How important is science to you in choosing a candidate?

[Amelia]

Is it important to you that your candidate's beliefs are compatible with the scientific ideas you embrace?

I don't think I could vote for someone who believed the earth to be less than 10,000 years old.

However, I will be voting for someone who appears to believe that Native Americans are primarily descended from Israelites despite DNA evidence to the contrary. Of course, besides "little" things like that, Mormons are generally pretty accepting of modern science, so I don't feel any great concern that Romney's religious beliefs would trump science in a way which would interfere with his ability to govern.

Where do you draw your lines?

 

[AmyNation]

I think if it was something to do with religion, I'd be more willing to shrug it off.. However I think if it was something off the wall and obviously false it would give me serious pause.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Those who tend to vote against conservative politicians rarely, if ever, are faced with this dilemma.

Otherwise, the human capacity for rationalization is infinite.

 

[Ernie S.]

Those who tend to vote against conservative politicians rarely, if ever, are faced with this dilemma.

Otherwise, the human capacity for rationalization is infinite.

Harry Reid?

 

[Amelia]

Those who tend to vote against conservative politicians rarely, if ever, are faced with this dilemma.

Otherwise, the human capacity for rationalization is infinite.

Harry Reid?

Nice example. Thanks.

 

[Amelia]

Those who tend to vote against conservative politicians rarely, if ever, are faced with this dilemma.

Otherwise, the human capacity for rationalization is infinite.

Does Mark Pryor (D-Arkansas) count as a conservative?

 

[Old Rocks]

The problem here is that the GOP as a whole have embraced and anti-science stance concerning a major problem that is already having serious consequences. That is global warming. We will be paying higher food prices this winter because of the effect of what we put in the atmosphere 30 years ago. That, for us, is an inconveniance. For those in many third world nations, it means watching their children starve.

I simply cannot vote for those that prefer fairy tales over reality.

 

[Avorysuds]

Those who tend to vote against conservative politicians rarely, if ever, are faced with this dilemma.

Otherwise, the human capacity for rationalization is infinite.

You mean like Obama...? What did he just go to church just to help get votes but not believe anything he heard, even all the racist stuff?

 

[Avorysuds]

The problem here is that the GOP as a whole have embraced and anti-science stance concerning a major problem that is already having serious consequences. That is global warming. We will be paying higher food prices this winter because of the effect of what we put in the atmosphere 30 years ago. That, for us, is an inconveniance. For those in many third world nations, it means watching their children starve.

I simply cannot vote for those that prefer fairy tales over reality.

Global warming is not science, it's opinion at best.
I listened to a guy who writes books about it on NPR, I went into it with an open mind seeing as Global warming is not an issue I care much about and all he did was lie, tell fractions of stories and make up excuses as to why every single prediction he and others have made to date have been miserably wrong.... Then he tells us how the world will be destroyed in 100 years yet he can't explain why Global warming has slowed incredibly in the last 30 years when asked. His answer was "we just don't know." Yet he wants to be taken seriously. That's not science.


If Global warming due to man is real I have no issue with accepting it. But being able to prove it if far different that just making the claim and so far that is all they have, claims.


They even went over what you talked about, how will it affect crops… Here’s a question, is climate 100% the same as it was in 1920 as it was in let’s say 1810? Or how about 1920 to 1650? Or 1920 to the year 123? How did all of these plants exist!!!!!??!!!?? “Warmers” are as about anti evolution and science as it gets. They need to deal with the fact that the world changes, it always has, from day to day, season to season, year to year. Getting upset because on march 15th of last year it was 65 degrees and clear skies and today on March 15 it's 53 degrees and raining is pretty dumb.

 

[Avatar4321]

What exactly does science have to do with political leadership anyway? I mean i want someone as based in the truth as humanly possible, but how many Presidents have been scientists or even leaders in the scientific community?

I think character matters much more than science. Ideas are more important to. I have no problem if a leader believes the earth is flat if, when provided with additional evidence, realize they are wrong and change positions.

I dont need to know how exactly nuclear physics works to think it's a good area to pursue knowledge.

 

[Katzndogz]

How old the earth is has nothing to do with someone's ability to decide policy. Someone who believes that forcibly taking from one person to give to another person is sharing is different. I wouldn't vote for that person.

