I would only take this into consideration if I could see the same kind of grading done by the following organizations and compiled to create an average score. If this were done, I can almost guarantee you would see quite different results. One organization alone, especially a for-profit magazine is probably not your best resource for making such comparisons.
Natural Resources Defense Council Wildlands Network Sea Shepherd Conservation Societ Nature Conservancy Union of Concerned Scientists Greenpeace Environmental Defense Defenders of Wildlife Ocean Futures Society Earthjustice
Scientific American is no lightweight Brian. I think it is a very good resource. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it.
Scientific American (informally abbreviated SciAm) is an American popular science magazine. Many famous scientists, including Albert Einstein, have contributed articles in the past 170 years. It is the oldest continuously published monthly magazine in the United States.
I'm not dismissing S.A. What I am saying is this grading alone is not a great way to assess the environmental aspects of the candidates. I mean really, HRC 64, Stein 44? No way.
Well they are taking and grading public statements. Perhaps the grading is influenced by Clinton having more fully fleshed answers. Perhaps it's the same situation as we discussed in Bernie and poverty. His supporters may rightfully believe he would do more, but he never really laid out a plan. Maybe that's the case with Stein.
Facepalm, russell, facepalm. Come on- Hillary vs Stein on environment? Later...
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Here's something I don't get, people praise Bernie for always staying true to his ideas, but this is a guy who considers himself a Democratic Socialist. He only comes around as a Democrat when he wants the backing that the party can give him. So he's selling out all he stands for so he can get democratic money and resources.
Bernie ran as a Democrat because he believed that was the only possible why he might get elected and be able to put his ideas into practice, not to "get democratic money and resources". I'm sorry, but that notion is ridiculous and only shows that you really haven't followed what Sanders has been doing. It's OK with me if you want to throw out a notion like that but those noodles are not sticking to the fridge.
Ron Paul ran as a Republican for the same reason. But unlike Sanders he didn't compromise his principles to endorse the nominee he worked so hard to fight.
Here's something I don't get, people praise Bernie for always staying true to his ideas, but this is a guy who considers himself a Democratic Socialist. He only comes around as a Democrat when he wants the backing that the party can give him. So he's selling out all he stands for so he can get democratic money and resources.
Bernie ran as a Democrat because he believed that was the only possible why he might get elected and be able to put his ideas into practice, not to "get democratic money and resources". I'm sorry, but that notion is ridiculous and only shows that you really haven't followed what Sanders has been doing. It's OK with me if you want to throw out a notion like that but those noodles are not sticking to the fridge.
Ron Paul ran as a Republican for the same reason. But unlike Sanders he didn't compromise his principles to endorse the nominee he worked so hard to fight.
Absolutely correct. I'm not happy that Sanders caved in that way.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I would only take this into consideration if I could see the same kind of grading done by the following organizations and compiled to create an average score. If this were done, I can almost guarantee you would see quite different results. One organization alone, especially a for-profit magazine is probably not your best resource for making such comparisons.
Natural Resources Defense Council Wildlands Network Sea Shepherd Conservation Societ Nature Conservancy Union of Concerned Scientists Greenpeace Environmental Defense Defenders of Wildlife Ocean Futures Society Earthjustice
Scientific American is no lightweight Brian. I think it is a very good resource. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it.
Scientific American (informally abbreviated SciAm) is an American popular science magazine. Many famous scientists, including Albert Einstein, have contributed articles in the past 170 years. It is the oldest continuously published monthly magazine in the United States.
I'm not dismissing S.A. What I am saying is this grading alone is not a great way to assess the environmental aspects of the candidates. I mean really, HRC 64, Stein 44? No way. Just to start with, Clinton supports fracking. I could go on but, please, use some common sense. Do some research about what the two actually say about environmental issues.
I feel like you didn't read the original article. So please, don't accuse me of not doing the research.
