Earlier quoted context omitted.
They were polled, on election day. Most Americans want this, or didn't care enough to stop it. Potato, potahto.
This idea that the only way a citizen can disagree what their government is doing is by voting on election day needs to die.
WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
271–280 of 676 posts
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#272I am sure China is loving what the US/Trump is doing. Already China is about to take the lead in medical research and I think it is ahead in renewable energy. With this, I guess the US will end up as a third rate country much quicker.
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#273More of the same at this point. If you are politically connected, or stay in an narrow lane of approved work, you get your grant. But if you stray from the politically approved path, or appear disloyal to our First Citizen and the Party, then your grant will be canceled. The remaining supporters of the incumbent party like to claim that they aren't actually doing anything worse than in the past, and if anything they…
[flagged]
Election fraud, “The Swamp”, all of it. It was a roadmap.
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#274Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#275Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's not commending it. He's using it to point out that the reaction, "Well, america had a good run i guess? Hope china can step up and fill the gap," is simplistic, hyperbolic and maybe a little hysterical.
Not sure how hysterical the notion that China is in ascendency on the world stage and the U.S. is retreating.
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a conviction really happens wouldn't the very fine people just invade the capitol again?
Or Trump himself would simply refuse to step down, and have the might of the U.S. military brass behind him. If you can’t tell, I am not hopeful.
A fuckup or two like ICE had and the whole narrative quickly turns to shit and the people push back.
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#277Earlier quoted context omitted.
They were polled, on election day. Most Americans want this, or didn't care enough to stop it. Potato, potahto.
I would guess that if you polled voters on election Day, and asked them why they voted for Trump, science funding wouldn't even come up as a topic. They would probably talk about high prices, or criminal aliens, or how they didn't like Harris.
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#278Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes and no. I think the current Ebola outbreak would not be happening if the US was still committed to global health.
The Ebola virus is not simply a health issue but a cultural and eudcational "problem" too. There is a reason people eat bushmeat because 1, it's their culture 2, they would otherwise have nothing to eat especially not meat protein. NSFL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XasTcDsDfMg
Education, cultural sensitivity, etc. are health issues.
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#279Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's not commending it. He's using it to point out that the reaction, "Well, america had a good run i guess? Hope china can step up and fill the gap," is simplistic, hyperbolic and maybe a little hysterical.
Not sure how hysterical the notion that China is in ascendency on the world stage and the U.S. is retreating.
If someone has an extremely simplistic view of how our society works and where our power comes from, then it is regrettable for that someone to even offer a prediction in public about whether our society's power will wane or (continue to) wax, especially a prediction as confident as "Well, america had a good run i guess? Hope china can step up and fill the gap."
And I love how Rayiner got downvoted severely for daring to point out that predicting the effects of this move ("WH proposes rules") is not as easy or as simple as many here seem to think it is.
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Government, and taxation/subsidies in general, have and always will be a tool to encourage one thing and discourage the other. A lot of research won't be profitable for years to come or is even unlikely to be profitable at all, so you funding sources are limited. The government, having no profit motive, can encourage this kind of research by funding it. Typically the hope is that it'll lead to increased productivity…
This is the core of the issue. We don’t actually want all viewpoints represented because that wouldn’t by itself produce any value.
You want someone to come up with the fundamental theorems of Calculus, linking the area of a curve with its anti-derivative, because that’s incredibly useful. Generically grabbing everyone’s view isn’t a competitive strategy. You need to be selective on things that are intrinsically useful and promote that.