He's also not popular with the stable, middle class democratic electorate who make up a plurality of their consistent voters. I think they'd vote for him in the generals if he won the primaries but I don't think even with media hype he can win those primaries without a massive wave of independents voting in them
As a youngish, college educated white man who voted against Bernie in 2016, his appeal certainly extended beyond that demographic, all my queer POC friends loved him. He polls horribly with the stable, comfortable middle class Democrats who reliably vote for sure, and I doubt he can/could ever make it through a Dem primary, even if the DNC leadership pushed him. But he does do really well with the same groups trump does, the disaffected and marginalized. In an election matchup, Trump wins the extremely bigoted voters, and Bernie wins the leftists and targeted minority groups and drives much higher turnout in them. The moderate Republicans who swung to Biden and Kamala probably vote third party or abstain, the establishment Dems probably hold their nose and vote Bernie. I think it would be very close, and if there were third party centrist candidates they would get more votes than expected, but I think turnout general would be a lot higher than 2016 or 2024
Most countries have deep economic ties to most wealthy countries, we're in a global economy. Even subsistence farmers in subsaharan Africa buy more of their seeds than you can imagine from Chinese companies that do the bulk of their R&D in the US and western Europe, if US policy becomes extremely isolationist that will affect them.
Also, the US is one of the biggest climate emitors, if that ramps up instead of decreasing the whole world will feel that too.
They hang out here because America is currently one of/the best wealth engines on the planet and they can afford to avoid the shit parts. Once either of those stop they'll go somewhere else that's nicer
There is some panicking prompted by the horrible things he's promised to do but probably can't, but:
-He got Roe v. Wade overturned, stripping rights from Americans while also being responsible for a 3% increase in infant mortality in the US, the first significant increase in decades
-about as many people died of COVID as voted for Jill Stein, and while Trump isn't responsible for all their deaths he significantly worsened the problem.
I don't agree that she had no platform other than I'm not Trump, but she certainly shifted right as the race went on and lost more and more support as she did it
I think Harris played it better than anyone had so far with handling Trump. I think her fatal mistep was believing there were hordes of rightwing never trumpers who could be swayed. She had so much momentum when she first stepped in and people thought she'd be further left than Biden, she pivoted further right than him and probably got less votes. Being a POC woman certainly didn't help either.
I mean, the projected winner maps aren't the US government's decision, it's what whatever news your watching has modelled as settled with an acceptable margin of error based on current information. Realistically they could have called most of the states months ago with that same error, some organizations just veil it more
GTFO with that "politics" bullshit. It stopped being a purely political difference when Trump made it about racism, sexism, and all other possible forms of bigotry. It stopped being about purely bigotry when he tried to stage a coup.
Above and beyond, you don't know their life. Maybe they needed a life-saving abortion and their father gleefully cackled when that right was effectively removed in many states. Maybe they're black and their father bragged about the shootings of black folks, they're latin and he chortled over the deportation rhetoric, or they're Muslim and he rubbed the travel bans in their face. Maybe they have/had long COVID and their father gave it to them because "it's a hoax." There are so many reasons for cutting MAGA idiots out of your life and Trump's political policy is the least of them
Sure, there will be examples of problems in any field that has hundreds of thousands to millions of humans working in it. That doesn't mean there's a broad crisis, and it doesn't mean that most research is faked or fallible. In your 2004 example, all of the data wasn't faked, some images for publication were doctored. There's been potential links between alzheimer's and aBeta amyloids since at least 1991 (1), long before this paper that posited a specific aB variant as a causal target. Additionally, other Alzheimer's causes and treatments are also under investigation, including gut microbiome studies since at leasg 2017 (2). Finally, drugs targeting aB proteins to remove brain plaques work in preclinical trials, indicating that the 2004 paper was at least on the right track even if they cheated to get their paper published. This showcases science working well: bad-faith actors behaved unethically, but the core parts of their work were replicated and found to be effective, so some groups followed that to clinical trials which are still ongoing, and others followed other leads for a more holistic understanding of the disease.
Also, I'd very much argue that human neurological diseases are both bleeding edge and niche, which inherently means that recognizing problems in studies will take more time than something that is cheaper or faster to test and validate, but problems will eventually be recognized as this one was.
Cras P, Kawai M, Lowery D, Gonzalez-DeWhitt P, Greenberg B, Perry G. Senile plaque neurites in Alzheimer disease accumulate amyloid precursor protein. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1991;88:7552–6.
Cattaneo, A. et al. Association of brain amyloidosis with pro-inflammatory gut bacterial taxa and peripheral inflammation markers in cognitively impaired elderly. Neurobiol. Aging 49, 60–68 (2017).
I wouldn't call it a broad crisis, and it isn't universal. More theoretical sciences or social sciences are more prone to it because the experiments are more expensive and you can't really control the environment the way you can with e.g. mice or specific chemicals. But most biology, chemistry, etc that isn't bleeding edge or incredibly niche will be validated dozens to hundreds of times as people build on the work and true retractions are rare
No, the Republicans also don't have the power to fix the system. That's not their goal. Both parties have the power to completely gum up the works of the government, which is antithetical to fixing the system, but is perfectly acceptable if your goal is to weaken protections to allow a privileged few to gain more power through extragovernmental levers. If we entered a mirror world where the Democratic party were gunning to be a fascist dictatorship and the Republicans were gunning to stop them, but all voters retained their current alliances, not much would change long-term because there are enough people in both parties to obstruct and roadblock, unless the now-pro-civil-rights supreme court kept being radical but in a positive direction
We can trust him to look out for himself as he sees it, not necessarily rationally. And also not to plan long-term if he needs a cash infusion now. Will be interesting (I guess) to see which pressure wins out
Additionally, the raised and blunt hood height makes a full-body impact with no force dissipation much more likely, particularly for shorter people, where a more traditional hood shape allows a struck pedestrian to roll over the top and avert some of the force of the strike
It works great for notes, it's not great for recording data because if it mishears me/I mumble once an entire set of 500+ observations can be frame shifted away from their identifiers and I have to redo it
He's also not popular with the stable, middle class democratic electorate who make up a plurality of their consistent voters. I think they'd vote for him in the generals if he won the primaries but I don't think even with media hype he can win those primaries without a massive wave of independents voting in them