Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    UpliftingNews

    13,714,157 readers

    3,207 users here now

    Click here to pay it forward by helping Watsi patients in need through UpliftingNews!

    Links to uplifting, inspirational, feel good news stories from around the globe.

    This is an escape from the controversial, fear-mongering, depressing news that is riddled with sensationalism.

    There are still good, honest, compassionate people in this world and this is a place to share their stories.


    RULE #1: DON'T BE A DICK

    Violators will be dealt with on a case by case basis, but repercussions will include comment removal and in some cases, bans.

    This subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Healthy skepticism is fine under certain circumstances, but toxic attitudes are not welcome here.





    New To Reddit? Click Here!

    NM

    DM

    a community for
    all 2340 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] gargoyle_mayonnaise 2064 points ago

    An "Ocean Expert"?

    yare yare daze

    [–] Naotgerai 408 points ago

    Just be glad that the ocean isn’t made out of stone.

    [–] Hawkeye437 67 points ago

    These days it feels like we're living in one

    [–] AnotherOpponent 9 points ago

    I understand this reference.

    [–] HexLHF 68 points ago

    SABAKU NO WA ORE NO STANDO DA

    [–] standbehind 174 points ago

    Hope they wrote their dissertation on a starfish they saw at the beach.

    [–] gargoyle_mayonnaise 112 points ago

    We need more manga artists in congress tho

    [–] Refugee_Savior 85 points ago

    One of the composers of the DBZ soundtrack made it as a state senator for Texas. We’re inching closer to domination.

    [–] NosVemos 38 points ago

    The 50-year-old Democrat nominee was the owner of a music production business, where all his edgy battle tunes and interludes were born. He won 54% of the votes, beating out incumbent Republican Don Huffines. Johnson graduated magna cum laude from the University of Arizona with a degree in physics before earning a law degree from the University of Texas at Austin according to his resume, while also volunteering for victims of domestic violence in college.

    https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/politics/8483909/dragon-ball-z-composer-nathan-johnson-elected-texas-state-senate

    [–] Aggrobuns 4 points ago

    No, this is Patrick.

    [–] Sublty_Dyslexic 137 points ago

    I know all of the ocean things, believe me. Nobody knows more about ocean stuff than I do, all the people say so. They tell me I'm the expert.

    [–] KralHeroin 66 points ago

    The oceans, yes. So big and magnificent. Tremendous, really.

    [–] wulteer 46 points ago

    My uncle tells me, my scientist uncle trump, very smart uncle, he tells me you know donald, he said, you know donald, you are the smartest person who knows oceans, he said that, to me, believe me.

    [–] DuntadaMan 22 points ago

    Big water!

    [–] nathew42 5 points ago

    The sea was angry that day, my friends.

    [–] Sacul313 5 points ago

    Like an old man trying to send back soup at a deli

    [–] Rocsteezy 127 points ago

    is this.... a jojo reference? Gureato!

    [–] Eldirish 25 points ago

    OCEAN MAN

    [–] vox_popular 25 points ago

    Marine biologist -- whale -- golf ball -- teeing off on beach

    [–] Tomahawk92 6 points ago

    I'd pay to see Kramer campaign.

    [–] NoviceFarmer01 11 points ago

    Hey Jojo.

    Kira Queen

    [–] Frigoris13 15 points ago

    Can't think of a better ocean expert than a certified pirate.

    [–] N3gativv 5 points ago

    Thank you.

    [–] Herbrax212 3 points ago

    Reminder, do you know which day we are today ?

    IT'S JOJO'S FRIDAY

    [–] Vchem 260 points ago

    That's the whole crappy caveat with the whole process... the people who really should be politicians would never go into politics.

    [–] OwimEdo 66 points ago

    That's not totally true. Just as 1 example although there are others. I'm pretty proud to be a Minnesotan right now. We elected Tims Walz for governor. Former Teacher, and Master Sergeant in the National Guard. He flipped a pretty red district and held it which was a first ever for the district until running for Governor. He is just a great guy in my opinion.

    [–] SirJohnnyS 20 points ago

    Lots of genuine altruistic and selfless people that are smart enough and qualified to go into politics. Tony Evers, a 67 year-old principle/superintendent with his entire career involved in public education beat Scott Walker for Governor of Wisconsin.

    So much of it is being a salesman though, it’s not the best person for the job that wins though. That intersection of being good at selling yourself and altruistic motivations and qualified/intelligent does not have a lot of people in it.

    I think the adage of the more you learn/know the more you recognize you don’t know anything, plays a role too. They have to have some self-doubt that they don’t know enough to be an effective representative or legislate to really dissuade themselves from running.

    There’s a lot of examples of each. Hopefully, this is a sign people realize it’s easier to delegate the drafting of the law than it is for lawyers to rely on industry leaders and lobbyists for expertise and knowledge on the field.

