Obama and Romney Respond To ScienceDebate.org Questionnaire

Well that cinches it for me by Skapare · 2012-09-04 07:52 · Score: 5, Funny

... I don't want either one of them.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars

Re:Well that cinches it for me by Yvanhoe · 2012-09-04 08:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

One wants a theocracy, the other call the PATRIOT act a crucial tool for the US government. I'm considering myself lucky I am not a US citizen, forced to choose between the plague and the cholera, as we say here...

--
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Re:Well that cinches it for me by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-04 08:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

http://share.banoosh.com/2012/09/02/romney-obama-the-same/
That they both don't see a problem wiretapping and detaining Americans arbitrarily is very worrying.
Re:Well that cinches it for me by Mitreya · 2012-09-04 08:23 · Score: 4, Funny

... I don't want either one of them.
Fortunately, our political system provides a wide range of candidates to choose from, because 2 choices wouldn't be nearly enough for a large country with many millions of people.
Re:Well that cinches it for me by cpu6502 · 2012-09-04 08:41 · Score: 5, Informative

The president isn't supposed to be "in charge". He's merely supposed to execute the laws that have been passed by the Real body in chage: The Congress.
Unfortunately too many people don't object when he walks-around issuing commands (or executive orders) as if he were the law-maker.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Re:Well that cinches it for me by crmarvin42 · 2012-09-04 08:50 · Score: 5, Informative

We did, that's why we have the 2 other branches of government, legislative and judicial. There are things you need an executive for, however, and that is why we have a chief executive as well. When Europe was still mostly monarchies, we divided the power between 3 ostensibly separate but equal branches of government. As time has gone on we've seemed to fudge the lines between the branches to an alarming extent, but on paper we have done exactly what you seem to be lamenting the absence of.

One problem is that the voters don't realize that the president is Supposed to be limited in his powers, and they expect him to fix everything for them. Instead, candidates promise the moon and then blame the other branch when he can't deliver when he shouldn't have been promising things he can't deliver on in the first place. No one seems to challenge the candidate on whether his promises are even within his authority to deliver, never mind politically possible to achieve without an absolute majority in the legislative branch. The "I win because I can blame the other party for my failure" political maneuver is poisonous, but as long as we voters keep falling for it they are going to keep using it.

--
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
Re:Well that cinches it for me by jmorris42 · 2012-09-04 09:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

Kinda doubt that Romney wants a theocracy. Unless you think he is an idiot you don't really believe that either. Mormons are a distinct minority with a history of persecution, on religious grounds. So unless he thinks his election will suddenly result in millions and millions of conversions it would be kinda daft to want to make a religious state that would, if history is a guide, have his people on the short list of those who go against the wall first. The fact they might go after the godless commies would be scant consolation.
Please try to think before mindlessly parroting the standard talking points. Sometimes they don't apply. Sometimes they don't apply in such a screamingly obvious way that it just makes you look like a total idiot.

--
Democrat delenda est
Re:Well that cinches it for me by aardvarkjoe · 2012-09-04 09:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

The president isn't supposed to be "in charge". He's merely supposed to execute the laws that have been passed by the Real body in chage: The Congress.
Here's a fun game to play: listen to a speech by a presidential candidate, and count the number of times that he promises to do something, or complains about what his opponent will (or will not) do, or (in the case of the incumbent) talks about what he's already done, or (in the case of a non-incumbent) complains about what the incumbent should have done.
Now count up how many of those things are actually the job of the executive branch. Most of the time, that number will be zero.
Sometimes I think I would vote for anyone who I honestly believed would just do the president's job.

--

How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Re:Well that cinches it for me by crazyjj · 2012-09-04 09:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

Kinda doubt that Romney wants a theocracy.
I would be more accurate to say Romney wants a "Corporatocracy" or "Oligarchy of the Wealthy." All the Jesus shit is just a means to that real end.

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Re:Well that cinches it for me by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-04 10:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

That the president is the de facto leader of his party, combined with the fact that no legislation can get by him without either an overwhelming majority or his approval, means the president has a huge ability to set congress's agenda.

As head of the executive branch, he can choose which laws to bother worrying about executing and which ones he doesn't really care about. He can exert control over who the FBI will go after and whom will be prosecuted, and he can issue pardons.
Re:Well that cinches it for me by Chris+Mattern · 2012-09-04 10:20 · Score: 4, Informative

He commands the armed force of the US. He does not command the nation. To review, he gives speeches to Congress and can ask them nicely to do things. He can convene Congress outside its schedule, but he can only adjourn it if Congress itself is unable to reach an agreement on adjournment. If both bodies of Congress vote to stay in session, he can't do squat. He gets to talk foreign Ambassadors and sign treaties--but the treaties don't take until the Senate ratifies them. He gets to appoint the officers of the executive branch, none of which have more power than he does, and also judges, but those all have to be approved by the Senate. Oh, and he has to make sure that the laws *that Congress passed* get carried out.
There's a reason that the office of the Presidency is described in Article *II* of the Constitution. Guess who's number one?
Re:Well that cinches it for me by PopeRatzo · 2012-09-04 10:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

Unfortunately too many people don't object when he walks-around issuing commands (or executive orders) as if he were the law-maker.
When it comes to creating law by edict, the Supreme Court is far more guilty than any President.
The president is limited by what executive orders can do. And executive orders are limited because they can be very easily repealed by the successor.
But a Supreme Court creates permanent law, and even worse, permanently bends the course of entire categories of laws and there's fuck-all that either of the other branches of government can do without amending the Constitution.
If you're worried about a branch of government that's grabbed far more power than intended by the Constitution, you have to put the Court first on the list.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Well that cinches it for me by iluvcapra · 2012-09-04 10:32 · Score: 5, Interesting

