Will ClintonTrump Ever Talk About Science Issues?
Challenge to presidential candidates: Debate about science, Washington Post
“Climate change. Mental health. Space exploration. Vaccinations. The health of the oceans. Antibiotic-resistant superbugs. These are not the typical meat-and-potatoes topics of presidential debates. Often, the candidates and people who ask them questions skip over such topics entirely. But dozens of non-partisan groups that represent millions of scientists and engineers across the country are eager to change that. For the third consecutive presidential election, the folks behind ScienceDebate.org are asking candidates to hold a debate exclusively about major issues in science, engineering, health and the environment. Since that almost certainly won’t happen (it didn’t in 2008 or 2012, either), the organizers have put together 20 questions they are asking candidates to address in writing. Marcia McNutt, president of the National Academy of Sciences, said answers from the campaigns could help voters gauge how a candidate plans to use scientific information to make important decisions in the White House.”
Easy answer is no……because they could care less. Ugh! Sorry gents I’m a tad grumpy today over the sorry state of affairs.
I do think Hillary has interests in science, she did want to be an astronaut once. But at this point talking about science/space issues would be of little use. She is still following the traditional formula (which does still work) of catering to the base to get the nomination and catering to the independents and moderate Republicans to win the election, and the best way to do that is for her to convince them that her competition is reckless.
You really want Trump to do a science debate? I don’t. And Hillary would just be boilerplate in terms of speaking.
Dunno. Were it not for the fact that he could be, you know, President, Mr. Trump is hilarious.
Maybe more hilarious is watching the Main Stream guys wriggle 🙂 !
Unfortunately most Americans are neither educated in nor concerned with science, or with critical thinking of any kind.
Exactly. How can we expect the candidates to spend any time talking about science issues when the public at large has demonstrated no real interest in science related issues?
The concept is Leadership – good policy that places all of America First rather than the ‘counternarrative’.
e.g. Folks still *believe* that after burning a trillion barrels of oil and tons of coil still do not think that humans affect GW. The system is ‘rigged’, but they do not discuss the numerous gerrymandered districts that allows 75% of seats when votes are typically 50-50.
Fortunately, there is leadership to create good policy to create jobs and protect the environment at the same time and balance all of America’s and the world needs.
How do we reinvent that Spirit of Innovation? Tax breaks for oil/gas and building decades old expendable hardware 10X more expensive with excess LV capacity?Why would we want to pass up the chance for American business to produce the energy of the future, producing more jobs at the same time?
https://youtu.be/cCXSO-3mt5…
I’m not talking about the spirit of innovation. I’m talking about the fact that the American public has never really showed a sustained interest (at least not at any significant level) in science or science related issues. Even during the Apollo missions, public interest waned quickly. I can’t think of any time during an election season when the public placed any interest at all science issues.
Apollo: continued cost of science was too high.
Words and examples matter to Joe Public who are consuming one way media.
When the ‘Leaders’ do not inspire folks about the merits of Science, the billions of free press will not change Joe Public’s interest, nor the Spirit of Innovation for the *entire* country, not just those who like pi. Told what to believe?
Do not not forget the ‘counternarrative’ to science, GW, energy, …: “If the disgusting and corrupt media covered me honestly and didn’t put false meaning into the words I say…”
Foster Alternative Reality (Confuse Rewrite History) Create Enemies (Scapegoating, Attack Character) Fear Mongering (Stereotyping).
http://www.autostraddle.com…
Clinton had Lori Garver as her adviser in the 08′ campaign and Garver is pro commercial, that works for me.
Looking at who the Republicans have put on various science subcommittees in the House, I have to say that part of their base doesn’t want to believe in any science that contradicts their preconceived notions. They may kiss want to avoid that conflict.