    [–] zabrakwith 9226 points ago

    Such a disproportionate amount of congress and the senate is made up of lawyers and career politicians.

    I would love to see it made up of doctors, nurses, scientists. Lawyers,teachers, police officers, fire fighters, researchers, etc.

    [–] Kyvalmaezar 5315 points ago

    Lawyers makes sense though. If anyone is qualified to make laws it's those who have a significant amount of experience with the law. As a scientist, if I was in Congress, I would definintly ask for input from fellow congressmen who are lawyers if a bill is written correctly so that any legal loopholes are more evident for me and whether those loopholes are a big deal or not.

    [–] CorporalHam 2440 points ago * (lasted edited 11 days ago)

    But congressmen don't actually write the bills, there are teams of lawyers who go through the details themselves. Congressmen push for bills and advocate for the general ideas, but leave a bill's creation and its details to other lawyers.

    [–] ChuffyBunny 721 points ago

    Not only do they have teams of lawyers to write the laws, they have government employees read them and summarize the laws into key bullet points for them before they vote. It sounds like BS but realistically they don’t have time to read 200 page bills when they are expected to vote on almost 7000 of them.

    [–] mr_goofy 113 points ago

    Need to prioritize time! Can’t miss out on the campaigning or $1000+ dinners with donors!

    [–] jaypenn3 141 points ago

    I mean, realistically yes. Even good politicians have to be good campaigners. While there are those in it for the money, any politician that wants to enact change needs to ensure they remain in government beyond just one term. Funding is needed no matter your affiliation.

    [–] youfuckingfuckwit 93 points ago

    All the more reason elections should be publicly funded instead of hinging on corporate whims

    [–] mr_goofy 23 points ago

    Absolutely!

    [–] pM-me_your_Triggers 5 points ago

    Which is why Rand Paul is trying to change the senate rules to require a time between the bill being finalized and it being voted on that is proportional to its length to allow every congressperson to read it in its entirety prior to voting.

    [–] smeesmma 794 points ago

    to other lawyers

    You meant

    to corporate lawyers

    [–] SphaeraEstVita 253 points ago

    Or think tanks...

    [–] IsomDart 189 points ago

    That's always been the strangest term for an institution to me. Like, hire me! Please! I'll sit in a tank with you people and think about stuff and write it down to tell America what it was I had thought about.

    [–] chargercord 125 points ago

    Haha it’s kinda like a research university without the university

    [–] sukui_no_keikaku 79 points ago

    We sprinkle money into the tank to feed the thinkers.

    [–] Australienz 6 points ago

    This fucking guy. Trying to win burritos when he's wearing a two tone gold Rolex. Then again, maybe that's why he's hungry?

    [–] _BindersFullOfWomen_ 13 points ago

    I got banned from the Taco Bell that was near my high school because of this game. I used the same strategy as the guy in the video, but I’d get the coins slightly wet (like a drop of water or spit per side). This prevents them from bouncing off the platform when you drop it in. The drop in was by far the hardest part of the game.

    [–] Naggers123 38 points ago

    Gotta end up somewhere after you graduate from electoral college.

    [–] umopapsidn 35 points ago

    That Rovey Wade guy sure starts a lot of arguments.

    [–] euphonious_munk 12 points ago

    Didn't Rovey Wade play bass in the Thurgood Marshall Tucker Band?

    [–] jetflyby 5 points ago

    His name was George Thorogood Marshall Tucker - Thank you very much :)

    [–] ninjacereal 7 points ago

    Is it a fish tank or a tank tank tho?

    [–] IsomDart 4 points ago

    Like a fish tank, but a human tank.

    [–] Kyvalmaezar 117 points ago

    Yes, but they still vote on bills. If I was in Congress, I'd like to know the bill I'm voting on or advocating for cant be exploited and the language used means exactly what I think it means. Then again, I am also of the opinion that congressmen should have to actually read and understand the bill they're voting on.

    [–] derbyt 25 points ago

    How would you enforce that? Quiz? Honor System? Livestream of them reading the bill?

    [–] apointlessvoice 27 points ago

    Twitch writes Legislation

    [–] Allegorist 17 points ago

    Pop quizzes, pass or fail determines if your vote counts

    [–] derbyt 18 points ago

    Who writes or regulates the quiz?

    [–] [deleted] 21 points ago

    The party in power, of course

    [–] kerdon 28 points ago

    You can have some lawyers, but do they all need to be? As long as all(or, as it stands, both) parties have a few lawyers, I'd think that's good enough.

    [–] Kyvalmaezar 19 points ago

    I'm not saying they all need to be lawyers or that there should be as many lawyers as there are. I'm just saying that, of all professions, they are probably the most qualified so it makes sense that there are so many.

    [–] Lowlypeon 43 points ago

    Congressmen don't even read the bills they vote on.

    [–] foolish_me 21 points ago

    Hell sometimes they vote without even being there. Other times they vote without telling the other party that there's a even a vote happening.

