Dr. Stein uses a common anti-vaccine dodge in which she denies that she’s anti-vaccine, but then repeats anti-vaccine tropes about vaccines not being tested the same way as other drugs (if anything, they’re tested more rigorously), corruption in big pharma, etc.,” David Gorski, a surgical oncologist and pro-science blogger explained to me. “She even walked back a Tweet from saying ‘there’s no evidence’ that vaccines cause autism to ‘I’m not aware of evidence linking vaccines to autism.’ Talk about an antivaccine dog whistle!”
Libertarian Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson recently reversed his stance on mandatory vaccination. Governor Johnson had previously held a staunchly pro-choice position, allowing each individual to choose for himself and each parent to choose on behalf of their child to vaccinate or not. Recently Johnson reversed his position.
In my opinion, this is a local issue. If it ends up to be a federal issue, I would come down on the side of science, and I would probably require that vaccine.”
Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for president, takes what he calls the “long-term view” of climate change. “In billions of years,” he said in 2011, “the sun is going to actually grow and encompass the Earth, right? So global warming is in our future.”
The former New Mexico governor did acknowledge that humans are making the world warmer in the near term, too—but he doesn’t think the government should do much about it. In the same speech, he denounced “cap-and-trade taxation,” said we “should be building new coal-fired plants,” and argued that the “trillions” of dollars it would cost to combat climate change would be better spent on other priorities.
Colonizing space, if it is even possible, is going to require far, far more development time than it will take for climate change to have catastrophic effects on society, perhaps even enough to halt development toward colonization. It isn't a solution.
Can we colonize space beyond just a research outpost somewhere? Maybe. When? Centuries. We don't have centuries, and thanks to the complete disregard the government has shown toward science and space, we've wasted a lot of what we do have.
Blackhawk wrote:Colonizing space, if it is even possible, is going to require far, far more development time than it will take for climate change to have catastrophic effects on society, perhaps even enough to halt development toward colonization. It isn't a solution.
Can we colonize space beyond just a research outpost somewhere? Maybe. When? Centuries. We don't have centuries, and thanks to the complete disregard the government has shown toward science and space, we've wasted a lot of what we do have.
Sooner than you think.
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk will officially launch “Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species” on Tuesday, September 27, when gives a keynote speech at the 67th International Astronautical Congress in Guadalajara, Mexico.
Musk stated at the Code Conference in June 2016 that when he first established Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) in 2002, the prime mission of the company was to colonize Mars.
When asked if he would unveil his timetable for colonizing the “Red Planet” at this year’s international satellite and rocket convention, he replied, “That’s the game plan — approximately 2024 to launch the first of the Mars colonial transport systems with people.”
Musk acknowledged that the company is already developing a giant rocket, larger than the Saturn 5 moon rocket or the Space Launch System currently being pursued by NASA. But he has been tight-lipped about the design of the new rocket, and the location of its factory and launch base to make his dream a reality.
I don't think we have the know how to actually colonize Mars. Set up a research station with supplies shipped in regularly, supplemented by hydroponics and reclamation? Sure. That's just the ISS with a longer commute. Call that research station a colony for romantic appeal? Ok. Create an actual self-sufficient colony capable of supporting a genetically diverse population? That's a whole different ball of wax.
Explosion implies a rapid increase in volume that imparts momentum.
Rockets expel an explosion out the right end, and contain it from going in the wrong direction.
Unagi wrote:Explosion implies a rapid increase in volume that imparts momentum.
Rockets expel an explosion out the right end, and contain it from going in the wrong direction.
Unless there is a shockwave, I'm pretty sure it's just combustion.
Unagi wrote:Explosion implies a rapid increase in volume that imparts momentum.
Rockets expel an explosion out the right end, and contain it from going in the wrong direction.
Unless there is a shockwave, I'm pretty sure it's just combustion.
Well, I'm glad you at least dropped the whole 'burning' thing.
Ouch. I was willing to give him a pass on Aleppo, but this is downright embarrassing.
Maybe he should swap places with Weld.
Weld was an amiable country club Republican who treated governing like a hobby. Oddly, that worked out pretty well for him and he was quite popular in our deep blue state. He was really good at managing people and getting consensus. I wouldn't hesitate to throw my vote away on him if he was the headliner.
From what I'm hearing, apparently there were some other moments during the town hall that don't look good for Johnson. He apparently said Clinton would be trigger happy with nukes while Weld said she would be competent in the position. And Johnson apparently also had trouble naming a supreme court justice he would agree with, and he had trouble naming one until Weld named Kennedy.
Holman wrote:Suddenly I'm in favor of including Johnson in the debates.
No thanks. The more candidates up on stage, the likelier that Trump will be able to get through a debate without problem, the way he did in the primary.
Anyway, Stein and Johnson benefit a hell lot more for being generic candidates that aren't Trump or Clinton than they ever do for being candidates with actual views and trying to answer questions.
Holman wrote:Suddenly I'm in favor of including Johnson in the debates.
No thanks. The more candidates up on stage, the likelier that Trump will be able to get through a debate without problem, the way he did in the primary.
Trump's votes are mostly locked in at this point. It is more likely that an experienced politician would hurt Clinton more than Trump could, though, which would have the same result.
Blackhawk wrote:
Trump's votes are mostly locked in at this point. It is more likely that an experienced politician would hurt Clinton more than Trump could, though, which would have the same result.
Trump's gained about 4-5% in the past month - those votes are probably not locked in. Additionally poor showings like trump would likely lead to less enthusiasm and lower turnout among his supporters. And, of course, poor showings would increase enthusiasm among Clinton supporters and potentially push undecideds into her column.
And Clinton has done fine in her dozens of debates with Sanders and Obama (and Edwards and others).
Well, a "leader" doesn't necessarily have to be a leader of the government. An opposition leader is also a leader. You could also name non-governmental leaders (a dissident would be a great choice). Which is part of why Johnson's inability to name *anyone* is so stupid.