Mormons would definitely be hostile to one theocracy, but I suspect they'd be quite satisfied to tolerate openly sectarian lawmaking in Kansas or Louisiana as long as their church gets to keep its monopoly on all public offices and civic leadership in Utah. "Leave us alone to oppress our folk as we see fit" is the original sin of Federalism.
Romney isn't a theocrat, but you get the impression that he, like many Republicans, is pretty casual about church interference in state affairs. They oppose the the concept strictly in principle, but on concrete issues you will generally find them silent as long as the law in question isn't coming after them. There's no question in my mind that many movement Conservatives would acquiesce to a sort of negative theocracy, which is to say they would be satisfied to leave atheists, Muslims, and people of undesirable faith with less rights, as opposed to a positive theocracy, where only one faith is given complete rights. Rubio made this point at the RNC, when he claimed that "faith in out creator" was a foundational American value.

--
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Re:Well that cinches it for me by Penguinisto · 2012-09-04 11:18 · Score: 5, Informative

I get the concept you're shooting for, but it's a bit too simplistic.
As the titular leading force of his political party, a sitting president is supposed to have the influence and political will to rally congressional members of the same political party (and perhaps other parties) into performing tasks that benefit his promised goals. Examples? For better or worse, we have the "Bush Tax Cuts", "Obamacare", "Reaganomics", et al. Each of those were initiatives started by their respective presidents, allied congresscritters got the ball rolling, and the results were signed into law by respective presidents.
So yeah, when a president promises something, most of the time it is at least somewhat within his power to fulfill it.

--
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Re:Well that cinches it for me by _Sharp'r_ · 2012-09-04 15:20 · Score: 5, Informative

Clearly you've never been to Salt Lake City. Utah IS a theocracy. It's a nice place on the surface, but it's entirely controlled by the Mormon Church. They decide who gets to run for office, who gets elected, and what those people do once in office.
Normally I try not to feed the trolls, but I couldn't let this complete and utter bullshit pass.
Let's start with just the first sentence. The two term mayor of Salt Lake City is a long-time Democrat who's official about page has quotes like "He also championed the state’s first municipal protections in the areas of employment and housing for the City’s LGBT community." and "His progressive agenda for Utah’s Capital City centers on increasing livability through initiatives that give choices back to residents including transportation alternatives, green initiatives, equal treatment for all and much, much more."
Sounds like SLC is totally controlled by your supposed Mormon theocracy, doesn't it?
The rest of your statement is just as much bullshit. Yeah, since half the state is Mormon, of course people who are Mormon can vote and have an influence on who gets elected where. The Mormon church itself, nor its prominent leaders, don't choose nor endorse any candidates. They don't decide who gets elected and they don't tell them what to do once in office. At best, they sometimes get a sympathetic ear in zoning committees because everyone knows who they are.
Does the government in Utah tend to reflect the values of Utah's voters? Of course it does, just like it does everywhere else in the U.S. Does the Mormon church itself "control" anything like you've described? Absolutely and totally not.

--
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Re:Well that cinches it for me by bogjobber · 2012-09-04 18:54 · Score: 4, Informative

Actually, you're both wrong. Your post is quite a bit more reasonable than GP's, but it's not as simple as you make it out to be.

The LDS church doesn't control government in Utah the way that he suggested. It's not a theocracy. They don't choose the candidates or decide who gets elected. But in many significant ways they do have near-complete control over politics in the state. There is certainly no other state in the US where a single religious organization has such a large degree of control over (ostensibly) secular politics.

And it is often a *very* direct and deliberate type of control. Take, for example, the recent revitalization of downtown, primarily City Creek Center, a $5 billion mixed use development deal undertaken by the LDS church. Like many cities in the US, Salt Lake struggles with urban decay and development. The Salt Lake temple and the headquarters of the LDS church are downtown. Downtown SLC is not that large of a place, and in many ways the city itself is a showcase for the church. And the LDS church is *extremely* image-conscious. They don't want visitors to the Salt Lake temple or church headquarters to see downtown in a state of neglect, they want it to look clean and successful. So they bought a bunch of property and invested in City Creek Center.

Obviously that's not really all that normal compared to most US cities, but overall it seems like a good thing, right? And for the most part it is. But the church also starting mucking around manipulating SLC politics in very shady and underhanded ways. Let me digress for a second...bear with me.

One problem with Utah is that SLC citizens and the SLC government are far morel iberal than the rest of the state (think more in line with Portland or Seattle, whereas most of the state is *extremely* conservative). A common theme in Utah politics is Salt Lake liberals vs. the rest of the state. SLC progressives want to change the laws, but since the state legislature is much, more conservative they are often prevented from doing what they want, and they end up yelling back and forth at each other, fighting in the media, etc. One common solution to that problems is the state legislature often lets the Salt Lake liberals do whatever the hell they want in Salt Lake County with the understanding that the liberals will leave them alone the rest of the state.

In the example you gave of Mayor Becker passing anti-discrimination laws for LGBT individuals, you are only getting half the story. The Democrats tried to get that law passed for the whole state. The Republicans fought it, and a compromise was worked out. The state legislature wouldn't pass a statewide law nullifying the discrimination laws if the Democrats would give up the fight and settle for just Salt Lake County. This is an example, of how, like you explained, the government in Utah reflects the values of Utah voters. Obviously the church has a lot to do with the anti-gay feelings felt by the majority of Utah's legislators, but in this situation they did not influence it in any sort of direct way.