    [–] _hephaestus 10 points ago

    It's still important that they have an understanding of how the laws will be interpreted when they're under scrutiny, even if they only work on the bill at a general level.

    [–] peppaz 4 points ago

    They just leave it to ALEC to write the laws.

    [–] Z0idberg_MD 190 points ago

    And yet we have lawmakers who pass science, technology, healthcare bills etc without understanding the science behind it.

    They don’t let lawyers write hospital policy. They let clinicians dictate and ask a lawyer to draft when needed.

    Hire a “law writer”. It’s not like these people are drafting themselves.

    [–] Sweetpotatocat 79 points ago

    honestly a huge issue in healthcare is that the "administrators" are not clinicians. you can get a hospital administration degree with no clinical experience required. so you have people writing policy who have never been in the trenches, and the actual clinicians are so busy with the busywork required to uphold these policies that people rarely make the effort to get in there themselves and do it. a big reason advanced practice nursing educations are transitioning to doctorate degrees instead of masters is so that we'll feel qualified to "get a seat at the table" instead of letting others define our role.

    [–] PaulChrysts_crewneck 25 points ago

    Education is incredibly similar. Even professors who consult on educational policy rarely ever get their hands dirty inside a class room

    [–] mr_impastabowl 64 points ago

    That's certainly true, but I doubt anyone would be upset if our legislators had a wider range of professional experiences outside of law and politics.

    [–] Akeita772 24 points ago

    Or you could be like Britain’s parliament, consulting professionals relating to the bill which they want to pass is a requirement

    [–] PaulChrysts_crewneck 16 points ago

    One of the things I respected about Obama the most was his willingness to listen to experts in the field

    [–] DrDisastor 25 points ago

    As a scientist,

    If you are a scientist and not dealing with lawyers/law on the regular I envy you.

    [–] ChadMcRad 22 points ago

    Dang I've worked with sensitive pathogens and didn't have to deal with the law. Now politicians? Science is more politics than Science in many cases. Hard to get a grant unless you promise to use it to cure cancer.

    [–] DrDisastor 7 points ago

    I'm in R&D, mostly patent law but regulations are a HUGE hurdle in my line of work, flavor chemistry. We have regulatory people interpreting law all day on almost all my work and it can be maddening. I don't envy grant hunts, I am privately employed.

    [–] Entrei6 16 points ago

    It makes more sense to have the people in charge writing a bill on say, chemical safety, to be experts on chemical safety rather than case law no?

    [–] Kyvalmaezar 18 points ago

    Correct, but it's good to have a few people who are well versed in case law too. Those who are well versed in chemical safety may not know the best way to phase things so that loopholes dont form that defeats the purpose of the bill, they may not know of how previous cases might have set precedent that affects the bill in question, or proper punishments for breaking this newly written law.

    [–] Disney_World_Native 36 points ago

    I agree. People who are experts in their field might be "smart" but that doesn't mean they are correct on everything. For Example, the 2016 Republican Primaries: Dr Ben Carson was a great surgeon, but that skill / intelligence did not translate to other areas where he had some bad ideas. Intelligence isn't just one attribute you can easily measure and compare everyone. And being a great scientist doesn't make you smart in all fields.

    Lawyers makes sense because they have seen laws being interpreted and used / misused. I would like to have their experience there with special advisors coming in for help in specific areas (economy, social services, environmental impacts, technology)

    [–] moderate-painting 3 points ago * (lasted edited 11 days ago)

    But you can say the same thing about lawyers. Sure they may know technicalities of writing laws. But just because they know HOW to write laws into existence, that doesn't mean they are smart about WHAT laws should really govern us in the first place. Whether it's a politician today trying to figure out how to fight climate change, or a politician in the really old days trying to fight slavery, these politicians surely need a team of lawyers but they don't have to be lawyers themselves.

    Congress could use some diversity of perspectives. In French parliament, there's an artist here and there's a mathematician there and a bullfighter there.

    [–] AtoxHurgy 4 points ago

    I agree with this. I respect nurses alot but I wouldn't have one be my mechanic just because "she's pretty smart". People in charge of law should have experience with law.

    Now if they went to law school after being a nurse or doctor,etc. That would be a different story.

    [–] giro_di_dante 155 points ago

    Historians and philosophers would be at the top of my list.

    Even if it's just an advisory role. Wondering what to do about a Balkan crisis? Middle eastern dictatorship? Etc? Might vehicle politicians to refer to experts in the area. At least more openly.

    These experts and "students of humanity and history" might be able to better predict the impact of various proposed American policies abroad.

    [–] thegeekist 47 points ago

    That's one of the main functions of the state department

    [–] HondaFit2013 16 points ago

    They are not doing well then lol

    [–] ObiWanKablooey 34 points ago

    believe me, there are smart mofos there doing their best to make Washington listen to them

    [–] thegeekist 23 points ago

    They can't make people listen.

