What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Covfefe-19 The 12th Part: The Only Thing Worse Than This New Board Is TrumpVirus2020

Status
Not open for further replies.
I actually liked what they said. I only read excerpts, but coming out with a political take in any form is a big, big deal for NEJM. But I think they did the right thing - keep the personal out of it. Don't endorse, don't become a political animal (like most churches have become). State the facts, which clearly speak for themselves.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
I’ll say the same thing I did on Facebook about NEJM:

I get what they’re trying to do. But this is just... I don’t know. It doesn’t sit right with me.

Come out and endorse a candidate. Don’t mealymouth it. The knuckledraggers don’t read NEJM (or more likely will proudly exclaim they won’t read it “again”). The people who do read it are probably voting for Biden already.

But just maybe, instead of endorsing some nebulous “change in leadership” they should have endorsed a specific candidate like Scientific American did. It was an absolutely stark and shocking moment to read a statement from an apolitical organization endorsing a person.

That headline, “NEJM endorses Joe Biden” might change enough minds or motivate someone to vote.

An endorsement should be just that: An endorsement. Otherwise it’s just a footnote to an appendix. We’re in a “win or die” scenario. Act like it.
Click to expand...
I'm not 100% certain they can do an endorsement.

I wonder if the company that publishes it, the Massachusetts Medical Society, is a non-profit corporation with a tax status that prohibits or limits its ability to engage in political endorsements. I think that some of those companies, who receive a certain tax status, do so with the promise or understanding they will not engage in political campaign activities.

Now, that's never stopped churches. However, most big non-profits aren't willing to risk their tax status just to endorse a candidate.
 
SJHovey said:
I'm not 100% certain they can do an endorsement.

I wonder if the company that publishes it, the Massachusetts Medical Society, is a non-profit corporation with a tax status that prohibits or limits its ability to engage in political endorsements. I think that some of those companies, who receive a certain tax status, do so with the promise or understanding they will not engage in political campaign activities.

Now, that's never stopped churches. However, most big non-profits aren't willing to risk their tax status just to endorse a candidate.
Click to expand...

this would be true if they were a 501(c)(3). Looks like MMS is a 501(c)(6) and can endorse a candidate.

A 501(c)(6) can endorse federal or state candidates for public office. The organization may communicate the endorsement to its membership and share the endorsement with the organization’s press list. In its communications to members, the organization can expressly advocate for the election or defeat of a specific candidate. Under the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, 501(c)(6) organizations may also expressly advocate to the general public, as long as those activities are not coordinated with candidates.
Click to expand...
​​​​​​​https://www.venable.com/insights/pu...-about-lobbying-political-activity-and-taxexe
 
Last edited:
Swansong said:
I actually liked what they said. I only read excerpts, but coming out with a political take in any form is a big, big deal for NEJM. But I think they did the right thing - keep the personal out of it. Don't endorse, don't become a political animal (like most churches have become). State the facts, which clearly speak for themselves.
Click to expand...

I'm going to give an undeserved flippant reply. SOrry.


You know what else is a big deal? A 100-year pandemic and kids in cages. These people are cowards and the Republicans have made science political, the the other way around. Time to treat them as such.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
You know what else is a big deal? A 100-year pandemic and kids in cages.
Click to expand...

Better check that Flux Capacitor on the DeLorean, doesn't appear to be working properly.

Is the current year actually 2069? We better update the calendar on the wall that says 2020. I see 100 year pandemic and was absolutely certain the last one in THIS country was in 1969 when 100,000 people died.

Kids in Cages? Don't listen to Moochelle. Set that date back 6 years to 2014, you know, when her husband built and housed migrant kid in them. Then Confused Joe said in 2018 that the cages were built "just to keep them safe". Don't take my word, fire up the DeLorean to go across the pond back to 2018 and see the Daily Mail story about the Biden / Jorge Ramos - Univision interview.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...istration-putting-migrant-children-cages.html

Whoops......ain't internet search engines a beyotch.
 
Whalers said:
Better check that Flux Capacitor on the DeLorean, doesn't appear to be working properly.

Is the current year actually 2069? We better update the calendar on the wall that says 2020. I see 100 year pandemic and was absolutely certain the last one in THIS country was in 1969 when 100,000 people died.
Click to expand...

100-year floods can occur more than once every 100 years -- the earth doesn't have a memory of when the last 100-year flood was. It just means in any given year there is a 1% chance of such an event occurring. You could have 100-year flood events two years in a row. If I flip a coin I have a 50% chance of getting heads -- even if I already got 100 heads in a row. You could have two "100-year" pandemic events within the same 100 year span.
 
Interesting...to Whalers and Chuck, yes, 1969 was a "pandemic"... However, as has already been stated -- and, funny, neither of you have yet to address -- that pandemic cost the U.S. approximately 100,000 lives over 18 months and, we've now lost over 210,000 lives in a little over 7 months. With at least another 100,000 predicted to parish before the end of the calendar year.

Also, did either of you read the MIT article cited regarding the fact the experimental drug that was given to our dipshyt president received had cells from a human fetus? Huh....funny....he and Pence weren't so worried about their pro-life ethics when it comes to saving this dypshyt's ass...
 
net presence said:
Interesting...to Whalers and Chuck, yes, 1969 was a "pandemic"... However, as has already been stated -- and, funny, neither of you have yet to address -- that pandemic cost the U.S. approximately 100,000 lives over 18 months and, we've now lost over 210,000 lives in a little over 7 months. With at least another 100,000 predicted to parish before the end of the calendar year.

Also, did either of you read the MIT article cited regarding the fact the experimental drug that was given to our dipshyt president received had cells from a human fetus? Huh....funny....he and Pence weren't so worried about their pro-life ethics when it comes to saving this dypshyt's ***...
Click to expand...

Does anyone honestly believe Trump has never paid for an abortion?

Seriously Jesus fans. Look yourself in the mirror and tell yourself that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top