 

[Wiseacre]

I think science should take a backseat to more jobs and economic growth. Not to say the environment should be totally ignored, but we need to be pragmatic about it.

 

[AmyNation]

A basic understanding of science is important, or at the least someone who is willing to admit they have no clue and should consult an expert.

Lawmakers who are passing laws based on false science or bad medicine can be dangerous.

 

[TomasG]

The problem here is that the GOP as a whole have embraced and anti-science stance concerning a major problem that is already having serious consequences. That is global warming. We will be paying higher food prices this winter because of the effect of what we put in the atmosphere 30 years ago. That, for us, is an inconveniance. For those in many third world nations, it means watching their children starve.

I simply cannot vote for those that prefer fairy tales over reality.

Global warming is not science, it's opinion at best.

There is a large abundance of science/research driven groups who have consistently determined that the preponderance of information leads to the conclusion that global warming is due to human induced activities which trap heat.

"Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities." - US Global Change research program

"In February 2007, the IPCC released a summary of the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report. According to this summary, the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability."

What is disconcerting is that there isn't an abundance of research/science driven groups that offer counter findings that suggest global warming is not linked to human induced activities - if there is a credible science foundation, university research group that has unequivocally found as FACT that global warming is NOT HUMAN INDUCED please share.

I desire a president who relies on science to legislate for the better of the American people. The sacrifices will hurt in terms of jobs, in terms of comforts, in terms of liberties we've been able to enjoy throughout the history of the United States. I have to believe that we Americans are not so self centered with our current needs that we can't find a way to sacrifice for the better of future generations of Americans.

 

[jwoodie]

Over the past 50 years, we have been presented with "scientific facts" such as The Population Bomb, Nuclear Winter, mass extinction, pandemics, Doomsday clock, energy depletion, etc., all of which seem to get maximum publicity before elections where liberals/progressives are poised to lose some of their power.

Please excuse me for not getting worked up about Global Warming/Climate Change this time around.

 

[Politico]

Science has nothing to do with politics.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

To me, it's a question if they have high Indian cheekbones.

 

[PredFan]

Is it important to you that your candidate's beliefs are compatible with the scientific ideas you embrace?

I don't think I could vote for someone who believed the earth to be less than 10,000 years old.

However, I will be voting for someone who appears to believe that Native Americans are primarily descended from Israelites despite DNA evidence to the contrary. Of course, besides "little" things like that, Mormons are generally pretty accepting of modern science, so I don't feel any great concern that Romney's religious beliefs would trump science in a way which would interfere with his ability to govern.

Where do you draw your lines?

The problems this country faces aren't scientific questions. They are economic ones. If we had a candidate who believed that the earth was riding on the back of a giant turtle, but the guy had the right plan for the nation's economy, he'd get my vote.

 

[courseofhistory]

Is it important to you that your candidate's beliefs are compatible with the scientific ideas you embrace?

I don't think I could vote for someone who believed the earth to be less than 10,000 years old.

However, I will be voting for someone who appears to believe that Native Americans are primarily descended from Israelites despite DNA evidence to the contrary. Of course, besides "little" things like that, Mormons are generally pretty accepting of modern science, so I don't feel any great concern that Romney's religious beliefs would trump science in a way which would interfere with his ability to govern.

Where do you draw your lines?

Yes. Next! Seriously, religion and religious beliefs have no place in the government insofar as policy is concerned. I realize the US was founded on some Judeo-Christian beliefs and that's fine but everything else should be secular and fair. I am not in agreement with banning Christian symbols at Christmas or "in God we trust", etc. however. I just think things should be measured and reasonable, leaving religion to private beliefs in churches or wherever someone worships.

 

[courseofhistory]

Science has nothing to do with politics.

Ummm...it doesn't? What about NASA, the CDC, and others?

Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Department of Energy

Department of Homeland Security Research

Environmental Protection Agency

Federal Communications Commission

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

National Institute of Standards and Technology

National Institutes of Health

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Science Foundation

Patent and Trademark Office

U.S. Geological Survey

And since you didn't mention religion, what if anything do you think it has to do with politics?