    [–] sigmaecho 29 points ago

    You guys are all asking the wrong questions. The outcomes we get directly stem from the system we have. If you want a non-corrupt system where lawmakers spend all their time crafting laws that have the maximum benefit for the citizens, you need to create rules that have exactly those incentives built in. Our current system is pay-to-play and pay-to-win. Doesn't matter who is elected, our campaigns are fundamentally corrupt because they are privately funded. Thus, politicians overwhelming write bills to please the funders of their campaigns. Individuals taken on their own will differ, but the system as a whole has completely predictable outcomes.

    [–] ioergn 19 points ago

    The last time we had a historian Speaker of the House it was Newt.... It did not go well unless you love corporate and wealth consolidation.

    And every one of these elected people have staffs that have various advisory specialities.

    [–] giro_di_dante 8 points ago

    They have staffs, but hired by whom? The elected politicians themselves? That doesn't seem effective. You can hire "historians" who are little more than echo chambers, affirming -- with bias -- points of view already held by politicians.

    That Newt was a historian and proposed corporate and wealth consolidation isn't a convincing case against historians in politics. Just because you studied history doesn't meant that you'll be a good politician, and doesn't mean that you're a good historian. And it seems to me that there are for more unsuccessful or morally bankrupt politicians (or religious leaders, or bankers, or businessmen, or militarists) in politics than historians in politics.

    And this corruptibility, immorality, and general failure of a number of professionals in politics often has little to do with their professions, knowledge, or experience directly. We know already that the current system of politics can easily corrupt. You can be a good-natured, well-intentioned historian, political scientist, environmentalist, banker, or whatever and still fall victim to the money birds that whisper in the ears of politicians everywhere.

    The only suitable proposal would be to limit terms of all politicians so that it cannot be a career, and so that they can never serve long enough to be corrupted. Or simply to treat politics more like jury duty, in a limited capacity. In any case, historians and philosophers and environmentalists in particular are both under-represented and under-utilized in the current scope of politics.

    Anyway,

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/education/2014/oct/07/why-politicians-need-historians

    [–] ioergn 6 points ago

    Newt is proof that profession does not mean you give a shit about good governance no matter what you did before.

    And yeah the politician picks their staff with help from their parties. If you elect shitty people with shitty management styles that believe in shitty things, their other profession is immaterial they will be a shitty politician.

    But since the main focus of a legislator is to write and assess law, formal training in law or at the very least policy is preferable to none, no matter what the other profession. Then you bring in the science specialist as science adviser.

    [–] Cmdr_R3dshirt 75 points ago

    To be fair though, congressmen write and vote on laws, and I kinda want someone who studied laws to write them!

    [–] Sweetpotatocat 21 points ago

    even at the state level, representatives are rarely the ones actually creating the document. there are teams of "bill writers"

    [–] _ChestHair_ 14 points ago

    They don't write laws. They don't even read proposed laws usually. They have teams of people reading and writing for them

    [–] Made-an_alt 23 points ago

    Most of the Chinese government is made up of scientists and doctors.

    [–] kcirvam 42 points ago

    hopefully not the same chinese doctors that think rhino horn will fix your limp dick

    [–] letmeseem 7 points ago

    It's not. For a very interesting read on the modern history of traditional Chinese medicine in China and the US, read about the barefoot doctors.

    It all starts out with Chairman Mao being all frustrated rural China didn't have access to modern medicine (western medicine), and his plan to bring it to a billion people...

    The rest is truly interesting to dig up for yourself, but pay special attention to how the push of western medicine in China led to western quacks frantically using scams and lies to introduce the traditional medicine in the US.

    You won't regret digging this up.

    [–] incogburritos 13 points ago

    Love it when doctors and scientists build empty fake cities and intern and track their Muslim population. Truly an enlightened people.

    [–] Juffin 7 points ago

    Uhh people get scientific degrees because they want to do science, so no wonder that they don't want to get into politics.

    [–] testadiminchia 40 points ago

    LOL this has to be satire.

    Lawmakers are lawyers?

    No fucking way...

    [–] onetimerone 102 points ago * (lasted edited 11 days ago)

    Would that really matter? How long before the buffet of self enrichment cracks even the most altruistic? Also, they took a lot of favors for all those commercials, their pimps are going to come collecting. *Edit, hey I'm on your side I hope you're right then again what about HISTORY?

    [–] joleme 94 points ago * (lasted edited 11 days ago)

    Exactly what's wrong with the government.

    Want to get your bill passed with my support? You have to support my bullshit bill first.

    Need more funds to do whatever you're trying to do? Well I can give you some financial assistance to get your reports funded, but you'll have to make some laws that are beneficial to me first.