I would only take this into consideration if I could see the same kind of grading done by the following organizations and compiled to create an average score. If this were done, I can almost guarantee you would see quite different results. One organization alone, especially a for-profit magazine is probably not your best resource for making such comparisons.
Natural Resources Defense Council Wildlands Network Sea Shepherd Conservation Societ Nature Conservancy Union of Concerned Scientists Greenpeace Environmental Defense Defenders of Wildlife Ocean Futures Society Earthjustice
Scientific American is no lightweight Brian. I think it is a very good resource. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it.
Scientific American (informally abbreviated SciAm) is an American popular science magazine. Many famous scientists, including Albert Einstein, have contributed articles in the past 170 years. It is the oldest continuously published monthly magazine in the United States.
I'm not dismissing S.A. What I am saying is this grading alone is not a great way to assess the environmental aspects of the candidates. I mean really, HRC 64, Stein 44? No way. Just to start with, Clinton supports fracking. I could go on but, please, use some common sense. Do some research about what the two actually say about environmental issues.
I feel like you didn't read the original article. So please, don't accuse me of not doing the research.
Hey, sorry, meant no offense. But the catch for me is that you started your post with "Hillary kills Stein when it comes to environment..." but the article is "Grading the Presidential Candidates on Science". Environment and science are closely related but are two different things. The argument is biased when assuming they mean "environment".
How relevant to environment are the topics? 1. Innovation. Important, yes, but innovation also made the atom bomb. There needs to be a better qualifier than "Science and engineering have been responsible for over half of the growth of the U.S. economy since WWII" to relate this to environment. That does not at all sound very environmentally focused.
2. Research. Research is great! But again, there is no specified connection here to environment.
3. Climate change. Great- very environmentally focused. But Hillary scores better even though she favors fracking and Stein doesn't? Seems like a grading error to me.
skip to 11 because no one want to read my take on the whole bloody thing
11. Nuclear Power. Clinton scores higher by S.A. standards why? Could it have something to do with their emphasis on technology rather than environment. I think so.
Etc. About half the questions are specific to environment and the grading on those is not convincing to me. I see little reason to accept these figures simply because a very successful magazine publishes them. That's why I so poorly suggested further study. This is just not a fair and balanced report. It's the work of two reporters asking readers to vote. That is not very scientific now, is it?
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
How Hillary treated mistresses. I can't help but think about how the mistresses are 50% responsible for the affair. They knew he was married. Their personal lapses/cheating/infidelity is just as bad as his. Other than that, I'm tired of seeing all this personal garbage in this election. It should be about our country and its problems that need fixing. This circus pretty much sucks. Well, on that Monday morning note, everyone have a great week.
I don't see how you can compare the reaction of a married woman confronting accusers of infidelity to the comments that Trump makes on a regular basis.
This whole line of BS is going to backfire on Trump. If his campaign manager resigns soon I won't be surprised.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is backing Hilary Clinton over Donald Trump for the White House.
Chertoff's support for Clinton is notable not only because of his work for President George W. Bush's administration but because he was a Republican prosecutor who led the Congressional investigation into the Whitewater controversy involving the Clintons real estate investments.
“I realized we spent a huge amount of time in the 90s on issues that were much less important than what was brewing in terms of terrorism,” said Chertoff, who served as the lead GOP counsel on the Senate Whitewater Committee, during an interview with Bloomberg published Monday.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is backing Hilary Clinton over Donald Trump for the White House.
Chertoff's support for Clinton is notable not only because of his work for President George W. Bush's administration but because he was a Republican prosecutor who led the Congressional investigation into the Whitewater controversy involving the Clintons real estate investments.
“I realized we spent a huge amount of time in the 90s on issues that were much less important than what was brewing in terms of terrorism,” said Chertoff, who served as the lead GOP counsel on the Senate Whitewater Committee, during an interview with Bloomberg published Monday.
