Technology Issues by Candidate

An anonymous reader sent in a good story listing the tech issues and breaking them down by candidate. Of course to me, the best part is the huge percentage of questions where yes/no wasn't good enough and a little asterick denotes "but" so you really don't know what half the candidates think of half the issues anyway. Regardless, tomorrow is the day. No matter what you believe, get out and vote tomorrow.

Comments

Unfortunately, not true

[John Jorsett]

As usual, the candidates' stand on most of these issues is pretty irrelevant. The president is a member of the executive branch; they don't make the laws, they enforce them.

The executive does effectively make many laws these days. Besides the staggering growth in the number of Executive Orders inaugurated by Clinton, congress has abdicated its role in law-making by passing laws establishing broad-brush 'regulatory' agencies. These agencies (FCC, EPA, HUD, etc.) are given general direction by their enabling legislation, and then are free to pass 'regulations' that are effectively laws. A good example is the FCC, which, with absolutely no power in its charter to do so, is interfering with major media mergers. They use their licensing power to extract concessions from the parties involved, or completely quash some mergers. The executive has enormous power in a climate like this, since those agencies are under its control.

Re:no, don't 'just go vote'

[BigBlockMopar]

i don't like *any* of the candidates. low turn-outs should signal that people are apathetic about the choices we're given, and don't agree with anyone.

Urk. Completely.

I'm a fiscal Republican but a social Democrat. I've yet to see a candidate that ever made me feel at all inspired.

How about if the Republican party ceased to be in the pocket of all sorts of religious organizations? And if the Democrats could actually allow a woman the right to chose without hugely inflating the debt?

How about some balance between the two?

So far, the two-partied system seems to work only by massive changes in equilibrium. It's frighteningly disorienting.

This time, the choice is a little more clear. Since a President Bush (yuck) would be appointing a whole bunch of Supreme Court judges - with the possible ability to therefore overturn Roe vs. Wade and a whole bunch of other important social issues, I'm alarmed that Bush has a good chance of getting the White House. (And please don't think that I think abortion is a good idea; it does devalue life and encourage people not to take responsibility for their actions, but to ban it outright is to ignore the fact that it will happen no matter what the policy.)

While many pundits will complain that Bush is the governer of maybe the worst-managed state in the Union, it's important to note that Governer William Jefferson Clinton of Arkansas was in about the same position when he took power. But, Clinton is Presidential. Not only did he clearly have fun in office (and some of that was even *without* Ms. Lewinsky), he was also a professional in all matters of foreign affairs. And, he was a thoroughly likeable individual for the world to see as the American leader.

Gore hasn't got the same joi-de-vivre as Clinton has, but at least he's an elegant and digified statesman, a boring but professional person.

Bush, however, is that amiable guy sitting over there at the end of the bar, spinning yarns; he's interesting and exciting. If you met him - probably in a dimly-lit sports bar in the backwoods of Texas - you'd think he was a tractor salesman. He will command the respect of the world not through dignity, but only through sheer power. This is not the best way to influence international or domestic diplomacy.

Bush is *no* statesman. The fact that he's leading in the polls arguably because more of the electorate things he'd be a more fun guy with whom to have a beer arguably proves the every dictator right: perhaps the people *aren't* smart enough to choose their own destiny after all.

And when you don't particularily care for either candidate's platform and yet you've resigned yourself to the fact that one or the other is going to be calling the shots, may as well not bother.

(not any of those third party buttfuckers like nader or browne either.)

Nader is dangerous. Sure, he sounds noble enough on the surface, but he's a great way to:

drive businesses away through punishing regulations and embrace of a society where no one makes over $100,000/year

ensure that the Republicans (in this case, probably the greater of the two evils currently offered) are given the Presidency next.

While I don't like either Gore or Bush especially, I'd prefer to see Gore in power; I think he'll do a lot less damage than a Bush presidency.

But I also wish that truly interesting people were actually running. Liberman and Cheney are far more presidential than either one of their runningmates.

Now, having said all this, breathe easy. First off, moderate me down if I've said something false or off-topic, not because you disagree with the political views. As a Canadian citizen, I get to watch the foray without it affecting me in any huge way, I can only comiserate, as the Canadian federal elections are coming up on November 27th.

I assure you, the Canadian choices are every bit as bleak as in the US. Only, instead of two viable bleak choices, there are 5 up here.

I'd run for office in Canada myself, but I hope to be out of here long before whoever is about to be elected here calls the next election.

Until then, though, I've already registered with Elections Canada for an official Abstain Vote. It's my way of registering my displeasure with all the candidates offered, without it being assumed that I'm simply a case of voter apathy.