US Presidential Election Poll

[AIRburst95]

OK I'm ending this argument

Good luck!

That's an awfully negative accusation to level. What evidence do you have that his view of science is controlled by his politics? It sounds more like you disagree with him on policy points, so you are labeling him anti-science to discredit those points rather than address them.

Read it again. I'll make it simple for you

Global Warming is causing damage to the environment.
Oil and coal energy sources are causing Global Warming.
Mitt Romney's energy policy includes more oil and coal production.

Come on, I know you can do it.

Now in the meantime until you can actually find Mitt Romney's peer reviewed science papers stating that global warming is false, then you can kiss my ass.

[Feud]

You just stated several different things.

First, you're saying that oil production causes global warming. Then, you're saying that his energy policy favors oil production. You jointly accuse him of not believing in global warming in the first place. This despite him saying in his book:

I believe that climate change is occurring — the reduction in the size of global ice caps is hard to ignore. I also believe that human activity is a contributing factor.

You are accusing him of putting politics before science, but offering no support. Being in favor of oil production doesn't mean he doesn't believe in any science related to it. Nor does it mean that he is ignoring science for monetary or political gain. It might mean that on the scales of competing demands and concerns he has prioritized things differently than you do, which appears to be the case here, in which case your label of "anti-science" is exactly what I called it: a denouncement of a heretic to your view, a way to discredit rather than holding an open discussion on the matter.

I read just fine, but I disagree to the conclusions you're jumping to, and do not think your representation of facts is accurate.

[xander]

Planned parenthood? He wants to remove federal funding of abortions.

Planned Parenthood does not use federal funds to provide termination services. The federal funds that Planned Parenthood receives go to provide counseling and health care to women. This includes regular OB visits, mammograms, providing birth control, and educational outreach. If Romney wants to prevent abortions, one of the best things he could do is continue to fund Planned Parenthood, as the services they provide help to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

xander

[Cooper42]

What I don't understand is that, whilst G W Bush was a worrisome fellow, I could see why some people would like him and vote for him. I could understand, if in disagreement, why someone would vote for him.
Edit: Even McCain. Crap politics, but even so that guy had "President" written all over him.

What I can't see is what anyone finds presidential in Romney beyond him being the leader of the party they might support. Romney is just a nasty piece of work. He's like a living, breathing example of the moral bankruptcy of the republican's version of the American dream.

The guy gives 30% of his income. He spent two years in unpaid missionary service. He's spent years in unpaid ecclesiastical roles, including as a Stake President, which typically takes about at least 15-20 hours a week, and puts him on call 24/7. While at Bain, he once stopped the company business and dedicated its full time (as well as that of their accounting firm) to canvas the streets looking for the missing daughter of an employee. She was found because of those efforts, drugged in a basement and hours from death. He's also the only president in living memory who's never done drugs, been drunk, cheated on his wife, or been divorced.

Yep, that's some moral bankruptcy right there...

Which was kind of what I'm getting at.

He has himself, personally, done many a 'good thing'. His interactions with individuals is that of a caring, devout man.

Except his politics align with a politics that disenfranchises the powerless and those least able to fend for themselves.

The actions of an individual on a personal level cannot be scaled up to provide indication of how they would act when responsible for the lives of millions who they will never, ever meet face to face. Romeny's personal benevolence masks a politics that is far from benevolent. That's the moral bankruptcy I had in mind.

Edit:
@DHKold:
That is a beautifully naive bvision of science.

I stand by scientific methodologies as the most robust ways of producing accurate, contestable knowledge that we have. But to claim that scientific endeavour is entirely, completely, disaccociated from the political realm is just plain wrong.

At the very root: How we produce knowledge is, fundamentally, in the realms of politics as much as what knowledge is produced.

Science is funded, undertaken and designed within a world that is not devoid of politics. The practice of science is not (cannot be) utterly devoid of political engagement. Whether it's board room decisions or the day-to-day practices of lab work and the individual s in the corridors of universities and corporations, science is not somehow in a sealed bubble away from politics.

