If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   You may not have realized it, but there's already been one presidential debate. It was on science, and it used written responses from each candidate. And Mitt Romney took little Barack to school. Here's how   (slate.com) divider line 118
    More: Interesting, Mitt Romney, GOP, obama, Jane Lubchenco, United States National Academy of Sciences, John Holdren, scientific process, Energy Secretary Steven Chu  
•       •       •

5342 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Sep 2012 at 10:29 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



118 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-06 10:32:47 AM
Not clicking the link to know there's no actual way this is true.

Perhaps a braver man can summarize how they twisted logic so far as to get to that headline.
 
2012-09-06 10:33:10 AM
What responses did subby read? Clearly not the ones that actually exist.
 
2012-09-06 10:33:39 AM
I knew that the conservitards were going to be butthurt, but not THIS butthurt.

We get it. He's black.
 
2012-09-06 10:34:41 AM
So a Science forum awards a win to the guy who mocked concern over rising sea levels? A guy who not only doesn't believe in global warming, but believes that everyone should increase their emission levels just to stick it to the idiots who do believe in global warming? You want to rethink that result?
 
2012-09-06 10:34:43 AM
If you scroll through them quickly, one thing is immediately apparent: Mitt Romney's team took this very seriously. His answers are longer, they have subtitles, they have bullet points.

Also look at this clear plastic binder he used. This is a quality one, not one of those $.50 Wal-Mart jobs. Top notch.
 
2012-09-06 10:34:47 AM
I don't understand how the headline or the article's title have anything to do with the article itself
 
2012-09-06 10:34:47 AM
Subby be overplaying the hand TFA deals.
 
2012-09-06 10:34:51 AM
Little Barack isn't demeaning enough. How about Boy?
 
2012-09-06 10:35:06 AM

thurstonxhowell: What responses did subby read? Clearly not the ones that actually exist.


Here's the responses that actually exist, for reference.
 
2012-09-06 10:35:20 AM
Well, Romney didn't actually show his answer, but he swore it was right, and they believed him.



/Liberal media, my foot...
 
2012-09-06 10:35:39 AM
FTFA: If you look more closely at Romney's answers, though, it's clear that some of his policy proposals are either not informed by science or directly contradict the scientific evidence.

Thread over.
 
2012-09-06 10:35:39 AM
If you look more closely at Romney's answers, though, it's clear that some of his policy proposals are either not informed by science or directly contradict the scientific evidence.

This equals a win?
 
2012-09-06 10:35:49 AM
"little Barack"?

Seriously?
 
2012-09-06 10:35:50 AM
So they both answered with platitudes, but Romney's included more word vomit, so he wins.
 
2012-09-06 10:35:50 AM
Was Clinton's speech that good? I'm almost afraid of the rest of the headlines that get greened today.
 
2012-09-06 10:35:59 AM
If you look more closely at Romney's answers, though, it's clear that some of his policy proposals are either not informed by science or directly contradict the scientific evidence.

But he took it soooo seriously
 
2012-09-06 10:36:14 AM
I'm failing to see the "schooling" part Subby mentioned.
 
2012-09-06 10:36:22 AM
FTFA: If you look more closely at Romney's answers, though, it's clear that some of his policy proposals are either not informed by science or directly contradict the scientific evidence.
. . .
But what is impressive and kind of surprising about the science debate is how much thought and effort the Romney campaign put into responding to these questions.


Apparently, when it comes to science questions, effort is more important than correctness.
 
2012-09-06 10:37:09 AM
I don't understand, subby. I read the article and it said the exact opposite.
 
2012-09-06 10:37:17 AM

xnecron: FTFA: If you look more closely at Romney's answers, though, it's clear that some of his policy proposals are either not informed by science or directly contradict the scientific evidence.

Thread over.


Simulpost high-five?
 
Ant
2012-09-06 10:37:23 AM

Lost Thought 00: So a Science forum awards a win to the guy who mocked concern over rising sea levels? A guy who not only doesn't believe in global warming, but believes that everyone should increase their emission levels just to stick it to the idiots who do believe in global warming? You want to rethink that result?


It's almost as if all of Romney's answers are crafted specifically to appeal to the group that is doing the asking.
 
2012-09-06 10:37:36 AM

incendi: Apparently, when it comes to science questions, effort is more important than correctness.


Just like paying one's taxes.
 
2012-09-06 10:37:37 AM

JokerMattly: Not clicking the link to know there's no actual way this is true.

Perhaps a braver man can summarize how they twisted logic so far as to get to that headline.


Obama's team had an intern respond and Romney's team threw someone senior at this. So Romney had bullet points and Obama phoned it in. Therefore, Romney wins. At something that no one cares about.
 