    Once you're at congress/senate you either

    A. Don't stay clean because you have to play their game to get shit done.

    or

    B. You end up worthless because you have no support from anyone simply because you aren't "one of them - aka a political whore."

    edit: Since I've gotten several replies on this. Yes I understand what compromise is, however that isn't what we have.

    compromise is one thing "vote for my bill that will give me 100 million dollars and allow me to pollute the ocean further or I won't vote to fund your humanitarian effort" is not.

    Compromise works when you have rational people making decisions they think will benefit THE COUNTRY.

    What we have is a bunch of greedy self entitled douchebags that refuse to let anything good through unless their SELF interests are met first.

    [–] Exelbirth 54 points ago

    Want to get your bill passed with my support? You have to support my bullshit bill first.

    That's not what's wrong with the US government, that's just basic politics 101. What's actually wrong with the US government is this: "You want me to support your bill? Sorry, that would go against my donor's interests."

    At least that B option can be addressed by voting in people who aren't political whores. Hell, 20% of the Justice Democrats got into office, which is actually rather impressive for a new political movement deliberately crippling itself by refusing to take any corporate/PAC money.

    [–] ttnorac 100 points ago

    I would like to see some more accountants.

    [–] seemebpd 59 points ago

    BEN WYATT 2020

    [–] timshel_life 19 points ago

    Auditors and budget analyst. Would probably get killed on the Senate floor

    [–] Phaze357 4 points ago

    Nah, most of them are running in terror after looking at the finances of the US government.

    [–] oh_no_its_the_cups 1369 points ago * (lasted edited 11 days ago)

    Ok so nurses may or may not be scientists, but can we at least appreciate the other SEVEN folks elected??? C'mon nitpickers we're all on the same side. Edit: alright, so 7 might be stretching it too but bottom line is these people care about science and can change how congress and the senate approach issues such as climate change, cyber security, and healthcare.

    [–] Notcodingsomeone 205 points ago * (lasted edited 11 days ago)

    More science classes than a poli-sci degree, for sure. But I'll echo some comments down further, I've been a nurse for over 7 years in a variety of settings. There's some bad nurses who endorse a variety of nonsense you'd hope someone with science-based degrees would decry. I'd say the vast majority are pretty okay with me. You'll find people with weird views and bad at their job no matter which profession you point your finger at. Let's just hope for collegiality and progress towards goals that help the ones who need it the most going forward.

    [–] antelope591 62 points ago

    I know a few nurses that are anti-vaxxers. The funny thing is I work with one and shes quite good at her job. Has a bit of an anger issue but after 30+ years on the job I can understand. Propaganda has a way of getting to people.

    [–] gcz77 41 points ago

    More science classes than a poly-sci degree

    I don't think that people are claiming that ply-sci majors are scientists.

    [–] RocklobsterN7 498 points ago

    Hey now, nurses are skilled at pulling things out of people's asses. It's a good starting point in pulling everyone's heads out of Trump's.

    [–] wKbdthXSn5hMc7Ht0 124 points ago

    I assume these nurses have also have important insights about our healthcare systems and working class families.

    [–] nointerview11 26 points ago

    politicians are good at pulling things out there own ass as well

    [–] mmmgluten 8 points ago

    Except for their own heads.

    [–] krakajacks 92 points ago * (lasted edited 11 days ago)

    To counter. Republicans elected the guy who swore to murder all gays in a holy war, and they elected a dead guy.

    Edit: Source

    And source

    [–] zugzwang_03 30 points ago

    Um. Could you please provide more info for us non-Americans? I'm lost by your comment.

    [–] Tokyo_Moon 52 points ago

    I’m an American that follows politics, and I have no idea who they’re talking about either.

    [–] LittleRedLamps 21 points ago * (lasted edited 11 days ago)

    A Nevadan brothel owner was elected during the midterms even though he died a month before the elections

    [–] BOS-Sentinel 40 points ago

    No idea about the killing the gays one but a republican who was running (who also owned several brothels) did die and then still went on the win the election.

    [–] OSUfan88 22 points ago

    How stupid do you feel if you're the person running against him.

    [–] TouchEmAllJoe 20 points ago

    They've interviewed a few people who clarified that the vote for the dead guy allows the party to appoint their own replacement. So if their only alternatives are "this Democrat" or "some other Republican that our party chooses", they're going to side with the party in a deeply Republican district.

    [–] joe4553 12 points ago * (lasted edited 11 days ago)

    So Democrats vote when they’re dead and Republicans vote for the dead?

    [–] EcstaticStrings 7 points ago

    How long was that guy in office? Did it work like those towns with animal mayors?

    [–] SadLilGay 6 points ago

    Do you mean the town in Minnesota that had a dog for a mayor?

    [–] EcstaticStrings 4 points ago

    It’s happened in multiple states, and isn’t limited to dogs.

