Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Wednesday September 14 2016, @01:07PM   Printer-friendly
from the interesting-but-not-surprising dept.

Three of the four major candidates for United States president have responded to America's Top 20 Presidential Science, Engineering, Technology, Health and Environmental Questions. The nonprofit advocacy group ScienceDebate.org has posted their responses online. Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Jill Stein had all responded as of press time, and the group was awaiting responses from Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @02:56PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @02:56PM (#401811)

    I am from and live in the E"U" (The European "Union"). Sometime ago I noticed all media with foreign ties here have been systematically smearing Trump (I learned his existence from a report about some naughty thing he did or other), sometimes by the most ridiculous of posts. So this got my attention and I decided to learn what he is about by following his uncut and unedited talks in youtube.

    In my personal views, I am an anarchist; I despise all government and I strongly believe that no human being has any right to enforce opinions to another at show "the right way to live" and all that. However, pragmatically speaking, I can see that a socialist, almost to the point of being communist, is the only viable and semi-just solution (for the people) for a government 'enforced' as an institution from above (and legitimized by the process of voting) as far as internal politics are concerned. All this, of course, is viable only if accompanied by a well-intended and sincere cooperation between different nation-states doctrine to handle external politics, and not any of that "sphere-of-influence" stuff.

    That said, I have to admit that I like Trump. Even though he has declared his textbook-capitalistic position and describes a political system that I am directly opposed to, he is the only one answering straight to the point and giving practical answers. He also is the only one that seems to be aware that you cannot aspire to set the "neighborhood" in order, if you do not set your own house in order first; and he is the only one that has declared that he desires peace.

    With Hillary it is clear that it will be "business as usual": she is a mere sock puppet for a parasitical government that answers to no one, centralizes everything and treats people as cattle. She acts as if she is elite, and behaves as she is the president already. Her answers are all blahblah paragraph after paragraph, squirting ink and "outbreaks" this and "global challenges" that, so "vote for me since you are scared" is the clear message here. Every educated EU teenager can see right through this. She is a representing a system (with footholds to both parties) that has systematically and consciously worked to bring the US to the point where it is now for decades, she is losing control and getting angry and sloppy.

    That other "green" lady I don't even know were she came from. I tried to find some background but there is nothing really. Is she supposed to be a last-moment socialist/ecology competitor or what? Her bulletpoint presentation pretends to be a purposefully concealed New Age cry for help to mother Earth, but not concealed enough so the "awakened ones" can see it. Sure, some of the points make sense, but most are like a kindergarten wish list, or a "how to use less water" campus brochure. I suspect that she was jumped along the wagon to siphon-off votes from Trump from the environmentally-but-also-Hillary-conscious, as she has zero chance of being elected, and by the way she answers I am deeply convinced she has no idea what she is talking about.

    In all, I like it how Trump is not buying into "well known" and "established" (from the media) "scientific facts", and that he stands his ground; his rhetoric is centered on the individual, not some around some abstract notion or institution; I prefer his kind of straight answers (f.i. 'Internet':"The United States government should not spy on its own citizens. That will not happen in a Trump administration.") and the fact that the media is obviously against him makes me like him even more.

    Sure he is promising too much: I can tell you right now that he will 100% absolutely fail to deliver all that he promises and that he will be merciless smeared for it, because I have seen this happen before. But even if he does half, or even 10% of what he claims it will be far, far better than Hillary's "business as usual" that have granted the US the infamous title "Butchers of Peoples", something quite rude but often heard in almost every anti-war rally inside (and outside) of the EU.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Interesting=2, Overrated=1, Total=5
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday September 14 2016, @03:12PM

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday September 14 2016, @03:12PM (#401818) Homepage Journal

    I'm curious, how do you go from being an anarchist to thinking socialism/communism is more just than capitalism? Or even dictatorship? I mean it is hands down the most oppressive form of government possible from an individual liberties perspective.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @03:29PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @03:29PM (#401831)

      Lol. The very definition of begging the question... "I'm curious. How do you deny reality?"

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by PocketSizeSUn on Wednesday September 14 2016, @03:37PM

      by PocketSizeSUn (5340) on Wednesday September 14 2016, @03:37PM (#401840)

      Seems to me he must be thinking of socialism/communism as their theoretical goals and not as their actual implementation.

      The implementation of communism transitions to an authoritarian oppressive regime in only a few years.
      Socialism takes a bit longer.

      Anarchy (the fairest of any system) unfortunately is so highly susceptible to a dictatorship that it can be guaranteed to transition to one in less than a generation. Realistically it only works for very small communities with no outside threats and lasts about 3-5 years.