In the case of the downtown developments, however, the church acted in a very direct way to influence local legislature. The LDS church is not very tolerant of alcohol use. They do everything they can to control the sale and use of alcohol. For the most part it's not that big of a deal, the alcohol drinkers work around it and it's fine. But there are three major things that Salt Lake County businesses hate about Utah liquor laws:

1) There is a finite number of business in Utah that can sell liquor, based on the population of the entire state. Once the liquor licenses are gone for the year, no businesses can get a new liquor license unless a business that already has a license sells it off. Most businesses feel that the number of licenses, particularly for full-service bars, is far too low.
2) You can only open a full-service bar in an area zoned

Re:inb4 by i+kan+reed · 2012-09-04 08:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

Critiquing science positions: bashing
Calling people you disagree with "tards": sensible debate.

Net neutrality by RoTNCoRE · 2012-09-04 08:07 · Score: 5, Interesting

So net neutrality is pandering to special interests and "picking winners and losers" according to Romney? Any leader who considers the individual a special interest, and thinks that not backing net neutrality isn't by default picking winners and losers is either an idiot or a liar, or both. Picking winners and losers is your damn job - pretty much the crux of it. The "letting the market decide" BS is letting the powerful corporate interests win. Any "invisible hand" or "let the market decide" crap went out the window with the bailouts.

Re:./ed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-04 08:08 · Score: 5, Informative

Difficult because it's done in side by side column form:

The Top American Science Questions: 2012 "Whenever the people are well-informed," Thomas Jefferson wrote, "they can be trusted with their own government." Science now affects every aspect of life and is an increasingly important topic in national policymaking. ScienceDebate.org invited thousands of scientists, engineers and concerned citizens to submit what they felt were the the most important science questions facing the nation that the candidates for president should be debating on the campaign trail. ScienceDebate then worked with the leading US science and engineering organizations listed at left to refine the questions and arrive at a universal consensus on what the most important science policy questions facing the United States are in 2012. Candidates readily debate jobs and the economy even though they are not economists; they debate foreign policy and military intervention even though they are not diplomats or generals; they debate faith and values even though they are not priests or pastors. We call on the candidates for President to also debate these Top American Science Questions that affect all voters' lives. Candidates' Answers, a Side by Side Comparison Barack Obama Barack Obama's answers to the Top American Science Questions September 4, 2012 Mitt Romney Mitt Romney's answers to the Top American Science Questions September 4, 2012 Innovation | Climate Change | Research and the Future | Pandemics and Biosecurity Education | Energy | Food | Fresh Water | The Internet | Ocean Health Science in Public Policy | Space | Critical Natural Resources | Vaccination and Public Health 1. Innovation and the Economy. Science and technology have been responsible for over half of the growth of the U.S. economy since WWII, when the federal government first prioritized peacetime science mobilization. But several recent reports question America’s continued leadership in these vital areas. What policies will best ensure that America remains a world leader in innovation? Barack Obama: I believe that in order to be globally competitive in the 21st century and to create an American economy that is built to last, we must create an environment where invention, innovation, and industry can flourish. We can work together to create an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, and skills for American workers. I am committed to doubling funding for key research agencies to support scientists and entrepreneurs, so that we can preserve America’s place as the world leader in innovation, and strengthen U.S. leadership in the 21st century’s high-tech knowledge-based economy. To prepare American children for a future in which they can be the highly skilled American workers and innovators of tomorrow, I have set the goal of preparing 100,000 science and math teachers over the next decade. These teachers will meet the urgent need to train one million additional science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) graduates over the next decade. Mitt Romney: Innovation is the key to economic growth and job creation, and increasingly important to American competitiveness in the global economy. Three-quarters of all U.S. economic growth, and three-quarters of the U.S. productivity advantage over other OECD nations, is directly attributable to innovation, and wages in innovation-intensive industries have grown more than twice as fast as other wages in recent decades. My plan for a stronger middle class will rebuild the American economy on the principles of free enterprise, hard work, and innovation. The promotion of innovation will begin on Day One, with efforts to simplify the corporate tax code, reform job retraining programs, reduce regulatory burdens, and protect American intellectual property around the world. A Growth Agenda Over the course of my ca

Note to Romney: "Jesus" not acceptable answer by crazyjj · 2012-09-04 08:08 · Score: 5, Funny

At least not for EVERY question.

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?

Re:Note to Romney: "Jesus" not acceptable answer by Kenja · 2012-09-04 08:09 · Score: 5, Funny

That's why he gave "Obama is destroying America" for every answer instead. I only wish I where kidding...

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Re:Note to Romney: "Jesus" not acceptable answer by jd2112 · 2012-09-04 08:45 · Score: 5, Funny

That's why he gave "Obama is destroying America" for every answer instead. I only wish I where kidding...
He's saying "Obama is destroying America, That should be my job".

--
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.

Net Neutrality by jomama717 · 2012-09-04 08:10 · Score: 5, Informative

I can't get over how blatantly misleading and disingenuous republicans are about this issue. If you didn't know any better and you read Romney's response alone you would likely come away with a completely reversed view of the issue. They *must* realize that if they came out and said what the consequences of letting net neutrality fail are there would be massive public outcry - which you would think, as public representatives, would lead them to support it!

Corrupt, idealistic motherfuckers.