2012-09-06 10:37:59 AM
 
2012-09-06 10:38:06 AM
I'm actually looking forward to these debates. When Romney gets in over his head, he defers to nonsense talking points that are not relevant to the conversation, then tries to walk away from it. Obama does the same exact thing, but stands there and smiles.

I wonder which side is going to force the questions be vetted before they can be asked. I also wonder which candidate will blow by the rules of time limits, ala Bush, to get their point across. Anyway you look at it, it's going to be fun to watch, and both sides will be saying their candidate won.
 
2012-09-06 10:38:26 AM
But which one of them will allow our schools to Teach the Controversy?
 
2012-09-06 10:38:53 AM
It's a sad fact that the packaging, good communication, will make or break the content of a message. You can have the right answer, but unless you communicate it, the prize will go to the moron with the slick presentation. I mean, my job is predicated on helping people that have the ideas communicate them clearly to users, because apparently being an engineer or technician means communicating is hard...
 
2012-09-06 10:39:10 AM

JokerMattly: Not clicking the link to know there's no actual way this is true.

Perhaps a braver man can summarize how they twisted logic so far as to get to that headline.


No, that's the actual title of the article.
 
2012-09-06 10:39:13 AM

Anti_illuminati:
Simulpost high-five?


Absolutely.
 
2012-09-06 10:39:13 AM
acandidworld.files.wordpress.com

If you're raised with this kind of crap and you're not a Formon, you're just dumb dumb dumb dumb.
 
2012-09-06 10:39:26 AM

JokerMattly: Not clicking the link to know there's no actual way this is true.

Perhaps a braver man can summarize how they twisted logic so far as to get to that headline.


I can give you the entirety of it in one paragraph:

"It's clear from Romney's answers that his top priorities are reducing government and promoting business, and that science is fine as long as it doesn't interfere with those ends. But what is impressive and kind of surprising about the science debate is how much thought and effort the Romney campaign put into responding to these questions."

Slate supports their headline assertion by stating that Romney gets an A for Effort in the formatting and language of his answers, then spends 2 pages discussing how the content of them is arguing against science getting in the way of business, then summarizes it with how refreshing it is that he went so in depth at being a corporate rube.

No direct comparison is ever made between the two. We get the opening sentence of an answer from Obama and three paragraphs of excerpts from an answer from Romney, and they are presented against each other as Obama not really trying. They are also all phrased as Obama writing his answers himself, and Romney writing his answers as a Campaign.
 
2012-09-06 10:39:48 AM
i2.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-06 10:39:53 AM
Actually read the answers yesterday.

Mitt's answer on climate change is classic GOP anti-science.

/reality? How does it work?
 
2012-09-06 10:40:08 AM
So, the Romney campaign put more effort into their answers, but the Obama campaign's answers were more scientifically accurate. How is Obama being "schooled"?
 
2012-09-06 10:40:12 AM

ginandbacon: JokerMattly: Not clicking the link to know there's no actual way this is true.

Perhaps a braver man can summarize how they twisted logic so far as to get to that headline.

Obama's team had an intern respond and Romney's team threw someone senior at this. So Romney had bullet points and Obama phoned it in. Therefore, Romney wins. At something that no one cares about.


Even sadder once you realize that Obama's intern has a better grasp of science than Romney's senior guy.

// wonder what biology questions/answers - especially reproductive biology - might have looked like
 
2012-09-06 10:40:19 AM

Question 1: What policies will best ensure that America remains a world leader in innovation?

Obama: Doubling research funding and adding 100,000 STEM teachers.

Romney: Cut taxes, let in more immigrants, reduce regulation, and free trade except with our biggest trading partner.
Question 2: Climate change?
Obama: Try to stop it.

Romney: It's not a thing and I'm not a scientist. But I want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions anyway.
Question 3: Given that the next Congress will face spending constraints, what priority would you give to investment in research in your upcoming budgets?
Obama: I spent $90 billion on clean energy and would like to spend more.

Romney: Obama spent $90 billion on clean energy like an idiot. I would instead like to spend that money on clean energy.
etc., etc.
 
2012-09-06 10:40:24 AM
FTA: How the GOP candidate schooled the president on science policy.

. . .

you'd think Obama would have an overwhelming advantage over Mitt Romney in a debate of the top American science questions. You'd be wrong.

If you scroll through them quickly, one thing is immediately apparent: Mitt Romney's team took this very seriously. His answers are longer, they have subtitles, they have bullet points. It's not just great presentation: The Romney text is substantive, specific, and detailed. Obama's answers to some of the same questions are single paragraphs that are vague, repetitive (two in a row start with "Since taking office"), and poorly written.

. . . [no examples] . . .