      So a mix of socialism and capitalism is the best we have in terms of multigenerational stability that provides some level of fairness and individual freedoms. Unfortunately all of these systems are prone to being co-opted so long as humans are drawn to greed and power to which there is apparently no cure :-).

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @03:54PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @03:54PM (#401854)

        It was Plato who already stated ("The State" is the work to look for) that any form of democracy will be followed up by tyranny. The type of economic foundation (Capitalism, Communism, Anarchy/Free market, Socialism) does not matter in this. I'm however not sure, that Capitalism can transcend into Oligarchy first (enough examples worldwide).

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @03:54PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @03:54PM (#401852)

      I'm curious, how do you go from being an anarchist to thinking socialism/communism is more just than capitalism? Or even dictatorship?

      You are right, the application of socialism/communism is in practice no different, if not worse, than declared capitalism: worse because it has the added element of being done "in the name of the people" and used as an excuse for the establishment of control and oppression.

      First off, I do not believe that the examples of say USSR and others were true communism: those were travesties not unlike the "democracy" in place now in the EU. None of communist/socialist founding concepts were actually applied in practice, like those of representation and decentralization. In fact, one can claim that the systems in the EU and the US are actually worse, because control and oppression are disguised as the freedom gate-keeper.

      For the 'anarchist' part of your question, I am afraid you misunderstand: as I stated, anarchism is my personal conviction. In an ideal world where everyone is aware of their boundaries, there is not really a need for a police (or worse, a world police). Personally, I do not need policing or "guidance" from any such institution, nor do I wish to police or be part of said "guidance" system myself.

      In practice, and since this is non-applicable, the "next best thing" if you will, is a system where representative election or even lottery or rotation takes place, and the governing bodies are as local and as decentralized as possible each dealing with local issues, never given a chance to transform themselves to any sort of monstrous, federal government-like centralized administrative structure or establish themselves in a parasitic form.

      So if we HAVE TO have a system, it should be one that is as representative and fair as possible. So far communism and socialism (in theory!) fit this goal better than others, and if you have another one that I have not heard of I will entertain any suggestion.

      Enforcing systems, especially federalism, cannot work: it never has, and it never will, and is a ticking time bomb

      • (Score: 2) by Geotti on Wednesday September 14 2016, @04:30PM

        by Geotti (1146) on Wednesday September 14 2016, @04:30PM (#401872) Journal

        [...] one can claim that the systems in the EU and the US are actually worse [...]

        Yeah, but no. Not yet.

        You (mostly) don't have a secret police that can detain you at any moment (at least in the EU), you can rise up to top positions without being a party member, you can create (almost) any art you like and express yourself in (almost) any way*, ...

        *) Local rules and regulations may apply, e.g. no child and animal porn, no walking around naked in places of worship, no swastikas on the territory of the FRG, etc.

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday September 15 2016, @01:03AM

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday September 15 2016, @01:03AM (#402089) Homepage Journal

        You're conflating capitalism and federalism here. They're not even sort of one and the same and there are a lot of "states' rights" types out there who will be only too happy to explain the difference to you.

        As for fair, there is nothing fair about socialism. It is, by definition, tyranny of the masses. That's the oppression I was speaking of in socialism/communism rather than the top-down oppression which is really far less oppressive.

        Fair would be "what you earn, is yours" and "what what is yours, none make take from you". Liberty-based fairness is actually fair instead of the twisted into loops definition of fairness necessary to call taking from the hard working to support the indolent fair.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 2) by Geotti on Wednesday September 14 2016, @04:17PM

      by Geotti (1146) on Wednesday September 14 2016, @04:17PM (#401865) Journal

      Hey, you can have all the liberties you want in both, as long as it's for the good of all.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @04:05PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @04:05PM (#401859)

    These answers are written by the campaign organisers, just like party programs in many European countries.
    You're right about Hillary. I don't expect much from her as well (notice the length of the text, which is much wool, but little content).
    Trump's parts are much shorter, it's much about what he wants to do (many things aren't feasible), yet fails in most cases to give concrete solutions on how to tackle it.
    Stein (from the "greens") is not completely unknown if you looked a bit deeper into the USA election (even from Europe). When Bernie failed to become the candidate for the Democrats, she was promoted as the candidate for Bernie voters. "Her" replies are IMHO the best. They are bullet pointed solutions that you could check off after her term, so see what she has really done (This does not mean I agree with all her points though).

  • (Score: 2) by Geotti on Wednesday September 14 2016, @04:09PM

    by Geotti (1146) on Wednesday September 14 2016, @04:09PM (#401863) Journal

    I am an anarchist

    Dude, as long as you don't vote AfD, we can be friends.

