GOP Debate Live Stream Tonight

[Bouncer]

Its always been the same bro. Ups and downs in patterns. Your falling into the doom trap.

[Turbo3000]

Its always been the same bro. Ups and downs in patterns. Your falling into the doom trap.

Nope, government is the largest and most powerful that it has ever been. Secret courts used to justify spying on the people, turning local police into paramilitary groups, the list goes on and on.

I am happy as a lark, no doom and gloom in my life. I'm about to be done with school and have a happy wife, baby, and dog. I just think the entire "team vs team" mentality is juvenile and provides no solutions.

[Bouncer]

Obviously details change. I just mean that there have always been massive problems as well as great opportunity. That's what this country is. If you think this country is in the worst shape its ever been you need a lesson in history my friend. Its not even close.

I'm not saying things can't be improved. I'm not saying your wrong in terms of the power of the government. I'm just saying its important to keeps things in perspective and not get caught up believing "we are doooooomed". Fact in point, we have it pretty damn good in this time and place when compared to almost any other time in world history.

[chuckz28]

So was there anything substantive or even mildly interesting? I chose to not watch any of this mess. Last debate I made it about 15 min before yelling at the TV and said fuck it, it isn't worth it.

[Bouncer]

So was there anything substantive or even mildly interesting? I chose to not watch any of this mess. Last debate I made it about 15 min before yelling at the TV and said fuck it, it isn't worth it.

"Ideally, science should inform many of the major policy decisions facing the US. As such, scientific questions are fair game for candidates for office. However, at last night's Republican Presidential candidate debate, scientific questions came up solely because people knew that this field of candidates would say something stupid in response. The field delivered.

The two areas touched on were vaccines and climate change. The former was motivated by Donald Trump's previous public pronouncements linking vaccinations to autism. The latter came up because members of the Republican party seem to have settled on a tactic of admitting they're not scientists and then suggesting that the actual scientists don't know what they're talking about.

Vaccines

The moderator, Jake Tapper, didn't pose the vaccine question to Trump. Instead, he asked Ben Carson, one of the MDs on stage, whether he'd be interested in correcting Trump on his claims regarding vaccines and autism. Carson came through, correctly noting that "there have been numerous studies, and they have not demonstrated that there is any correlation between vaccinations and autism."

Unfortunately, Carson followed that with a claim that we're probably giving some unnecessary vaccines, and that's a problem that "is pushed by big government." So according to Carson, it's government's fault that people are rejecting vaccines. "And I think that's one of the things that people so vehemently want to get rid of, big government," he said. On this, he was later joined by Rand Paul, who said, "So I'm all for vaccines. But I'm also for freedom."

Trump took the opportunity to respond and verged on incoherence. He appeared to ignore the evidence and reiterated the vaccine-autism claim, more generally saying we're giving children the wrong dose: "Same exact amount, but you take this little beautiful baby, and you pump—I mean, it looks just like it's meant for a horse, not for a child, and we've had so many instances, people that work for me. Just the other day, two-years-old, two-and-a-half-years-old, a child, a beautiful child went to have the vaccine, and came back, and a week later got a tremendous fever, got very, very sick, now is autistic."

All three of them seemed to suggest that we're overdosing children with vaccines. In addition to Trump's quote, Carson said, "It is true that we are probably giving way too many in too short a period of time." Paul agreed, saying that he's "also a little concerned about how they're bunched up." The Kentucky senator then said he doesn't actually care what the evidence is. "Even if the science doesn't say bunching them up is a problem, I ought to have the right to spread out my vaccines a little bit at the very least," he said.

Of course, simply letting a child go outside probably exposes them to far more things that elicit immune responses than the full vaccination schedule will. And the schedule of vaccinations has been set based on extensive epidemiological evidence of risk and consequences. So this argument is completely unsound. Unfortunately, even the MDs on stage were repeating it.

Mike Huckabee, who continues to advocate for lower taxes and shrinking the size of government, responded to the issue by naming four diseases he thinks we should target with a massive research effort: Alzheimer's, cancer, diabetes, and heart disease.

Climate change

Shockingly, "I'm not a scientist" did not appear once when this topic came up. That may be because the moderator introduced the issue drawing comparisons to Reagan's actions in protecting the ozone layer. Marco Rubio, who fielded the question, decided to ignore Reagan and attack Obama. "Because we're not going to destroy our economy the way the left-wing government that we are under now wants to do," he said.

When reminded that he was being asked about Reagan administration actions, Rubio alternated between saying that plans to address carbon emissions would make things a bit harder and suggesting that "harder" actually meant "destroying the economy." He finished with a flourish by saying that what the US does isn't important, as "we are not even the largest carbon producer anymore, China is. And they're drilling a hole and digging anywhere in the world that they can get a hold of."

Naturally, figures released the following day indicated that China's increase in coal use, after having declined for years, had finally gone flat in 2014.

Chris Christie chimed in on climate change as well. "In fact, we don't need this massive government intervention to deal with the problem," Christie contended. "Look at what we have done in New Jersey. We have already reached our clean air goals for 2020." Of course, New Jersey has enacted renewable energy standards, has net metering, and offers solar renewable energy credits—all of which required government intervention.

