Hillary won more votes for President

ledvedderman

There are good people in politics. Absolutely. I've met and worked with many over the years. And these are mostly people from Illinois...aka the most corrupt state in the union.

dignin

Hillary kills Stein when it comes to environment, that comes as a welcome surprise to me. And no surprise at the score Trump gets.

Grading the Presidential Candidates on Science
Scientific American evaluates responses from Clinton, Trump, Johnson and Stein to 20 questions

TOTALS

Clinton: 64
Trump: 7
Johnson: 30
Stein: 44

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/grading-the-presidential-candidates-on-science/?wt.mc=SA_Twitter-Share

mrussel1

dignin said:

Hillary kills Stein when it comes to environment, that comes as a welcome surprise to me. And no surprise at the score Trump gets.

Grading the Presidential Candidates on Science
Scientific American evaluates responses from Clinton, Trump, Johnson and Stein to 20 questions

TOTALS

Clinton: 64
Trump: 7
Johnson: 30
Stein: 44

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/grading-the-presidential-candidates-on-science/?wt.mc=SA_Twitter-Share

And this sums up why we can't trust Johnson on the environment: "Johnson accepts that "climate change is occurring, and that human activity is contributing to it, including through greenhouse gases." But he plans to rely on the "marketplace" to "facilitate the free exchange of new, efficient, carbon-friendly processes and technologies."

brianlux

dignin said:

Hillary kills Stein when it comes to environment, that comes as a welcome surprise to me. And no surprise at the score Trump gets.

Grading the Presidential Candidates on Science
Scientific American evaluates responses from Clinton, Trump, Johnson and Stein to 20 questions

TOTALS

Clinton: 64
Trump: 7
Johnson: 30
Stein: 44

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/grading-the-presidential-candidates-on-science/?wt.mc=SA_Twitter-Share

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

mrussel1

brianlux said:

dignin said:

Hillary kills Stein when it comes to environment, that comes as a welcome surprise to me. And no surprise at the score Trump gets.

Grading the Presidential Candidates on Science
Scientific American evaluates responses from Clinton, Trump, Johnson and Stein to 20 questions

TOTALS

Clinton: 64
Trump: 7
Johnson: 30
Stein: 44

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/grading-the-presidential-candidates-on-science/?wt.mc=SA_Twitter-Share

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

Then lobby these orgs to do that. Seems silly to disregard the one org that did it.

brianlux

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

dignin said:

Hillary kills Stein when it comes to environment, that comes as a welcome surprise to me. And no surprise at the score Trump gets.

Grading the Presidential Candidates on Science
Scientific American evaluates responses from Clinton, Trump, Johnson and Stein to 20 questions

TOTALS

Clinton: 64
Trump: 7
Johnson: 30
Stein: 44

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/grading-the-presidential-candidates-on-science/?wt.mc=SA_Twitter-Share

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

Then lobby these orgs to do that. Seems silly to disregard the one org that did it.

Not silly at all. Considering this one source only- particularly this kind of source- can only lead to false conclusions. The organizations I listed specifically deal with environment, which is what the grading is supposed to be based on, whereas Scientific American is more focused on science and technology.

How familiar are you with the organizations I listed?

dignin

brianlux said:

dignin said:

Hillary kills Stein when it comes to environment, that comes as a welcome surprise to me. And no surprise at the score Trump gets.

Grading the Presidential Candidates on Science
Scientific American evaluates responses from Clinton, Trump, Johnson and Stein to 20 questions

TOTALS

Clinton: 64
Trump: 7
Johnson: 30
Stein: 44

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/grading-the-presidential-candidates-on-science/?wt.mc=SA_Twitter-Share

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_American

brianlux

dignin said:

brianlux said:

dignin said:

Hillary kills Stein when it comes to environment, that comes as a welcome surprise to me. And no surprise at the score Trump gets.

Grading the Presidential Candidates on Science
Scientific American evaluates responses from Clinton, Trump, Johnson and Stein to 20 questions

TOTALS

Clinton: 64
Trump: 7
Johnson: 30
Stein: 44

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/grading-the-presidential-candidates-on-science/?wt.mc=SA_Twitter-Share

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_American

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.

mrussel1

brianlux said:

dignin said:

brianlux said:

dignin said:

Hillary kills Stein when it comes to environment, that comes as a welcome surprise to me. And no surprise at the score Trump gets.

Grading the Presidential Candidates on Science
Scientific American evaluates responses from Clinton, Trump, Johnson and Stein to 20 questions

TOTALS

Clinton: 64
Trump: 7
Johnson: 30
Stein: 44

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/grading-the-presidential-candidates-on-science/?wt.mc=SA_Twitter-Share

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_American

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.

unsung

ledvedderman said:

There are good people in politics. Absolutely. I've met and worked with many over the years. And these are mostly people from Illinois...aka the most corrupt state in the union.

LOL, I'm looking at moving to Indiana right now.

brianlux

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

dignin said:

brianlux said:

dignin said:

Hillary kills Stein when it comes to environment, that comes as a welcome surprise to me. And no surprise at the score Trump gets.

Grading the Presidential Candidates on Science
Scientific American evaluates responses from Clinton, Trump, Johnson and Stein to 20 questions

TOTALS

Clinton: 64
Trump: 7
Johnson: 30
Stein: 44

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/grading-the-presidential-candidates-on-science/?wt.mc=SA_Twitter-Share

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_American

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...

unsung

brianlux said:

ledvedderman said:

And how'd that work out for him.

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.

brianlux

unsung said:

brianlux said:

ledvedderman said:

And how'd that work out for him.

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.

dignin

brianlux said:

dignin said:

brianlux said:

dignin said:

Hillary kills Stein when it comes to environment, that comes as a welcome surprise to me. And no surprise at the score Trump gets.

Grading the Presidential Candidates on Science
Scientific American evaluates responses from Clinton, Trump, Johnson and Stein to 20 questions

TOTALS

Clinton: 64
Trump: 7
Johnson: 30
Stein: 44

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/grading-the-presidential-candidates-on-science/?wt.mc=SA_Twitter-Share

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_American

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.

brianlux

dignin said:

brianlux said:

dignin said:

brianlux said:

dignin said:

Hillary kills Stein when it comes to environment, that comes as a welcome surprise to me. And no surprise at the score Trump gets.

Grading the Presidential Candidates on Science
Scientific American evaluates responses from Clinton, Trump, Johnson and Stein to 20 questions

TOTALS

Clinton: 64
Trump: 7
Johnson: 30
Stein: 44

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/grading-the-presidential-candidates-on-science/?wt.mc=SA_Twitter-Share

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_American

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?

BS44325

How Hillary treated women

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/03/us/politics/hillary-bill-clinton-women.html

Kat

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.

unsung

Hillary is a vile person. It's sad this country is represented by these two.

rssesq

ya, Monica was at least half at fault. I mean at least 300% younger. lol

Gern Blansten

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.