  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday September 14 2016, @04:25PM

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 14 2016, @04:25PM (#401869)

    only one answering straight to the point and giving practical answers

    Hiillary always lies, even about ridiculous shit that doesn't matter like if she has a cold or the flu, she's just crazy. Like literally insane. That makes her a very scary candidate. If she wins can she be controlled?

    The energy policies stated by everyone but Trump were very specific but technically from an engineering perspective insane. Very Dilbertian pointy haired boss. Trump's answer was very engineering / businessman like in an truthful but general sense.

    Trump is offering actual leadership, management, but traditionally questions like what were proposed are to generate cool soundbites for the news to propagandize. So he's not playing along any more than Johnson is (the guy who refused to respond to any questions). Stein and hillary are playing along the traditional roles of spouting bullshit in response to stereotypical questions.

    pragmatically speaking, I can see that a socialist, almost to the point of being communist, is the only viable and semi-just solution

    You'd have liked Bernie. I liked Bernie. I wouldn't vote for him, being extremely far right, but I respected him as an honest rational respectable statesman. I feel sorry for the left because Hillary stole the nomination from Bernie Bro. Bernie is/was a stereotypical NYC Jewish communist and I don't agree with almost all of his beliefs, but at least he was honest and somewhat practical and had his heart in the right place even if all his methods were probably wrong. He was their only chance to beat Trump.

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @04:55PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @04:55PM (#401891)

      Hiillary always lies, even about ridiculous shit that doesn't matter like if she has a cold or the flu, she's just crazy. Like literally insane. That makes her a very scary candidate. If she wins can she be controlled?

      http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/ [politifact.com]

      Trump is offering actual leadership,

      http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/ [politifact.com]

      Hmmm...I'm sorry VLM, what was that you were saying?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @05:07PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @05:07PM (#401902)

        Complexity is for losers and liars!
        As we all know, any software over 20 lines long is really just a trick so that programmers can get paid more.

        Trump!
        Trump!
        Trump!

      • (Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @05:14PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @05:14PM (#401906)

        I think he means Trump will run the country like a business, tight control over spending and get rid of the fuckoffs. Cliton will just do business as usual, spend money that doesn't exist while filling the pockets of fat slobs that have never put in a hard days work, AKA politicians.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @05:26PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @05:26PM (#401916)

          Yeah, cuz facts are for suckers, amirite?

        • (Score: 2, Interesting) by VLM on Wednesday September 14 2016, @05:36PM

          by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 14 2016, @05:36PM (#401920)

          BAU politics is 100% smiley happy face and you propose stuff by tossing out nebulous unachievable goals plus or minus content free sophistry. People generally hate it.

          Trump style leadership is business leadership. Business is at least 50% talking tough and threatening not just smiling. So Trump does his usual thing and people expecting a speech about skittles candy flying out of a unicorns butt get all confused and freaked. Businessmen propose stuff by tossing out the most ridiculous possible negotiation point they can imagine. Wait wait you're not supposed to specify how they're gonna pay for a border wall in detail with a valid budget, politicians are supposed to talk about how we're all citizens of earth and have to get along while protecting our borders from terrorism by leaving them wide open or some such literal doublespeak style nonsense.

          So imagine leader Hillary and leader Trump are in charge of a famous space rocket company who two failures ago had an outsourced liquid oxygen / helium tank support strut snap in midair leading to a rather impressive midair explosion.

          Now lets imagine the Hillary response. Well I have a detailed plan to fix the fuel tank strut weakness problem which includes increasing taxes to hire more FAA regulators, getting rid of all the white people in rocket science and encouraging more people of color to become rocket scientists because I hate white people and that message sells well to my segment of the electorate, I'm gonna make the strut 1/3 lighter and manufacture it completely out of organic hemp seed and natural soy oil, and finally we're going to take down the American flag at the assembly plant and replace with the communist party flag and/or the UN flag because everyone loves gloablism. All very specific and sound bite compatible and said with a smile and pretty much the kind of idiocy you'd expect from a politician.

          Now lets imagine the Trump response. OK as super-CEO I'm trying to prioritize this and I will try to squeeze a little more money from finance to tide us over the interval before next flight and I've talked to legal and I think we're OK and I'm going to keep a fire lit under the VP of engineering until they figure out what went wrong and how to fix it, or I'll fire the whole department top to bottom and hire new people who can figure it out. Meanwhile as a negotiation point how about I start with asking the failed strut mfgr for ... 100 billion dollars. Either that or I build a wall around their building. That seems a nice place to start negotiations. I mean, how does a dying legacy news media even report something business-like such as that?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @06:38PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @06:38PM (#401958)

            Paying for the border wall will be easy. Just tell pres Nieto all U.S. aid to mexico will be paying for the wall if they don't build it. And perhaps tax imports and close loopholes for businesses using mexico for manufacturing. It's not that hard to think of a solution.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @07:29PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @07:29PM (#401978)

              Perhaps stop crap like this... Ford moving all production of small cars from U.S. to Mexico http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2016/09/14/ford-moving-all-production-small-cars-mexico/90354334/ [usatoday.com]

            • (Score: 2) by PocketSizeSUn on Wednesday September 14 2016, @08:28PM

              by PocketSizeSUn (5340) on Wednesday September 14 2016, @08:28PM (#401996)

              Why else was he was so upset after his meeting with Trump?