Donald Trump doesn't figure into my process, I do not support him. Besides wouldn't it be preaching to the choir?
I will however continue to point out the character flaws on the Democratic nom.
Sure, makes sense. Only Hillary figures into your calculations. You must be too embarrassed to admit you support Trump because you know he is indefensible. At least GF, PJFAN and the others can are open and honest about it.
Donald Trump doesn't figure into my process, I do not support him. Besides wouldn't it be preaching to the choir?
I will however continue to point out the character flaws on the Democratic nom.
Sure, makes sense. Only Hillary figures into your calculations. You must be too embarrassed to admit you support Trump because you know he is indefensible. At least GF, PJFAN and the others can are open and honest about it.
Do you always call people liars or just those on the internet that you don't have to face?
Donald Trump doesn't figure into my process, I do not support him. Besides wouldn't it be preaching to the choir?
I will however continue to point out the character flaws on the Democratic nom.
Sure, makes sense. Only Hillary figures into your calculations. You must be too embarrassed to admit you support Trump because you know he is indefensible. At least GF, PJFAN and the others can are open and honest about it.
Maybe some people don't take the Trump run for president as serious or don't believe he ever wanted/wants to be president...
So all they really have left is Clinton to attack
I for one don't believe trump was ever serious or wants the job. As a Canuck I have no say, thankfully.
I'd be ambarrased to be an American if the best your country can do is produce these two.
And her supporting her vial husband who used the power of the presidency to get a hummer says it all,
Post edited by lukin2006 on
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Donald Trump doesn't figure into my process, I do not support him. Besides wouldn't it be preaching to the choir?
I will however continue to point out the character flaws on the Democratic nom.
Sure, makes sense. Only Hillary figures into your calculations. You must be too embarrassed to admit you support Trump because you know he is indefensible. At least GF, PJFAN and the others can are open and honest about it.
Do you always call people liars or just those on the internet that you don't have to face?
I didn't call you a liar. That must be your subconscious telling you that. The implication is something different. And I'd be happy to tell you anything to your face too. No problem on that.
Comments
How relevant to environment are the topics?
1. Innovation. Important, yes, but innovation also made the atom bomb. There needs to be a better qualifier than "Science and engineering have been responsible for over half of the growth of the U.S. economy since WWII" to relate this to environment. That does not at all sound very environmentally focused.
2. Research. Research is great! But again, there is no specified connection here to environment.
3. Climate change. Great- very environmentally focused. But Hillary scores better even though she favors fracking and Stein doesn't? Seems like a grading error to me.
skip to 11 because no one want to read my take on the whole bloody thing
11. Nuclear Power. Clinton scores higher by S.A. standards why? Could it have something to do with their emphasis on technology rather than environment. I think so.
Etc. About half the questions are specific to environment and the grading on those is not convincing to me. I see little reason to accept these figures simply because a very successful magazine publishes them. That's why I so poorly suggested further study. This is just not a fair and balanced report. It's the work of two reporters asking readers to vote. That is not very scientific now, is it?
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/03/us/politics/hillary-bill-clinton-women.html
This whole line of BS is going to backfire on Trump. If his campaign manager resigns soon I won't be surprised.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
You definitely should not vote for Bill then, if you are concerned.
Can I Google that too?
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
LOL
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
I will however continue to point out the character flaws on the Democratic nom.
shocking
http://www.snopes.com/julian-assange-drone-strike/
This Assange/ Wikileaks stuff is getting more intriguing by the minute
and now this......
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/03/fbi-agreed-to-destroy-laptops-clinton-aides-with-immunity-deal-sources-say.html
can we have a do over as far as the top two candidates???
So all they really have left is Clinton to attack
I for one don't believe trump was ever serious or wants the job. As a Canuck I have no say, thankfully.
I'd be ambarrased to be an American if the best your country can do is produce these two.
And her supporting her vial husband who used the power of the presidency to get a hummer says it all,
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon