reality, merely other folks.

Scientists have families to feed, and face the same temptation to cheat as anybody else.
Our Left-leaning colleagues are simply naïve.
Either that, or lacking in self-esteem, and imagine that their definition of scientist somehow applies to themselves. Pathetic.

Which brings me to this expose from Nature Magazine.

1. Research programmes of the European Commission (EC) have notoriously cumbersome procedures and rigid control mechanisms that have apparently not prevented a criminal syndicate from conducting a brazen fraud that has siphoned off millions in EC grant funds.

2. Italian authorities and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in Brussels, Belgium, have confirmed that they are prosecuting members of a large network accused of pocketing more than 50 million (US$72 million) in EC grants for fake research projects.

3. The EC has terminated four collaborative projects in information technology, and excluded more than 30 grant-winners from participation in around 20 ongoing projects. Investigations are still under way in the United Kingdom, France, Greece, Austria, Sweden, Slovenia and Poland.

4. The fraud has been conducted in a "highly sophisticated manner, resembling money laundering", by means of a cross-border network of fictitious companies and subcontractors having claimed inflated costs, or expenses for non-existent research activities and services, he says.

5. Concerned about the burden of Brussels bureaucracy, several thousand European scientists signed a petition this year (Trust Researchers - A declaration to the attention of the European Council and Parliament) calling for the framework to be "based on mutual trust and responsible partnering". Some now fear that the fraud could hamper efforts to cut red tape. Europe tackles huge fraud : Nature News

Rumor has it that only 6% of the crooks were Republicans..

And.

The strange part of this story is that it offers no details about what specific areas of government research funding were pilfered, or what "results" may have come of the fraudulent research projects they supported. Could it have been in the climate science domain, where the most government research money seems to be sloshing around? We know that there has been organized fraud in the European carbon trading market. Trading had to be halted back in January when it was discovered that millions of dollars of carbon allowances had been stolen and cashed on the spot market, so this wouldn't be the first time that organized crime had fixed on the climate circus as an easy mark. And one of the overlooked e-mails in the "Climategate" scandal involving the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit two years ago was a message from one of the scientists suggesting that a particular grant be routed through a Russian organization as a means of tax evasion. Doing Advance Work: EU gave $72 million taxpayer dollars for fake 'science' research grants-Nature Magazine

'Scientists' are....???

And.

And one of the overlooked e-mails in the Climategate scandal involving the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit two years ago was a message from one of the scientists suggesting that a particular grant be routed through a Russian organization as a means of tax evasion.
Seems like this story needs some follow up. What

So, so some 'scientists' cheat?

And what is it they cheat about?

Nature Magazine?

You mean the online Nature that:

Editorial Values Statement​

Editors of the Nature Portfolio believe in the transformational power of science and its potential to drive positive change in the world.

As members of the scientific community, we are committed to supporting the research enterprise by curating, enhancing and disseminating research that is rigorous, reproducible and impactful. We work to promote openness and transparency as well as the highest standards in research culture.

We provide an independent forum for reporting and discussing issues concerning research and the community, and we engage with researchers at all stages of their career to understand their needs and advocate for positive change.

We believe that science should represent everyone. As such, we recognize that it is our responsibility to work towards overcoming inequities and to foster a culture of diversity and inclusion in our communities.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Nature Magazine?

You mean the online Nature that:

Editorial Values Statement​

Editors of the Nature Portfolio believe in the transformational power of science and its potential to drive positive change in the world.

As members of the scientific community, we are committed to supporting the research enterprise by curating, enhancing and disseminating research that is rigorous, reproducible and impactful. We work to promote openness and transparency as well as the highest standards in research culture.

We provide an independent forum for reporting and discussing issues concerning research and the community, and we engage with researchers at all stages of their career to understand their needs and advocate for positive change.

We believe that science should represent everyone. As such, we recognize that it is our responsibility to work towards overcoming inequities and to foster a culture of diversity and inclusion in our communities.

Can you explain how any who is American, and claims to have an intellect, could vote for this?


Or did you believe (I almost said 'think') you would try to destroy my country and just waddle away?

• Contrary to the term itself, Kamala has stated that illegal aliens are not criminals
• She has stated that she wishes to decriminalize illegally crossing the border, similar to the way Democrats have decriminalized shoplifting.
• She has argued against, not the death penalty, just the death penalty for cop killers
• She favors defunding the police
• She authored a fund to bail out domestic terrorists, called the Minnesota Freedom Fund.
• Joining Communist Bernie Sanders in “Medicare For All,” in which she argues for all private health insurance. BTW, some 220 million Americans have private health insurance, 65% of the population
• Kamala plans to include all the illegals in the Medicare plan
• Eliminate and ban all fracking which produces 64% of the total crude oil produced in the United States in 2023.
• She supported a law which bans arrests for shoplifting under $950.
• She supports indicting Israel for war crimes against Hamas
• Believes in banning internal combustion engines, allowing only electric vehicles.
• As Attn’y General, her office supported Prop 57 that put rapists and murders back on the street after serving a fraction of their sentence
• Supported a state law that keeps parents from knowing about the indoctrination of their children toward gender transition
• When the nation was wracked by Democrat-fueled George Floyd riots Kamala said the riots should not stop:

“As a U.S. senator from California from 2017 to 2021, she had a more leftist voting record even than socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, Vermont independent.” Harris had a more leftist voting record in Senate than Sanders

Kamala wrote “Trump supports a national abortion ban.” Of course that is a lie. Kamala Harris na Instagramie : "Donald Trump supports a national abortion ban. President @JoeBiden and I will do everything in our power to stop him and restore women's reproductive freedom."

Kamala was the deciding vote on the $1.9T American Rescue Plan that caused this inflation. Now prices are up nearly 30%.

 

[Dante]

Can you explain how any who is American, and claims to have an intellect, could vote for this?


Or did you believe (I almost said 'think') you would try to destroy my country and just waddle away?

• Contrary to the term itself, Kamala has stated that illegal aliens are not criminals
• She has stated that she wishes to decriminalize illegally crossing the border, similar to the way Democrats have decriminalized shoplifting.
• She has argued against, not the death penalty, just the death penalty for cop killers
• She favors defunding the police
• She authored a fund to bail out domestic terrorists, called the Minnesota Freedom Fund.
• Joining Communist Bernie Sanders in “Medicare For All,” in which she argues for all private health insurance. BTW, some 220 million Americans have private health insurance, 65% of the population
• Kamala plans to include all the illegals in the Medicare plan
• Eliminate and ban all fracking which produces 64% of the total crude oil produced in the United States in 2023.
• She supported a law which bans arrests for shoplifting under $950.
• She supports indicting Israel for war crimes against Hamas
• Believes in banning internal combustion engines, allowing only electric vehicles.
• As Attn’y General, her office supported Prop 57 that put rapists and murders back on the street after serving a fraction of their sentence
• Supported a state law that keeps parents from knowing about the indoctrination of their children toward gender transition
• When the nation was wracked by Democrat-fueled George Floyd riots Kamala said the riots should not stop:

“As a U.S. senator from California from 2017 to 2021, she had a more leftist voting record even than socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, Vermont independent.” Harris had a more leftist voting record in Senate than Sanders

Kamala wrote “Trump supports a national abortion ban.” Of course that is a lie. Kamala Harris na Instagramie : "Donald Trump supports a national abortion ban. President @JoeBiden and I will do everything in our power to stop him and restore women's reproductive freedom."

Kamala was the deciding vote on the $1.9T American Rescue Plan that caused this inflation. Now prices are up nearly 30%.

First, it is not your country.

Bernie Sander is not a communist.

Most everything you claimed regarding Kamala Harris is either bullshit or horse manure

Now to dress the thread and my posts: It's about you using a source as an authority, who when pushed to fact check their beliefs, came away with different beliefs. They facts checked themselves.

And you use a group that uses and proudly posts about DEI