--
while [ 1 ]; do echo -n -e "\xe2\x95\xb$((($RANDOM&1)+1))"; done

Re:ScienceDebate.org by Sparticus789 · 2012-09-04 08:12 · Score: 4, Funny

At least we now know that most Slashdot users do actually RTFA.

--
sudo make me a sandwich

Climate change by sdo1 · 2012-09-04 08:14 · Score: 5, Informative

Romney: "my best assessment of the data is that the world is getting warmer, that human activity contributes to that warming, and that policymakers should therefore consider the risk of negative consequences. However, there remains a lack of scientific consensus on the issue â" on the extent of the warming, the extent of the human contribution, and the severity of the risk"

No, Mitt. There really is no "lack of scientific consensus". Two years ago it was at 97% of scientists in agreement.

-S

--
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?

Re:Climate change by thegreatemu · 2012-09-04 08:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm terrified to find myself supporting Romney here, but did you even read your own quote there? He said there was a lack of consensus on "the extent of the warming, the extent of the human contribution, and the severity of the risk."
Now let me quote from your linked article: "The study found that 97 percent of scientific experts agree that climate change is "very likely" caused mainly by human activity."
Nowhere does it say that 97 percent of scientists agree that the average global temperature rise will be X degrees, that the risk is extremely/moderately/not at all severe, or that "mainly" = 100%/90%/80%, etc.
As anti-republican as I am, I have to admit Romney hit this one exactly right. There is overwhelming evidence (which, btw, is way the hell more important than "consensus") that there is warming, and that we are the cause of some significant part of it. But predicting the specific effects, even the exact amount of temperature increase, necessitates a blind faith in models with a pretty poor track record so far.
Of course, the problem is that he's trying to use lack of certainty as an excuse to to avoid taking any action, despite the fact that the science doesn't say anything at all about the best way to fix the issue (or indeed whether it needs fixing...)

Re:./ed by MightyYar · 2012-09-04 08:17 · Score: 4, Informative

Coral cache here.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.

Romney: Heisenberg Politician by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-04 08:20 · Score: 5, Funny

When you measure his position, his momentum becomes uncertain. When you measure his momentum, his position becomes uncertain.

Love the global warming answer. by khasim · 2012-09-04 08:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

From Romney:

However, there remains a lack of scientific consensus on the issue â" on the extent of the warming, the extent of the human contribution, and the severity of the risk â" and I believe we must support continued debate and investigation within the scientific community.

So ... more "research" instead of doing anything?

But at least we know that we don't need more "research" to know that Obama is the problem:

Nowhere along the way has the President indicated what actual results his approach would achieve â" and with good reason.

Romney cannot spell out what HE would do but he can blame Obama for doing what Obama has done.

CoralCDN and Pastebin links by k0nane · 2012-09-04 08:26 · Score: 4, Informative

Browse through the cache or view in plain text on Pastebin.

Re:Fuck me. Romney has a case of.. by GameboyRMH · 2012-09-04 08:26 · Score: 5, Informative

The bald-faced denial of simple facts involved in his response to Internet governance makes his veiled climate denial seem reasonable in comparison. He called net neutrality "a solution looking for a problem."

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Re:Fuck me. Romney has a case of.. by amRadioHed · 2012-09-04 08:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

OTOH, his position makes inaction justifiable. Republican's will have us "wait for the science to come in" up until the floodwaters are approaching Denver.

--
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace

Summary by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-04 08:30 · Score: 5, Informative

Since both candidates (but especially Romney) blabbered on for so long, I thought it might be helpful to have a summary of the candidates' positions. I tried to make it as accurate and neutral as possible, but I couldn't resist a few editorial comments.

Q1: How will you ensure America remains a world leader in innovation?

Obama: Double funding for research agencies, train more STEM teachers.
Romney: Increase visa caps for foreign workers, permanent residence for foreign grad students, cut taxes, make regulation harder, aggressive trade attitudes towards China and increased free trade agreements with "nations committed to principles of free enterprise", education reform, increase funding for basic research. [Much of this doesn't have anything to do with innovation as far as I can see, but this is what he said. -ed]

Q2: How will you deal with climate change?

Obama: Continue pushing for the same policies as before (e.g. invest in "clean energy" increased fuel economy standards, carbon emission limits for new power plants, international efforts to reduce emissions).
Romney: Doesn't believe there is a scientific consensus; suggests "No Regrets" policy (i.e. every policy implemented must yield benefits to America even if global warming is a hoax or if no other nations do anything; example: development of "low-emissions technology" and removal of regulations including nuclear power regulations)

Q3: How will you fund research programs?

Obama: Set goal to spend more than 3% of GDP on public and private research and development. Also argues that his administration's research funding, including stimulus funding, has yielded and/or will yield enough benefits for the money spent.
Romney: No explicit details on future plans, but implied proposal to implement new policies that "facilitate medical innovation" (i.e. relaxation of FDA regulations). Argues that Obama administration's research programs have not yielded and/or will not yield enough benefits for the money spent.

Q4: How will you deal with the threat of a pandemic?

Obama: Strengthen public health systems.
Romney: Strengthen public health systems, relax regulations on pharmaceutical companies to encourage innovation

Q5: How will you fix the education system?

Obama: Train more (good) STEM teachers (with private and charity support).
Romney: Destroy the teachers' unions, school choice, increase focus on standards and testing.

Q6: Where will you get energy from?

