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This discussion has been archived.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.
Tomorrow, this will be part of the unchangeable past but fortunately,
it can still be changed today.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday September 14 2016, @04:25PM
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
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
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
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
Yeah, cuz facts are for suckers, amirite?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by VLM on Wednesday September 14 2016, @05:36PM
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
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
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
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
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]:
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
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
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.