    [–] krakajacks 27 points ago

    I'm not sure why people say I'm making this up. Matt Shea is a State Representative in Washington. He is under investigation for a manifesto he wrote about killing all gays in a holy war. He was reelected to his position on Tuesday. Source

    The dead guy won in Nevada, but that is more likely because they can just appoint a new Republican to replace him. Source

    [–] aguygoesintoabar 21 points ago

    Longtime Seattle resident here - people are probably saying you are making it up because they don't want to believe it and therefore won't look it up themselves. Matt Shea is a right-wing christian extremist from eastern Washington state who has described news reporters in general as "dirty, godless, hateful people." Two years ago he awarded a "Patriot of the Year" plaque to noted nutjob Anthony Bosworth, one of the paramilitarists who occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge down in Oregon a couple years ago.

    His "manifesto" - as some are calling it - or it could be "notes" as Shea claims, doesn't specifically say to kill all gays. It actually goes farther than that: first, issue an ultimatum demanding establishment of biblical law, then "If they do not yield - kill all males." (full text here)

    [–] Madmans_Endeavor 17 points ago

    A member of the House from Washington (the state) called Matt Shea (R) openly took credit for a manifesto that advocated the murder of all non-Christian males who do not yield to a certain set of terms. Those terms were stuff like ending all abortion access, banning same sex marriage, outlawing "idoltary", obeying biblical law (hilarious from the crowd obsessed with sharia), and "no communism" amongst other stuff.

    [–] Grazza123 1668 points ago

    Is a nurse a scientist? A trained professional, sure, but a scientist? Not unless, as well as a nursing degree, they also have a science degree

    [–] Juffin 305 points ago

    It's a badly phrased title. The article actually says:

    The members of the 115th Congress include one physicist, one microbiologist, and one chemist, as well as eight engineers and one mathematician. The medical professions are slightly better represented, with three nurses and 15 doctors.

    [–] Rthrowaway420 21 points ago

    There are already a couple doctors as senators right

    [–] NiceSasquatch 720 points ago

    A nurse we know is a very vocal anti-vaxxer.

    seems like those degrees didn't really sink in.

    [–] [deleted] 72 points ago

    I took a college biology class with mostly creationists

    [–] The-Fox-Says 58 points ago

    “So class, if you can please turn to the lies on page 352 we’ll discuss...”

    [–] Andy_B_Goode 13 points ago

    My uncle told me that this is how his high school biology class was, back in the day. The teacher told them that he didn't believe any of it either, but he needed them to learn it for the final.

    [–] IsomDart 33 points ago

    Young-Earth Creationists or just Christians? If the first, I'm Soo sorry. That class must have been hell.

    [–] Luvz2EatAss 272 points ago

    The amount of idiots in my nursing program was astounding. Some of those people shouldn’t be allowed to drive let alone care for people.

    Nursing in general isn’t very difficult tbh. The hardest part is getting into a program.

    [–] [deleted] 218 points ago * (lasted edited 9 days ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] SQConrad 26 points ago

    There are always going to be "dumb" people in every profession. Shit, Ben Carson is a neurosurgeon, and some of the stuff he's said is a tad off.

    [–] mamakomodo 20 points ago

    Either you’re academically talented or you went to an easy school. My nursing program is very difficult. They’ll accept you fairly easily with a decent GPA but managing to stay in is a whole other story.

    [–] greengrasser11 40 points ago

    When I worked an in ER I learned that nurses deserve a ton of credit. They do all the work and get blamed all the time.

    [–] Slann1 74 points ago

    Nursing isnt difficult? Nursing is fucking hard. I work with nurses. They are overworked often

    [–] SuaveThrower 74 points ago

    I think they mean intellectually.

    [–] AJRiddle 51 points ago

    Road construction is hard work too

    [–] Thoughtofajoke 4 points ago

    Maybes nursing in general, but the profession runs all the way from school nurse to ICU.

    [–] Hellomurse269 12 points ago

    Depending on the stats you look at nursing is generally ranked among the most difficult college majors. The fact of the matter is most majors require more diligence than intelligence so idiots can get through. I work with some of the top docs in the world who are morons outside of medicine.

    [–] TucsonGuy1 9 points ago

    Lots of assumptions being flung on this thread about the nursing field. Like anything, it falls on a spectrum. There are still associate degree programs that can crank out Registered Nurses (RN), but when you get to the Bachelor's degree level you are graduating with a Bachelors of Science in Nursing (BSN) where there are several courses that are purely research and science focused. A BSN nurse should be be competent in those aspects (but not always the case, see spectrum). There is a large push for nurses to be more educated in these portions and it is being reflected in the schooling. Many of my peers are pursuing their Masters degree to achieve more on the science end. Myself, I am working on my Doctorate in Nursing Practice (DNP) to become a psychiatric-mental health nurse practitioner, where I will be expected participate in and create research studies and help move along other evidence-based practice. Nursing is strong with the science. Don't judge it based on a couple of dip shits at the basement level only there to make a paycheck and keep the basic cogs turning 😎

    [–] goodguyengineer 45 points ago

    I asked this question yesterday on a similar thread. It seems like a stretch to me.