Obama: Increased development of renewables (solar, wind, hydro, biofuels), continue existing natural gas-friendly policies.
Romney: Relax environmental restrictions on oil and gas extraction and pipelines both onshore and offshore, but retain a full commitment to environmental protection [which really tells us nothing about how he plans to balance these factors... -ed], pursue energy free-trade treaties, reassess nation's energy reserves to reflect new technology [the implication is that Romney thinks the whole "energy independence" thing is overblown and we actually have plenty of oil, though this is not explicitly stated -ed] more focus on coal and oil than Obama's plan.

Q7: How will you protect the food supply:

Obama: Increase regulation by FDA in general; reduce use of antibiotics and pesticides; strict regulations on pesticides and other agricultural chemicals by FDA.
Romney: "Work closely with industry" to implement the preventive practices recommended by the industry.

Q8: How will you protect the water supply?

Obama: Increase investment in water infrastructure (esp. in rural areas) and funding to water conservation programs.
Romney: Re-examine water regulations; switch to more market-based approaches.

Q9: How will you handle the internet?

Obama: Protect intellectual property without reducing freedom of expression [another one of these answers that tells you nothing about how these factors will actually be balanced... -ed], shore up cybersecurity
Romney: Get rid of Net Neutrality.

Re:./ed by k0nane · 2012-09-04 08:32 · Score: 5, Informative

Slightly better paste from the source, with basic formatting, on Pastebin.

Mitt Romney must have a degree in BS by Dyinobal · 2012-09-04 08:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

Mitt Romney's answers remind me of students who think that if they make an answer lengthy enough and yet stay away from saying anything concrete they can't get an answer right on a test. I guess no one ever told him it was always content that mattered and not quantity.

I'm not a huge fan of Obama but at least he keeps his answers concise and answer them with out going on for half a page or attacking his and then not answering the question at all. It's like Romney thinks he is in a debate on TV and not actually writing his answers down on for everyone to read an examine closely.

Re:./ed by vlm · 2012-09-04 08:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

The page is coming up slow. I hope it's already slashdotted, or else it's in for a rude awakening.

I got the GOOG cache and here's a summary

1) What policies will best ensure that America remains a world leader in innovation? with the assumption that innovation = science and technology and not financial scams like the last decade or so.
El Presidente: wanna double funding, personally will prepare 100K STEM teachers, believes in that stupid idea of STEM shortage (aka wages are too high for postdocs)
Rmoney: middle class needs to work harder, need more immigrants, lower taxes on corporations, reduce regulation, stronger enforcement of IP laws, govt research has been a disaster and I'll do exactly the same thing but more

2) Talk about climate change
El Presidente: brags about how the economy has crashed thus the environment is cleaner.
Rmoney: its probably important, but lets do nothing other than talk about it, followed by five minutes of hot air global warming. Does oppose carbon taxes

3) Priority to investment in research, pretty much #1 rephrased.
El Presidente: pretty much #1 rephrased. Spend lots of money in stuff you like.
Rmoney: pretty much #1 rephrased. I'll do the same thing as 'bama but smarter.

4) biowarfare FUD, does we luvs it or no?
El Presidente: its very important
Rmoney:I am a strong opponent of disease and btw did you know my opponent sucks?

5) Edumactiaon. Americans are about average at it. Whadda you think?
El Presidente: Still believes education leads to the middle class, instead of lifetime student debt slavery. Dumb*ss. Also says we need more STEM people to push salaries lower and unemployment higher in STEM fields.
Rmoney: teachers make too much money and if we just make them poorer by getting rid of the unions then the kids will be smarter.

6) Energy. Obviously Rmoney has more than 'Bama because his responses are always twice the length. Aside from that:
El Presidente: I'm personally responsible for clean energy and I blue sky made up a plan that 20 years after I'm outta office the whole USA or whats left of it will be powered solely by sustainable, green, bioengineered unicorn tears.
Rmoney: Did you know my opponent sucks? After we get rid of regulation, energy will be cheaper.

7) Food. Most people think american agribusiness sucks. What you say?
El Presidente: I modernized the FDA so we spend more money. No results yet but I'm optimistic.
Rmoney: Food safety is important and self regulation of industries is the best (editors editorial note, didn't this idiot read Upton Sinclair? how stupid is this guy?)

8) Water, Fresh, without human sh1t floating in it, preferably. Comments gentlemen?
El Presidente: Spent a lot of money and created a lot of govt jobs, but I'm not talking about results, which is ... weird
Rmoney: if we remove regulation and laws we'll have more water

9) The internet, how will you gentlemen try to screw it up?
El Presidente: I support everyone on every side of every issue fully with absolutely no specifics
Rmoney: I will get rid of all regulation especially net neutrality while maintaining the status quo of monopoly providers

10) Remember #8, Water, Fresh? How bout Water, Salty?
El Presidente: Remember #8, Water, Fresh? Yeah ditto
Rmoney: Remember #8, Water, Fresh? Yeah ditto

11) Public Policy Science. Pretty much #1 and #3 rephrased for all 3.

12) Space, the final frontier of govt spending or whatever:
El Presidente: I take all the credit and I made some BS plan that won't take effect until decades after I'm gone and I'll continue to non-commitally "support" space
Rmoney: Nasa needs to be scrapped and rebuilt more pragmatically

13) Natural resources. Pretty much #8 and #10 rephrased for all 3

14) Vaccination / public health, is health good or bad?
El Presidente: thanks for the softball so I can brag about what my healthcare plan might accomplish in the future if all goes well.
Rmoney: vaccines are nice, I love them, don't you too? we need less regulation of critical life support and advanced medical stuff.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger

Re:Fuck me. Romney has a case of.. by jd2112 · 2012-09-04 08:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

That's not what he said. In fact, this is pretty good news: both candidates actually admit the reality of AGW. He said the size of the effects hasn't been nailed down, and that the science should inform the political solutions rather than dictate them. Pretty sensible, for a politician.

