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This discussion has been archived.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 tangomargarine on Wednesday September 14 2016, @04:25PM

    by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday September 14 2016, @04:25PM (#401868)

    So she does mention it; she just doesn't pledge the exact platform you wanted.

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 2) by zocalo on Wednesday September 14 2016, @05:12PM

    by zocalo (302) on Wednesday September 14 2016, @05:12PM (#401904)
    DECbot's stance, maybe, I wasn't specifically stating one - just pointing out what Clinton's responses actually say about nuclear. For the record though, I'm very much in favour of trying to reduce the overall levels of emissions by any practical means. That includes all the so called clean/renewable energy sources, nuclear included, as well as retrofitting existing coal/oil plants to reduce their impact as a stop gap. They all have some drawbacks, including in terms of environmental impact, but statistically pretty much any of the alternatives is still vastly better options than burning hydrocarbons, IMO.
    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!