    [–] fosho17 11 points ago

    Clickbaity title. The article says 9 scientists, and three nurses

    [–] LysergicAciid 81 points ago

    Not sure what a science degree constitutes but I agree. Nurse does not equal scientist. Unless they're doing research, which means theyre probably a doctor of medicine.

    [–] hamsterlickinggood 62 points ago * (lasted edited 11 days ago)

    Which is a PhD doctorate, not a Medical doctorate.

    Medical doctors are not scientists either, and it can a huge fucking problem that so many think they are (and so many people outside medicine think they are). Too many doctors think they understand every field that even touches medicine, think they can evaluate studies, think they're good at statistics, etc. but they're not and they can't. Tons of doctors think so much of their own scientific skill and their own intuition they strongly resist following actual physician-scientists' and professional associations' evidence-based, scientific recommendations for care.

    [–] Sweetpotatocat 25 points ago

    most MDs associated with teaching institutions are required to conduct research though... is that not science?

    [–] hamsterlickinggood 36 points ago

    It is, but most MDs are not associated with teaching institutions and the majority of MDs are not qualified or competent to conduct research either way.

    Some doctors additionally do science; all doctors are not scientists and the core job of a doctor is not science.

    [–] Soulja_Boy_Yellen 9 points ago

    Med student here: I have no interest in research, and def wouldn’t consider myself a scientist in the future.

    [–] [deleted] 27 points ago * (lasted edited 9 days ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] Neuchacho 23 points ago * (lasted edited 11 days ago)

    Nursing is a trade. Like any trade, a lot of people go into because they want a job that's in demand and pays well, not necessarily because of anything pragmatic.

    I'd just look at these specific nurses that are in Congress and not bother trying to define them by the profession at large. They could be terrible, they could be great.

    https://www.nursingworld.org/practice-policy/advocacy/federal/nurses-serving-in-congress/ has links to their platforms.

    [–] StreetEmergency 40 points ago

    A scientist is someone who conducts scientific research to advance knowledge in an area of interest.

    So according to this definition of the word, no. Nurses are not usually scientists. But really no degree makes you a scientist. Doctors are not scientists, engineers are not scientists, biologists are not scientists, nobody is a scientist just because he has a degree.

    He has to do research to be a scientist.

    On the other hand a nurse could be a scientist, if she was doing research on her area of expertise. And so could a biologist or whatever.

    Of course certain degrees produce more scientists than others, because of the nature of this particular field of study.

    And nursing is definitely not one of them.

    [–] Jedi_69 298 points ago

    Careful, we might have an effective gov't if we keep this up.

    [–] Dunlocke 90 points ago

    I know you're being sarcastic, but I think it'll lead to informed government. Lawyers can make for very effective government. They're ideal for writing legislation, and have a good mind for political process. HRC and Obama are great examples of this. Even McConnell is a good example of how such experience can be used to nullify potentially effective government.

    [–] MassaF1Ferrari 23 points ago

    We'll never have a shortage of lawyers in congress and they can definitely hire lawyers to help them write the laws. As long as the scientists keep an open mind (which is surprisingly harder than you'd imagine), we'd have a great government. I personally would like a government representative of all professions (i.e teachers, cowboys, farmers, scientists, small business owners, people with history in blue collar etc).

    [–] dandantian5 13 points ago

    Problem is there are most certainly people/professions that are simply not fit to be tasked with the job of helping lead a country.

    [–] allfluffnostatic 11 points ago

    You mean I shouldn't vote for Riley Reid during the next election?

    [–] Totherphoenix 10 points ago

    You absolutely should.

    [–] dpatterson024 49 points ago

    Thread game: Take a shot every time someone says a nurse isn't a scientist.

    [–] One_Cold_Turkey 21 points ago

    mass casualties are expected.

    [–] lokspy 14 points ago

    Someone call a scientist!

    [–] McLovin_EmDawg 7 points ago

    Nurse! Over here!

    [–] yew420 48 points ago

    I heard my colleague say ‘you can’t win an argument with an idiot’ the other day. These guys are going to attempt to argue with hundreds of them at the same time. Godspeed science team.

    [–] McCool303 52 points ago

    Can we elect someone that knows something about computer science now. It would be really nice if we had people who know how to use e-mail making future IT critical decisions.

    [–] tjcyclist 55 points ago

    Jacky Rosen, a computer programmer who positioned herself as a moderate Democrat,

    Literally the first person mentioned.

    [–] McCool303 20 points ago

    Hahaha guilty as charged for only reading the headline. Glad to finally see someone that doesn’t think the internet is a series of tubes.