It is, however, wrong to suggest all science is political in the same way. Those who dismiss science as being always from a specific political viewpoint are just wrong.

There is more to politics than elections and senates and parliaments. The personal is political. Science is conducted by political persons. Within the scientific community there are measures to reduce overt bias and plain cooking of results. But politics seeps in at the very root of what is researched (what is deemed worth while researching, what is funded) and how it is researched (what is deemed the best way to produce knowledge)

[Ace Rimmer]

The actions of an individual on a personal level cannot be scaled up to provide indication of how they would act when responsible for the lives of millions who they will never, ever meet face to face. Romeny's personal benevolence masks a politics that is far from benevolent. That's the moral bankruptcy I had in mind.

If that's true, then I would argue most (if not every single) politicians in the world fall under the definition of morally bankrupt.

[paktsardines]

Yay, Ron Paul.

Pity about his stance on abortion, but you can't have everything. Well,...you could , but I'm not running.

[zjoere]

I read in a belgian magazine that perhaps the biggest influence of the new president will be appointing new members for the Supreme court. Since they will be in place for decades to come while the president himself only has 4 or 8 years to influence things. Would the american people on this forum who know more about the working of the supreme court agree with this statement?

It further claimed there is a balance right now of 5 republican judges and 4 democratic ones but it could tip towards 7-2. (Ok theoretically the judges probably don't have a official party affiliation, but in reality they probably have?)

[Ace Rimmer]

I haven't been following it too closely, though I did watch all three debates (Schmoyoho's songified versions are better than C-Spans), but I've heard a few discussions revolving around the potiential nominations to the Supreme Court. I don't know about 'biggest influence' though.

Judges are people, so regardless of affiliation, they have personal views which cannot be seperated from their perspective and eventual decisions. That's not to say a judge can't rule in favor/against something in opposition to his/her own views.

[DHKold]

@DHKold:
That is a beautifully naive bvision of science.

I stand by scientific methodologies as the most robust ways of producing accurate, contestable knowledge that we have. But to claim that scientific endeavour is entirely, completely, disaccociated from the political realm is just plain wrong.

At the very root: How we produce knowledge is, fundamentally, in the realms of politics as much as what knowledge is produced.

Science is funded, undertaken and designed within a world that is not devoid of politics. The practice of science is not (cannot be) utterly devoid of political engagement. Whether it's board room decisions or the day-to-day practices of lab work and the individual s in the corridors of universities and corporations, science is not somehow in a sealed bubble away from politics.

It is, however, wrong to suggest all science is political in the same way. Those who dismiss science as being always from a specific political viewpoint are just wrong.

There is more to politics than elections and senates and parliaments. The personal is political. Science is conducted by political persons. Within the scientific community there are measures to reduce overt bias and plain cooking of results. But politics seeps in at the very root of what is researched (what is deemed worth while researching, what is funded) and how it is researched (what is deemed the best way to produce knowledge)

It's not just a vision, it's a way to work and it's how my professors did teach me to work as a scientist.

Some scientists may be politically driven, or influenced, they may be funded by politics, but if they involve politics in non-political sciences, then they're making a very huge mistake. Also, since there is a very large and international scientific community, working together, challenging each others, reviewing and enhancing other's papers, having, in fine, a science which is politicaly-linked is kind of difficult.

Of course, science cannot stand in a bubble. And it would be counter-productive in human-sciences ^^ I just hope scientist arround the world try to respect the science methodology, even when they're making reasearch for a politic entity.

[AIRburst95]

You just stated several different things.

First, you're saying that oil production causes global warming. Then, you're saying that his energy policy favors oil production. You jointly accuse him of not believing in global warming in the first place. This despite him saying in his book:

I believe that climate change is occurring — the reduction in the size of global ice caps is hard to ignore. I also believe that human activity is a contributing factor.