Translation: The polls show that denying global warming would cost more votes than acknowledging it.

--
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.

Vaccinations by thegreatemu · 2012-09-04 08:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

I love how both candidates completely ignored the heart of the vaccination issue, pretending that the reason vaccination rates have fallen is due to people being unable to afford them or supplies running out, rather than the complete failing of our educational system, which has produced a generation of idiots who think that some celebutard's cry about vaccination-caused autism is somehow more worth listening to than a century of sound medical practice. I forget who originated the quote, but it goes something like "Democracy does not mean that your ignorance has an equal voice with my knowledge."

Anyway, just more of the same political dodging. We can't call people reckless morons for endangering themselves AND OTHERS by refusing to get themselves and their children vaccinated, because they might vote for me! I'd really like to have political interviews where we can tie the candidates down and keep asking the same question until they actually answer it,

Re:Fuck me. Romney has a case of.. by cpu6502 · 2012-09-04 08:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

>>>net neutrality "a solution looking for a problem."

The problem is a company holding a monopoly (or duopoly) over the last ~25 miles of the internet. Net neutrality is simply a form of government regulation to prevent the monopoly from abusing its customers, just as the government regulates the electric, natural gas, and water monopolies.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"

Re:The format of the asnwer is interresting by tnk1 · 2012-09-04 08:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

Romney's campaign is on the attack because he's the contender, he has to point at Obama and convince people they made a mistake in 2008.

Obama is the incumbent and just has to convince the people who voted for him to vote for him again. It's not a hard sell, and incumbents frequently win extra terms. He'd have to screw up somehow or just be very, very unlucky to not be re-elected. The economy could be that luck factor, but attacking or even seeming to stoop to Romney's attack level will make it seem like Obama takes Romney seriously and it could cause him to forfeit some or all of his Presidential advantage. The President always has an advantage, but only if he keeps acting presidential.

Obama has a lot more to lose by looking like an attack dog than Romney, but make no mistake, it will be plenty made up for by the Super PACs on both sides going at it. There is some pretty breathtakingly vicious stuff coming out from the Democratic side as well. Just don't expect to see Obama standing directly behind it.

Re:Fuck me. Romney has a case of.. by crazyjj · 2012-09-04 09:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

Don't you understand? Giving tax breaks to the wealthy and ending all government regulation and letting big corps do whatever the fuck they want is the CURE ALL of the 21-st century. It will make the economy strong, give us all great jobs, improve education, and make your dick bigger! Just give the wealthy and big corps everything they want and we'll all live in a fucking paradise on earth!

Add in "And Obama sucks!" and I think that pretty much sums up Romney's answers to every question on this survey.

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?

Re:Fuck me. Romney has a case of.. by amRadioHed · 2012-09-04 09:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

Well reducing fuel consumption and slowing population growth are good to do anyway, so we should do those things regardless of climate change.

--
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace

Why is inaction not justifiable? by SuperKendall · 2012-09-04 09:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

OTOH, his position makes inaction justifiable.

Why is that bad?

Would you rather they panic and we get the AGW equivalent of the Patriot Act, causing a lot of harm for very little real gain?

With politicians you WANT the default action to be "none", because otherwise you just get ill-informed bullshit codified into law.

A USEFUL course of action must be clear. We already know we have dropped carbon emissions to Kyoto levels already, so why in fact SHOULD we do anything more at the moment?

Republican's will have us "wait for the science to come in" up until the floodwaters are approaching Denver.

And you would prefer we double the cost of heating and gas for poor people before an inch of rise is observed?

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Condensed Summary by dlsmith · 2012-09-04 09:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

Q: How will you deal with [scientific challenge]?

Obama: Create/expand a government program or incentive (with no explanation of what existing programs will have to be cut to compensate)
Romney: Eliminate government regulations and let the industry take care of itself (with no explanation of how to deal with inevitable industry abuses)

(How much you trust their answers or are concerned about their non-answers will probably depend on how much you subscribe to their political philosophy.)

The Breakdown by CanHasDIY · 2012-09-04 09:15 · Score: 5, Funny

Converting candidate responses from legalese to English, please wait...*

Question 1: Innovation and the Economy:

BO: I plan on dumping at least twice as much money into corporate pocketbooks via the continued fucking-up of the US intellectual property process. Oh, yea, and I plan on hiring a shitload of STEM teachers to prep future patent lawyers, er, "engineers" for this task.

MR: Less taxes and regulation for businesses, more H1B Visas and foreign "trade agreements" that take jobs away from Americans.

Question 2, Climate Change:

BO: Sure, it's a problem, but I've already dumped a shit-ton of your money into the "clean energy" companies my buddies own, as well as attempting to set up a "carbon credit exchange" scam, er, system, that would have funneled even more taxpayer dollars into the hands of my campaign contributors - what the fuck else do you expect me to do about it?

MR: Probably bullshit, but I won't let my disbelief in the concept prevent me from using this as an opportunity to badmouth my opponent and recommend further redistribution of wealth to my also-rich homies!
Furthermore, since China doesn't give a fuck about the environment, I don't think we should either.

