It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Neil Degrasse Tyson, Why Aren't You Campaigning for Congress?

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   
So, I know hes not reading this but i'm curious anyway.

With all the talk of scientist not representative enough in congress, why aren't you leading the way? Why aren't you walking the walk?



Heres a video of him testifying before congress.


edit on 7/29/2014 by onequestion because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 11:55 AM
link   
poor BUGGER WOULD GO NUTS IN TEN DAYS SITTING IN THE SAME HOUSE WITH THE CLODS AND DUPES WE ELECT.....imho.....



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Why would you want to ruin a perfectly good human being by throwing him into politics?



(He is a good man but, officially... I'm still mad about Pluto.
)



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Becoming a politician would be a step down for him. I also hope Dr Ben Carson does not run for the same reason.



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Thats like Morgan Freeman being the new Pope. His voice would sooth all the violence and hatred.

Hell, if he read the Bible out loud, I would listen.



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

He's good stuff...don't know about being president but I do enjoy listening to him



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: VegHead

Thats a poor idea to spread.

Lets encourage more good people in politics please.



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

A skeptical, non-religious and non-atheist in Congress? 3 reasons why he'd never be selected and barely anyone would vote for him.

Shame really as they're 3 qualities that would make him a good voice in the House.



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky

Yeah i agree.

Its sad really. Its going to take a real cowboy to break down these barriers.



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky

I would vote for him. I'm sure he could introduce some great legislation.



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Maybe because he's just a vapid media figure, someone who has a "successful" career because he's not white or asian and because of the support of another celebrity: Carl Sagan.

His scientific productivity hovers at nil, and the only reason you know his name is because he's black. In 2012 the
number of black Americans that attained doctorates in applied mathematics was TWO (I don't have more recent data). Top notch graduate students have contributed more to their respective fields than this guy has over the span of his career.

His intellect and productivity are utterly inferior to countless white and asian scientists. But you'll never know their names because they succeed on their own merit.

Sorry, but I felt I should deny ignorance on the matter.



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Trender

Yeah, lawyers are way better.



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 08:23 PM
link   
He couldn't possibly succeed against the Koch money machine. They'd pump tens of millions of dark money into making sure he never got into office. The Koch's business model requires a bought-off and corrupt Congress.



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 08:26 PM
link   
He's probably one of those snobs that believes everyone should have an opportunity to attend college and receive affordable healthcare.

/sarcasm



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 11:01 PM
link   
I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.

I've seen both liberal and conservatives try to pigeon hole him into taking one political side or another. He's not a political operative. He's a scientist. He's not an ideologue, he's a fact finder. While I would never wish politics upon him, I would certainly vote for him.



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Trender




Maybe because he's just a vapid media figure, someone who has a "successful" career because he's not white or asian and because of the support of another celebrity: Carl Sagan.


Tyson's biggest contribution to science is to help make it mainstream and get people talking about it and acknowledging the VAST contributions science has made to the molding of society and our understanding of the universe. Sagan was an accomplished scientist before he EVER had a mainstream show. Yet, like Tyson long after him, he was instrumental in bringing science to the forefront of household discussion.




His scientific productivity hovers at nil, and the only reason you know his name is because he's black. In 2012 the
number of black Americans that attained doctorates in applied mathematics was TWO (I don't have more recent data).


Why do you degrade a man's accomplishments to race? The hell is wrong with you?




His intellect and productivity are utterly inferior to countless white and asian scientists. But you'll never know their names because they succeed on their own merit.


So he's inferior because he's black?




Sorry, but I felt I should deny ignorance on the matter.


I'd say you came much closer to embracing ignorance than denying it.. How sad.



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join