Everyone better be ready to send their kids and grandkids into another futile middle east war because that is exactly what “strong man” Trump will do. Think about your kids when you go and vote in November.
Scientific American is not in the business of endorsing political candidates. But we do take a stand for science—the most reliable path to objective knowledge the world has seen—and the Enlightenment values that gave rise to it. For more than 170 years we have documented, for better and for worse, the rise of science and technology and their impact on the nation and the world. We have strived to assert in our reporting, writing and editing the principle that decision making in the sphere of public policy should accept the conclusions that evidence, gathered in the spirit and with the methods of science, tells us to be true.
The current presidential race, however, is something special. It takes antiscience to previously unexplored terrain. When the major Republican candidate for president has tweeted that global warming is a Chinese plot, threatens to dismantle a climate agreement 20 years in the making and to eliminate an agency that enforces clean air and water regulations, and speaks passionately about a link between vaccines and autism that was utterly discredited years ago, we can only hope that there is nowhere to go but up.
In October, as we did four years previously, we will assemble answers from the campaigns of the Democratic and Republican nominees on the public policy questions that touch on science, technology and public health and then publish them online. We will support ScienceDebate.org’s efforts to persuade moderators to ask important science-related questions during the presidential debates. We encourage the nation’s political leaders to demonstrate a respect for scientific truths in word and deed. And we urge the people who vote to hold them to that standard.
Trump has no plan to defeat ISIS, his counterterrorism proposal is to create an “ideological litmus test” to screen Muslim immigrants or to just ban them all together. Then he alludes to something more up his sleeve. But he doesn’t want to telegraph his plans, so his great ISIS busting move will remain a secret. I think even if Trump explained his entire plan, it wouldn’t help our enemies, because his plan is as good as his college. Clinton has a three-point plan: Take out ISIS’s stronghold in Iraq and Syria. Dismantle the global terror network. and Harden our defenses and build our resilience at home. Whether you approve of Clinton’s plan or not, at least she has one. To debate on the merits of her’s you would have to defend his lack of a plan.
Trump’s plan to defeat ISIS is pretty much like the Republican health plan. Replace it with Something Better.
You’ll notice Republicans have no trouble at all in expressing Hatred Of Obama and Hatred Of Hillary for whatever plans they develop and/or execute.
But the Republicans refuse to debate what should be done on the floor of Congress or pretty much anywhere else.
The only approach expressed in the Republican presidential debates was carpet bombing, with hints of ‘going nuclear’. You know, seeing if sand will turn into glass.
Trump’s not a detail guy! He wants to leave the foreign and domestic policy to the hideous Pence, and spend his time makin’ America great again. Probably on Twitter.
Trump’s foreign policy plan amounts to 1) shoot anyone who steps near our border or border wall 2) love russia and 3) take our heads out of our asses and stick them in the sand
Odon Premium Member over 7 years ago
It all makes sense if you don’t think about it
Theodore E. Lind Premium Member over 7 years ago
Everyone better be ready to send their kids and grandkids into another futile middle east war because that is exactly what “strong man” Trump will do. Think about your kids when you go and vote in November.
Happy Two Shoes over 7 years ago
That is all Trump’s brain dead true believers need to know, facts just get in the way.
Happy Two Shoes over 7 years ago
Scientific American is not in the business of endorsing political candidates. But we do take a stand for science—the most reliable path to objective knowledge the world has seen—and the Enlightenment values that gave rise to it. For more than 170 years we have documented, for better and for worse, the rise of science and technology and their impact on the nation and the world. We have strived to assert in our reporting, writing and editing the principle that decision making in the sphere of public policy should accept the conclusions that evidence, gathered in the spirit and with the methods of science, tells us to be true.
The current presidential race, however, is something special. It takes antiscience to previously unexplored terrain. When the major Republican candidate for president has tweeted that global warming is a Chinese plot, threatens to dismantle a climate agreement 20 years in the making and to eliminate an agency that enforces clean air and water regulations, and speaks passionately about a link between vaccines and autism that was utterly discredited years ago, we can only hope that there is nowhere to go but up.
In October, as we did four years previously, we will assemble answers from the campaigns of the Democratic and Republican nominees on the public policy questions that touch on science, technology and public health and then publish them online. We will support ScienceDebate.org’s efforts to persuade moderators to ask important science-related questions during the presidential debates. We encourage the nation’s political leaders to demonstrate a respect for scientific truths in word and deed. And we urge the people who vote to hold them to that standard.
Scientific American
Mr. Blawt over 7 years ago
Trump has no plan to defeat ISIS, his counterterrorism proposal is to create an “ideological litmus test” to screen Muslim immigrants or to just ban them all together. Then he alludes to something more up his sleeve. But he doesn’t want to telegraph his plans, so his great ISIS busting move will remain a secret. I think even if Trump explained his entire plan, it wouldn’t help our enemies, because his plan is as good as his college. Clinton has a three-point plan: Take out ISIS’s stronghold in Iraq and Syria. Dismantle the global terror network. and Harden our defenses and build our resilience at home. Whether you approve of Clinton’s plan or not, at least she has one. To debate on the merits of her’s you would have to defend his lack of a plan.
braindead Premium Member over 7 years ago
Trump’s plan to defeat ISIS is pretty much like the Republican health plan. Replace it with Something Better.
You’ll notice Republicans have no trouble at all in expressing Hatred Of Obama and Hatred Of Hillary for whatever plans they develop and/or execute.
But the Republicans refuse to debate what should be done on the floor of Congress or pretty much anywhere else.
The only approach expressed in the Republican presidential debates was carpet bombing, with hints of ‘going nuclear’. You know, seeing if sand will turn into glass.
Lyman Elliott Premium Member over 7 years ago
This is a plan?
Kip W over 7 years ago
Trump’s not a detail guy! He wants to leave the foreign and domestic policy to the hideous Pence, and spend his time makin’ America great again. Probably on Twitter.
traveling_office over 7 years ago
Trump’s foreign policy plan amounts to 1) shoot anyone who steps near our border or border wall 2) love russia and 3) take our heads out of our asses and stick them in the sand