Question 3: Research and the Future:

BO: Uh, like I said before - more of the public's money given to corporations so they can privately profit; seriously, what don't you guys get about that?

MR: Agreed, with the caveat of, you guessed it, less regulation for the same corporations. After all, corporations are people, and if you can't trust people with your money...

Question 4: Pandemics and Biosecurity:

BO: ... Pass.

MR: Less taxes and regulation on business... Oh, and more public surveillance. How are we supposed to know who's sick if we're not watching you all 24/7?

Question 5: Education:

BO: Earlier in my administration, I proposed adding 100,000 STEM (science, tech, engineering, and math) teachers... just don't ask how that's going...

MR: Education is a serious issue these days... which is why I recommend busting teachers' unions, defunding public schools in favor of private "charter" schools, and of course, blaming the current abysmal state of education solely on my opponent.

Question 6: Energy:

BO: Hey, I mentioned giving fuck-tons of taxpayer money to my buddies who run "clean energy" companies, right?

MR: I disagree with my opponent; I think we should be giving fuck-tons of taxpayer money to the oil companies my buddies run instead.
Can I getta 'Keystone Pipeline,' anyone?

Question 7: Food:

BO: Food safety was pretty fucked up when I came to office, so I made new rules that changes what qualifies as 'fucked up.'

MR: More government regulation and taxes. Hey, if those agri-business chumps want the same deal I give the oil and pharmaceutical companies, they need to pony up some campaign bucks, ya dig?

Question 8: Water:

BO: My administration has invested millions in fresh water conservation and restoration efforts. Granted, these programs would have existed anyway regardless of who held this office at the time, but hey - I do, so I get to take the credit. Suck it, Bush.

MR: Disband the EPA, less regulation on businesses, privatize the 'fresh water industry'.
What could possibly go wrong?

Question 9: The Internet:

BO: I promise to ensure online freedoms, granted they don't run afoul of all the new intellectual property and civilian surveillance we have/are coming up with.
Ha ha, remember when I told you I was going to veto CISPA? Suckers...

MR: The internet is for businesses to make money off of. Period. End of discussion. If you're somehow, some way preventing businesses from making as much money as possible from the internet, my administration will come down on

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese

Re:Here be no surprises by smitty97 · 2012-09-04 09:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

Anyone who refers to workers as "Human Capital" like Romney does in the first answer (and on his website) has no connection to normal humans.

--
mod me funny

Re:Fuck me. Romney has a case of.. by jd.schmidt · 2012-09-04 09:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

Just to be clear, the UN's sinister plan to reduce population consists of only:

Educating women to increase their personal economic choices, making birth control available and education men and women in their proper use so they can decide when to have children.

I am glad people like you are around to save us from this.

Re:Here be no surprises by MimeticLie · 2012-09-04 09:33 · Score: 5, Informative

8 out of the top 10 largest PAC's fund Obama

Not sure where you got that from, but it's almost literally the opposite of what's true. From ProPublica:

Restore Our Future (supports Mitt Romney) $82,224,493
Priorities USA Action (supports Barack Obama) $21,933,068
Winning Our Future (supports Newt Gingrich) $17,003,035
American Crossroads $12,078,463
Club for Growth Action $11,959,430
Majority PAC $10,459,928
Red White and Blue Fund (supports Rick Santorum) $7,529,620
Make Us Great Again (supports Rick Perry) $3,959,824
House Majority PAC $3,668,363
Endorse Liberty (supports Ron Paul) $3,579,627

Those are the top 10 PACs by spending. The Republican/conservative organizations are in bold. Note that the spending of all the Democrat supporting PACs comes to less than half what Restore Our Future alone has spent. Sorting PACs by contributions is similar. Obama has a lot of money behind him, but it's nothing like what Romney's got.

Re:Here be no surprises by NatasRevol · 2012-09-04 09:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

Anyone that has $100M of net worth has no connection to normal humans.

Hey honey want to take the kids to dinner this weekend?
No, we can't, we had to buy clothes & shoes for them.

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure

Re:Here be no surprises by Genda · 2012-09-04 10:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

You live is this strange thing called a society. You went to its schools, you drive its roads, you use the water and sewers that run to the place you live. We have places like Mogadishu or the bush in central Africa where you and you money can go and have a lovely time all by your selves. Just don't yell when a lion eats you or a bandit shoots you, because you won't be able to protect yourself with your money (save the purchase of a lion gun.)

If you really are someone completely out for themselves, with no interest is creating a cohesive society that looks after others and creates a strong and workable infrastructure for the benefit of that society, by all means, find yourself and island an go away nobody's stopping you depending on how much island you can afford. The rest of us look at the cost having a society capable of providing the basic needs for all or most, such that we can work together to create something even greater. I don't see that as an evil or a wrong. Of course the current government does use money in ways I don't agree, so I vote scallywags out whenever I get the chance.

Re:Here be no surprises by Xeranar · 2012-09-04 11:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Funny how it's the racist party trying to defend their agenda. Obama was talking about infrastructure and basic Keynesian economics prove it true. Government investment in infrastructure allows businesses to succeed. In all honesty though your perception of redistribution is broken. Those who own a business rely on others for success. Now the Republicans are lying about what the statement means while avoiding the obvious philosophical issue that they're constantly running from.

LMSTFY by BadPirate · 2012-09-04 11:10 · Score: 5, Informative

Summarized:

The Top American Science Questions: 2012 ...