You are accusing him of putting politics before science, but offering no support. Being in favor of oil production doesn't mean he doesn't believe in any science related to it. Nor does it mean that he is ignoring science for monetary or political gain. It might mean that on the scales of competing demands and concerns he has prioritized things differently than you do, which appears to be the case here, in which case your label of "anti-science" is exactly what I called it: a denouncement of a heretic to your view, a way to discredit rather than holding an open discussion on the matter.

I read just fine, but I disagree to the conclusions you're jumping to, and do not think your representation of facts is accurate.

What book?

[Ace Rimmer]

This one.

[AIRburst95]

This one.

ok, i'll quote him in the poll section

[Feud]

Planned parenthood? He wants to remove federal funding of abortions.

Planned Parenthood does not use federal funds to provide termination services. The federal funds that Planned Parenthood receives go to provide counseling and health care to women. This includes regular OB visits, mammograms, providing birth control, and educational outreach. If Romney wants to prevent abortions, one of the best things he could do is continue to fund Planned Parenthood, as the services they provide help to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Not directly, no. Romney wants to reinstate the Mexico City provision, which was the funding policy prior to Pres. Obama changing it in an executive order in 2009. While the money isn't directly used for abortions, it's used to offset the other costs so that the organization's solicited funds can be used for providing abortion services. Romney is not against OB visits, mammograms, birth control (except abortion), etc. He's against organizations who take federal funds to provide everything but abortions, so that they can use their own money for them.

I read in a belgian magazine that perhaps the biggest influence of the new president will be appointing new members for the Supreme court. Since they will be in place for decades to come while the president himself only has 4 or 8 years to influence things. Would the american people on this forum who know more about the working of the supreme court agree with this statement?

It further claimed there is a balance right now of 5 republican judges and 4 democratic ones but it could tip towards 7-2. (Ok theoretically the judges probably don't have a official party affiliation, but in reality they probably have?)

It depends on the President, but for any of them their Supreme Court nominations can be one of the most significant things they do. The Court isn't balanced Republican and Democrat, it's more liberal and conservative. It should also be noted that liberal and conservative in regards to Supreme Court isn't exactly the same as how the terms are used in wider American political circles. Though their ideologies sometimes shine through, a good lawyer knows not to pitch a case to them on ideological grounds. It rarely works that way. Instead, they play to their interpretation of the role of justice, the court, and jurisprudence.

[xander]

Planned parenthood? He wants to remove federal funding of abortions.

Planned Parenthood does not use federal funds to provide termination services. The federal funds that Planned Parenthood receives go to provide counseling and health care to women. This includes regular OB visits, mammograms, providing birth control, and educational outreach. If Romney wants to prevent abortions, one of the best things he could do is continue to fund Planned Parenthood, as the services they provide help to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Not directly, no. Romney wants to reinstate the Mexico City provision, which was the funding policy prior to Pres. Obama changing it in an executive order in 2009. While the money isn't directly used for abortions, it's used to offset the other costs so that the organization's solicited funds can be used for providing abortion services. Romney is not against OB visits, mammograms, birth control (except abortion), etc. He's against organizations who take federal funds to provide everything but abortions, so that they can use their own money for them.

You missed the point. If Romney is really serious about preventing abortions, then defunding Planned Parenthood is a stupid thing to do. I cannot think of another organization anywhere that does more to prevent unwanted pregnancies, thereby preventing abortions.

xander

[Cooper42]

Also, since there is a very large and international scientific community, working together, challenging each others, reviewing and enhancing other's papers, having, in fine, a science which is politicaly-linked is kind of difficult.

Except they / we don't.

There's currently an increasing amount of discussion here in the UK about the lack of full disclosure, access and publication of medical trials. A huge amount of information exists that is not shared, is not available to scrutiny and thus we get distorted (and in the case of medicine potentially dangerous) pictures.

It's not just about personal political motivation (or lack thereof). It's the way in which we do things. Everything from everyday banalities that we don't think about to institutional systems and engrained ways of doing things that are political, have political effects, and effect outcomes, takeup, analysis and discussion about scientific knowledge.

Knowledge production is inherently political. You cannot produce knowledge without being political.