              Seems logical to me that you hit the nail on the head there.

            • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday September 15 2016, @12:01AM

              by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday September 15 2016, @12:01AM (#402077) Homepage Journal

              Paying for the border wall will be easy. Just tell pres Nieto all U.S. aid to mexico will be paying for the wall if they don't build it. And perhaps tax imports and close loopholes for businesses using mexico for manufacturing. It's not that hard to think of a solution.

              Foreign aid to Mexico (US$417,000,000) [google.com] constitutes approximately .0003% of Mexico's GDP (US$1.144,330,000,000) [tradingeconomics.com]. What's more, given that according to Donald Trump, US$24,800,000,000 in remittances come to Mexico from the US [politifact.com] US Foreign aid to Mexico is ~1.6% of that.

              As such, I imagine that the Mexicans aren't all that dependent on US foreign aid.

              As for tariffs and taxes, starting a trade war with Mexico would be highly detrimental to the US (admittedly, not as much as to Mexico) and would face stiff opposition from a broad range of interests, not to mention that it would place upward impact on the prices of all manner of good sold in the US. According to the Congressional Research Service [fas.org]:

              U.S.-Mexico Trade
              The United States is, by far, Mexico’s leading partner in merchandise trade, while Mexico is the
              United States’ third-largest trade partner after China and Canada. Mexico ranks second among
              U.S. export markets after Canada, and is the third-leading supplier of U.S. imports. U.S. trade
              with Mexico increased rapidly since NAFTA entered into force in January 1994. U.S. exports to
              Mexico increased from $41.6 billion in 1993 (the year prior to NAFTA’s entry into force) to
              $240.3 billion in 2014, an increase of 478%. Imports from Mexico increased from $39.9 billion in
              1993 to $294.2 billion in 2014, an increase of 637% (see Figure 1). The merchandise trade
              balance with Mexico went from a surplus of $1.7 billion in 1993 to a widening deficit that
              reached a peak of $74.3 billion in 2007. In 2014, the merchandise trade deficit with Mexico was
              $53.8 billion. In services, the United States had a surplus of $12.1 billion in 2013. U.S. exports in
              services to Mexico totaled $29.9 billion in 2013, while U.S. imports totaled $17.8 billion.

              So that's not such a good idea either.

              That really sucks, doesn't it? I guess that makes me a huge asshole for ruining a perfectly good rant with facts. Shame on me!

              --
              No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 15 2016, @04:33PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 15 2016, @04:33PM (#402355)

                I know one thing for sure... Since Ford is sending all of their car manufacturing to Mexico, putting more American workers out to pasture, it's going to piss off a lot of people. Plus... Even though Fords are already a pile of shit, they're going to be an even bigger pile of shit. Not to mention they'll probably use manure as seat filler.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @06:50PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @06:50PM (#401965)

      Trump is offering actual leadership, management, but traditionally questions like what were proposed are to generate cool soundbites for the news to propagandize.

      I have some cool-aid I think you will find refreshing! trustme! This will cure what ails you!

      Seriously....Trump has no plan for jobs. If you think he can create good paying factory jobs for middle class workers with little education that allow them to create things that other people can actually afford to buy you are delusional.

      Putting together a TV by a team of people each paid $30 per hour will cause your TV to cost $6000. Sure! those people will now be earning a "middle class income" by today's standards, but they won't be able to buy anything because all the prices will have skyrocketed. Tariffs cause higher prices. Building a wall causes higher prices. Your income won't go up at the same rate as prices.

      Blaming the decline in factory jobs on illegal immigration or factories in China is just plain stupid. There is a reason that TVs in the 1970's cost a significantly higher percentage of the average income than they do today. The reason is that more TVs are built today by fewer people....aka productivity... If this country wants to become more productive, they can't sit around swilling beer and watching football and seeing who can burp the loudest. The people of this country need to become more educated in how stuff works, and then creative in how to make it work better.

      A factory with thousands of workers sitting on assembly lines making things that are affordable just ain't gonna happen. Deal with it.

      Personally I am voting for Hillary on the small chance that she really is sick and won't make it through the full term. I can't stand her and my best case scenario is that the VP gets to make more decisions.