If you look more closely at Romney's answers, though, it's clear that some of his policy proposals are either not informed by science or directly contradict the scientific evidence.

. . . [typical global warming and small government derp] . . .

It's clear from Romney's answers that his top priorities are reducing government and promoting business, and that science is fine as long as it doesn't interfere with those ends. But what is impressive and kind of surprising about the science debate is how much thought and effort the Romney campaign put into responding to these questions.


What a ridiculous farking article. Laura Helmuth, go fark yourself, you disingenuous shiatbag.
 
2012-09-06 10:40:24 AM
Sometimes, brevity is the
 
2012-09-06 10:40:29 AM

thurstonxhowell: What responses did subby read? Clearly not the ones that actually exist.


Subby must think that because Mitt's answers are longer, they are somehow smarter.
 
2012-09-06 10:40:36 AM
If the science hoaxers at Salon liked Romney's answers, then Romney would be a disaster on science.
 
2012-09-06 10:41:18 AM
It's good to know

evilmrsock: I can give you the entirety of it in one paragraph:


Ugh.
So, basically, winning a debate on science involves you giving the most well thought out answer, even if said answer is completely incorrect.

I wish they'd used that logic in my Organic classes. That way, if I didn't know a reaction mechanism, i could just write one i -did- know and get full credit.
 
2012-09-06 10:42:08 AM
I'm confused. The headline and even the premise of the article suggest that it's going to show us that Romney is more knowledgeable than Obama on science issues. All we get, though, are a half-hearted criticism of one of Obama's bureaucratese responses compared to Mitt Romney's more direct bullshiat, and then the rest of the article is criticism of Romney's clear anti-science rhetoric couched in feigned concern for the environment.

This person is the editor of a periodical? The article is C-plus-work from a high school journalism student.
 
2012-09-06 10:42:22 AM
Obama has never been particularly strong on science or technology. This was made readily apparent in the 2008 debates, and he's backed it up by repeatedly demonstrating that he doesn't quite comprehend how it works in, say, his directives to the NSF.

That said, this is not particularly new for the office of the Presidency, few of them have any real comprehension of science and that's largely fine. The community tends to care less about whether a candidate is intimately familiar with the science itself (neither Obama nor Romney are) and more whether the candidate subscribes to a general worldview that is violently, pathologically anti-science in basic principles (Romney does).

So, no, the fact that Obama filled out the survey himself in his spare time during lunch and Romney passed it to a staffer who spent a full work-day going through the campaign materials for detailed answers doesn't mean much in terms of winning scientists over. Especially since most of us have written and graded enough writing to know that that's where the difference stems from, not innate scientific competence.
 
2012-09-06 10:42:36 AM
We talking about the GOP's Imaginary Obama again, right?
 
2012-09-06 10:42:43 AM
Drew personally writing political tab headlines now?
 
2012-09-06 10:43:17 AM
Having read the responses, Romneys stance was always 'Business and industry first, environment second, science third'.

He also bashes or blames Obama in near every post. Obama's responses were more positive, and honestly, more based in science and reason.

Obama's win all the way.
 
2012-09-06 10:43:50 AM

Dr Dreidel: ginandbacon: JokerMattly: Not clicking the link to know there's no actual way this is true.

Perhaps a braver man can summarize how they twisted logic so far as to get to that headline.

Obama's team had an intern respond and Romney's team threw someone senior at this. So Romney had bullet points and Obama phoned it in. Therefore, Romney wins. At something that no one cares about.

Even sadder once you realize that Obama's intern has a better grasp of science than Romney's senior guy.

// wonder what biology questions/answers - especially reproductive biology - might have looked like


LOL exactly.
 
2012-09-06 10:43:51 AM
The contents of the article seem to have absolutely nothing in common with the title/headline.
 
2012-09-06 10:44:09 AM

thurstonxhowell: What responses did subby read? Clearly not the ones that actually exist.


Don't blame subby entirely, the article claims the same thing, then goes on to say the complete opposite. If you went by the headline and the theme of the article, desperate for a chance to prove that the Mittster got SOME Kind of higher level science programming, you'd see it the same way.
 
2012-09-06 10:45:25 AM

Zoophagous: Actually read the answers yesterday.

Mitt's answer on climate change is classic GOP anti-science.

/reality? How does it work?


Read this yesterday too. Romney's answers were anti-science. Lots of words, little to no actual content. The content that was there was troubling.

Obama's answers were much better. They were significantly improved by being that much shorter.

See, as a scientist when you write papers any extra word is a waste of paper and time. Get to the point as fast as you can with as much evidence as you can. When someone pussy-foots around an answer for a page and a half its because:
1) They don't have it
2) They are bullshiatting you
3) Its an answer they don't want to give because it dead ends their research
 
Displayed 50 of 118 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report