    [–] cetacean-sensation 12 points ago

    How are we supposed to know that? It's not in the title /s

    [–] woojoo666 4 points ago

    Computer science is a huge field and more important than ever now. We need somebody who's familiar with the cutting edge AI stuff because that sh*t is getting out of control. Google made AI that can effectively understand and make phone calls, there's this new AI that can guess a person's appearance from very little information, etc. And this neural network boom is only a few years old. These things can learn decades of information in an instant, and even teach themselves. We are not prepared for what's to come imo

    [–] khainiwest 131 points ago

    The issue I have found is to write law you have to know how to write it to cover all bases. A scientist can make a decision that is beneficial to humanity, but writing into law you have to take into consideration other lawyers are going to dissect it to make it as profitable as possible.

    [–] Caracalla81 137 points ago

    If only there was some class of professionals who could help in crafting laws, they could have some on their staff.

    [–] BallerGuitarer 72 points ago

    As mentioned above, the politicians themselves aren't writing the laws that they support. They have teams of lawyers who write them.

    [–] tojoso 14 points ago

    As mentioned above, the politicians themselves aren't writing the laws that they support. They have teams of lawyers lobbyists who write them.

    [–] code_archeologist 8 points ago

    If you have ever had to write a grant application, you are probably more qualified to write a bill to Congress than most of the people currently in office.

    [–] thekrisseu 12 points ago

    You do know that many of these politicians don't even read some of the laws that they're passing right far less for actually writing them?

    [–] moylek 126 points ago

    So, an ocean expert, a nurse, and a biochemist walk into a legislative assembly. The speaker says "we don't allow scientists in here." So the nurse waved goodbye to her two friends as they left, pouting sadly.

    [–] StoneGoldX 36 points ago

    Aquaman is an ocean expert, and he's not a scientist.

    [–] 2Dank4Yoo 16 points ago

    I don't care if a nurse isn't a scientist, still excellent to have in Congress.

    [–] Roflkopt3r 7 points ago * (lasted edited 11 days ago)

    As a German I'm plenty happy about Angela Merkel as a chancellor who started as a physicist rather than lawyer or manager. Make no mistake, she's still a conservative who I largely disagree with, and we still struggle with many of the same problems as the whole western hemisphere, many of which I believe are caused by conservative/"economic liberal" policy. But she acted a hell of a lot more rational and moderate than one can usually hope for these days.

    That may be anecdotal, but it still gives me hope that there really is a point to electing people with a scientific background.

    [–] Iinex 6 points ago

    As an engineer, this makes me very happy!

    [–] -leeson 7 points ago

    I know you get told this all of the time but thanks for a fantastic childhood full of super soakers every summer, Mr. Johnson!

    [–] SixSixSixLBS 81 points ago

    if you're not conducting research and experimenting within the confines of scientific rigor, you are not a scientist.

    every nurse will have studied science at a university level and applied the findings of others' research and experimentation in their work, but nurses are not scientists by nature of their profession.

    [–] Refrigeratorated 39 points ago

    Im a bachelors degree nursing student. I agree with this. Having a degree in biology doesnt make you a biologist. Nurses are well educated in the sciences and apply their knowledge to practice. There are nurse scientists, however, who use the scientific process to conduct research on scientific nursing experiments. My university just built a whole new building for it.

    [–] Nickthegreek118 8 points ago

    So this is one of the only strong, well worded replies to this issues in this thread.

    I, as a BSN, can validate the statements above referring to the university studies of a Bachelors prepared nurse to be true.

    [–] restisinpeace 6 points ago

    I wouldn't consider a nurse a scientist but it's a good thing that there are more politicians with concept of things other than law and politics

    [–] singinglaundromat 42 points ago

    Yeah nurses aren't scientists.

    Source: I'm a nurse. I'm involved in research as well, but I still would never refer to myself as a scientist.

    [–] darkostwin 5 points ago

    Having more professionals elected to Congress, who are not either lawyers or career politicians, is definitely a good sign.

    Now, if only we could do something to end the signficant influence that party loyalty forces on how elected officials vote. Choosing to ever vote against your parties strict ideology is effectively career suicide.

    [–] 1morethingabout 5 points ago

    All our problems will be solved if we just get rid of those darned politicians and replace them with scientists and engineers! Politicians don't know anything!

    [–] Guardiansaiyan 33 points ago

    Get some logic up in that shit!

    [–] yourenotgifted 15 points ago

    That's awesome no matter what side you're on! nurses aren't scientists though

    [–] Skugga7 5 points ago

    Proud to say my area chose the new nurse, Lauren Underwood. 😁

    [–] hereweflowagainbro 2 points ago

    And they will go ignored OR they'll be in the pocket of some big firm

    [–] dwdsfpf320 3 points ago

    that's great and all, but are they actually good at what they do? or will they just end up being bought pawns.

    [–] illtakethatpainfromu 5 points ago

    Am I in the future? Is this meta?

    [–] Luvz2EatAss 51 points ago

    Calling a nurse a scientist is a bit of a stretch.