Christie did accurately note that he'd pulled New Jersey out of a regional greenhouse gas trading arrangement. What he didn't note is that a study of the impact of this program indicated that "the program has saved money for consumers, stimulated job growth, and kept money in local economies in the states that signed up."

The moderator kept attempting to get Rubio to say whether he was skeptical of the scientific consensus, but Rubio wouldn't take the bait. On the other hand, Rand Paul indicated that he'd be happy to reject scientific conclusions. "If you want a skeptic, Jake, I will happily jump into that briar patch," he said. The moderator declined and moved on to a different question.

Again, it's clear that these two topics were chosen specifically because we could expect some of the candidates to say things that run contrary to extensive scientific evidence. And in that regard, they did not disappoint. What is disappointing is that two MDs were willing to throw extensive medical evidence under the bus simply to agree with Donald Trump."

Vaccine safety, climate change featured in Republican debate | Ars Technica

[chuckz28]

He finished with a flourish by saying that what the US does isn't important, as "we are not even the largest carbon producer anymore, China is. And they're drilling a hole and digging anywhere in the world that they can get a hold of."

Naturally, figures released the following day indicated that China's increase in coal use, after having declined for years, had finally gone flat in 2014.

Actually what he said is accurate as well as the refute. China is by far the largest carbon emitter regardless of reduced coal use.

"Even when the lower estimate is taken into account, China’s carbon output for 2013 is still more than two-thirds higher than that of the United States, the second-largest emitter."

"Although China said in February that its coal consumption had dropped between 2013 and 2014, he notes, the government has since increased its cumulative estimate of coal consumption over the past decade by 12–14%"

Nature.com article
China

It is nice to see a couple candidates acknowledge the lack of autism to to vaccine connection. I am fine with vaccinations being spread over a period of weeks or months as opposed to all at once as long as they get them. Not a problem there. Curious as to where Clinton stands on this issue now because in 2008 she said she would look into the connection of autism and vaccines.

I guess everything boils down to importance of issues and picking your battles. As far as I know, 100% of the candidates Democrat and Republican believe in creationism. That to me is a major fault but it isn't on a priority to me at the moment.

[Scrumhalf]

Wait, are you saying that Bernie and Hillary believe in creationism? No way. The Dems may have their faults but unlike the GOP, being anti-science isn't one of them.

[chuckz28]

Wait, are you saying that Bernie and Hillary believe in creationism? No way. The Dems may have their faults but unlike the GOP, being anti-science isn't one of them.

Hillary Clinton grew up in a Methodist household, she taught Methodist Sunday school like her mother, is a member of a Senate prayer group, and regularly attends the Foundry United Methodist Church in Washington.

Sanders is a proud to be Jewish. Atheists are unfortunately unelectable.

[TKD]

The problem is, we are all individuals with varying views on everything. However, we are expected to pick between a few candidates with very specific views. We aren't given a choice.

It's like telling kids they can pick their treat, but has to choose between the few different vegetables we place in fron of then.

[Scrumhalf]

Wait, I don't care what religion any candidate was born into or grew up in. They can't help that. I'm fairly sure though that neither Clinton nor Sanders espouses creationism.

Creationism is like believing in this day and age that the earth is flat. Anyone espousing that should be ridiculed and mocked. Unfortunately, we are the only country in the developed world where the knowledge of the average citizen on how the world around them works is so abysmal that someone being crazy enough to actually admit to believing in creationism it is not immediately laughed off the public stage.

[chuckz28]

Clinton regularly attends church and by the sounds of it Sanders does as well.

[chuckz28]

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/firs...ty-university/

[Scrumhalf]

Chuck, I don't care if a candidate is religious. That is a private thing. However, he/she needs to be able to keep that personal belief from interfering with policy decisions. There are a lot of religoius people who understand that the Bible is a parable that is not necessarily to be taken literally on everything. When people lose the plot on this seemingly straightforward distinction, I am worried.

I would love to see a Republican stand up and say, hey look, the science on evolution, climate change, etc. is irrefutable. So, let's set religous sentiment aside and use rational thought to make policy. But the GOP has sold its soul to the religous right to a point where it is solidly anti-science.

Heck, even the freaking doctors in the debate had to soft-pedal on vaccinations. Why couldn't they unequivocally state "look stupid, not vaccinating your kids is a bad idea. It not only bad for your kids but is a serious public health issue because of loss of herd immunity. I am a doctor and the science on this is very clear." But they don't because the whole party hsa been taken over by fringe nutters of every kind. It is a sad state of affairs, the depths to which the part of Lincoln has sunk to.

[Bouncer]

Scrum, they soft pedal because they are trying not to lose the votes. They don't want to come right out and say it but they don't want to turn anyone off either. Buncha game playing faggot's.

[chuckz28]

It's a bit of a stereotype to make that assumption that the right being typically more religious would base policy off of that on anything other than moral compass though. People on the right even acknowledge evolution and the big bang. Hell the pope admitted they are real last year Pope says evolution, Big Bang are real but still tried to fit it in with a god. I just think it would be disingenuous to lump every candidate or even one side or the other in the same batch. The right has a tendancy to do the exact same thing saying nonsense such as all Democrats are socialists. Being open minded here is key and not putting labels on entire groups works on both sides.