Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

U.S. Presidential Candidates Answer ScienceDebate 2016 Questions

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

slash2phar writes:

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This discussion has been archived.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.
U.S. Presidential Candidates Answer ScienceDebate 2016 Questions | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 121 comments | Search Discussion
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: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday September 14 2016, @06:20PM

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday September 14 2016, @06:20PM (#401949) Journal

    Yeah, but if you read Clinton's response carefully she's at no point promising to make the construction of new nuclear capacity part of her renewable energy plan.
     
    What part of "...increase investment in the research, development and deployment of advanced nuclear power." is hard to follow?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday September 14 2016, @07:11PM

    by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday September 14 2016, @07:11PM (#401971) Journal

    What part of "...increase investment in the research, development and deployment of advanced nuclear power." is hard to follow?

    I imagine it is the part where it is Hillary Clinton saying it.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by zocalo on Wednesday September 14 2016, @07:24PM

    by zocalo (302) on Wednesday September 14 2016, @07:24PM (#401976)
    What part of her being a career politician is hard to follow? If there's not a copious amount of salt involved in interpreting whatever she (or any other politician) says and identification of any potential ambiguity/outright lies, you're doing it wrong. In her statement there's no commitment to how large the investment might be, to any kind of timescale for the spend, or any kind of specifics as to what "advanced nuclear power" might actually entail. Based solely on what was written she could just be intending to construct a single R&D thorium plant somewhere rather than initiating the construction of a whole bunch of production reactors and feeding their collective output into the power grid.

    It's standard fare for an election campaign; give vague statements that hopefully don't get anyone (and especially the NIMBYs and special interest groups) up in arms, but have enough wiggle room that people will read into it what they want to hear while allowing you to deliver much less - or nothing - and still claim to have ticked the box. The stuff that leaves almost no room for doubt; that's what they actually hope to do, everything else is a "nice to have" at best, or just a grab for votes.
    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @07:41PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @07:41PM (#401983)

      Lame. Just lame. You point out a very specific point that she didn't say anything about it, to which you are proven absolutely incorrect. Now you're just embarrassing yourself trying to weasel out of being wrong.