1. What policies will you be putting in place that will keep America an Innovation leader?
O - Doubling funding to key research agencies
O - Goal of 100,000 new STEM teachers (science, technology engineering math) - with the goal of 1 Million new STEM graduates

M - Raise visa caps to allow for more foreign workers
M - Offer permanent residence to foreign knowledge workers
M - Reduce taxes on corporations
M - More vigorously defend intellectual property rights abroad
M - Deregulate industry
M - Ambiguous education reform

2. Climate Change. What is your position on cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and other policies proposed to address global climate change and what steps can we take to improve our ability to tackle challenges like climate change that cross national boundaries?
O - Policies that lead to the growth of using alternative energy
O - Already limited greenhouse emissions from vehicles
O - Large investments in green energy
O - Reduce emissions within federal government
O - Reduced dependency on oil (Claim is already readuced 3 million fewer barrels of oil every day, US is at a 20 year low)

M - Believes in climate change, and that human activity is a contributor, though because of "lack of scientific consensus" believes the next step is more debate / investigation
M - Believes that Obama policy will "bankrupt the coal industry" (poor guys)
M - Opposed to carbon tax or cap-and-trade systems
M - Supports government funded research on low-emission technology
M - Supports investment in nuclear power

3. What priority would you give to investment in research in your upcoming budgets?
O - Strong support
O - Current level is 3% of GDP, which is higher then the level achieved during space race
O - Created Recovery Act, - $100 Billion dollars in research spending / education / training / etc. $90 Billion of which was devoted to clean energy.
* Plans to make R&D tax credit permanent

M - Strong supporter as well
M - Critical of where money gets spent, would divy it up differently
M - Does not list actual intentions

4. OHMEGERD Bird flu.
O - Chill. We got it.

M - Further investment in public health monitoring systems (?)
M - Reduced restrictions on FDA

5. Our kids suck at science. How do we fix it?
O - Educate to innovate program, 100,000 STEM teachers

M - Spending ineffective
M - Teachers unions bad
M - Wants more choice for parents as to which schools their children go to
M - Higher standards (More national tests?)

6. Energy. What policies?
O - "All of the above" energy approach (wind, solar, oil, coal, etc.)
O - Since taking office Solar / Wind production doubled
O - World leader in natural gas production (100 year supply quoted)

M - Goal energy independence within a decade
M - Allow states to make decisions regarding energy resources on federal land within their borders
M - Open Off-shore drilling
M - Energy partnership with North america NAEP
M - Use federal money for performing energy surveys
M - restore "transparency and fairness" to permitting and regulation
M - Federal money for private sector energy research

7. Food Safety?
O - Signed comprehensive food safety law reform
O - Increased FDA funding
O - Believes in Organic farming

M - Encourages more "private" participation in regulation process

8. Fresh Water.
O - Grants to water conversation projects
O - Invested in waste water treatment infrastructure

M - Modernize federal laws governing water use
M - Incentives

9. Teh webz.
O - Free / Open internet essential (Net Neutrality)
O - Supports intellectual property law, as long as it doesn't hamper freedom of expression, or undermine innovation
O - Strengthen Cybersecurity, and data confidentiality

M - Believes government should not regulate internet, but should be left to "Mark

--
- Holy crap, I've got MOD points! Who thought that was a good idea.

Re:Here be no surprises by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2012-09-04 11:16 · Score: 5, Interesting

Somebody who looks and sounds a hell of a lot like Obama said it on July 13, 2012.

Wow, you actually linked to a video that included the context of the quote but completely failed to notice that context. I can kind of understand those people who were too incurious to find out the context, but that's not you. You found the context and you pretended it wasn't there.

I am genuinely curious - what is going on in your head that lets you do that and not feel like an outright liar? Is it just blinding partisanship? Or do you do the same thing with the context of Romeny quotes such as, "I like being able to fire people?"

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.

Re:Here be no surprises by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2012-09-04 11:31 · Score: 5, Interesting

Might well be a good place to drop this link...

I think that idea is misguided populism. The problem isn't that "corporrations are people too" or that "money is speech" - the problem is the corrupting influence that money brings with it (which, is something I think applies everywhere not just politics, but that's a discussion for another time and place).

I like Lawrence Lessig's idea that we might as well embrace these concepts since they are so popular with the people with influence and they at least give us a framework to build on. His idea is to use these concepts in a form of judo - let people and corps donate all the money they want to politicians, but make them do it anonymously. In short, put all the donated money into a "black box" and then (a) let donors secretly rescind their donations if they want and (b) require the politicians to take all of the donations out of the black box in one big chunk after some period of time.

The idea is to disconnect the money from the influence - you can promise a politician that you are giving a million dollars, but you can't prove it. There is no restriction on speech at all - you can "say" all you want with words or money. You just can't tie the two together in a provable fashion.

Apparently something like this system was tried in an election for judges in south florida - the result was that none of the candidates got a single dime.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.

Romney has an interesting point on Climate Change by INowRegretThesePosts · 2012-09-04 13:21 · Score: 5, Interesting

Developed world emissions have leveled off while developing world emissions continue to grow rapidly, and developing nations have no interest in accepting economic constraints to change that dynamic. In this context, the primary effect of unilateral action by the U.S. to impose costs on its own emissions will be to shift industrial activity overseas to nations whose industrial processes are more emissions-intensive and less environmentally friendly. That result may make environmentalists feel better, but it will not better the environment.

Interesting. Imposing a severe carbon tax on America could actually _increase_ global emissions. Unintended consequences.

Slashdot Mirror

Obama and Romney Respond To ScienceDebate.org Questionnaire

55 of 608 comments (clear)