SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
cmn32480
on Wednesday September 14 2016, @01:07PM
from the interesting-but-not-surprising dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
U.S. Presidential Candidates Answer ScienceDebate 2016 Questions
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 121 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Remember Darwin; building a better mousetrap merely results in smarter mice.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by VLM on Wednesday September 14 2016, @04:57PM
All of that can be true. And I can agree with it. But I almost guarantee you're not going to like my candidate analysis:
So lets look at "the plans"
Hillary doesn't get that the problem is whats in the atmosphere. Hillary wants to pretend to reduce rate of increase, but you know it'll be corrupt and accomplish nothing (lots of ignore the man behind the curtain, look at this small scale greenwashing that does jack all not this new Chinese coal burning power plant). Her first goal is technologically illiterate and impossible. It does nothing to solve the problem other than reduce the rate of increase by half if it were possible in star trek land. Her second plan is idiotic because cutting waste is already automagically profitable, where does she think she's going to squeeze a third from? Its technologically illiterate and impossible. If on star trek land it were possible it would not fix the problem merely lower rate of increase by a third. Her third point is equally trash. And she wants to increase taxes to create (government) jobs. But historically the .gov has been the biggest polluter and waster. Hmm. And she wants to launch a nebulous plan that will do unclear things with relatively little money to accomplish probably nothing other than pay off campaign donors. So Hillaries plan is to expand the government and produce more meaningless Pravda style fake statistics while emitting more CO2 than ever. Also Hillary always lies even when she doesn't have to, so her statement is meaningless.
Johnson's plan is probably the best response. A country that is not F-ed with is a stronger country, global warming is going to massively F things up, and a strong country has the best odds of helping both itself and others when things are Fed up. So congrats Johnson your "This candidate has not yet responded" is by far the most intelligent plan provided.
Stein wants a world war to magically wave wands over stuff and make star trek utopia happen. She makes Hillaries pipe dreams look sober, from a technical perspective. I mean, its like having a NASA aerospace policy that boils down to asking Congress to repeal the law of gravity to make booster requirements easier. Seriously, she's so out of touch with technological engineering reality that she thinks merely passing a climate change treaty will make the climate stop changing, what a freaking idiot. Nothing short of a world war with gigadeaths is going to do that... Literally a village out there is missing its idiot. Mostly she wants to hand out a lot of money. She has some political weirdness about wanting energy to be a human right so she's going to take it away from some people and regulate and tax and control the hell out of it, but still call it a "human right" which in 1984 doublespeak language would be funny to read her take on "free speech as a human right". End all sources of energy but solar and wind... sure... Ironically it doesn't matter. If you're trying to prevent CO2 in the air she's going to have to nuke China to get them to stop, otherwise they'll burn what we're too cucked to burn ourselves. The only pragmatic way to stop emitting CO2 is nuclear winter and I don't think that'll see on the campaign trail. She's also strongly racist and anti-white, look at her concern only for "communities of color". F her and her racist anti-white people. Racists suck so Stein sucks. In summary she's a racist fairy tale teller completely disconnected from reality.
Trumps plan is very managerial. We have no actual solution to the overall problem and we need to keep investigating to find a useful long term plan. Frankly a little temperature change isn't as important as other battles we're currently fighting with mother nature, like lack of drinkable water, diseases, lack of food. We can and should actually do something about short term lack of drinking water, for example. Thats something within our realm of control and influence. He's probably the most honest of the bunch that we still must decide what to do because greenwashing and idiocy as usual isn't going to actually fix the real problem. I like his goal that our lives should be better, safer, and prosperous. Compared to Steins "F you if you're white" or Hillaries "I won't fix anything but you'll love the greenwashing press conferences" I like Trumps answer the best. Although its not as good as Johnson's plan.