Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Presidential Candidates' Science and Tech Policies

Posted by samzenpus on from the where-do-you-stand dept.

gracey1103 writes "Popular Mechanics has put together an easy-to-follow matrix of where the '08 presidential candidates stand on different science, tech and environment issues. Everything is cited and links back directly to each candidate's published policy pages so you can get more info."

6 of 413 comments (clear)

  1. Obama is quite specific by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was interested in the difference between Obama and Hillary. Obama's strategy depends heavily on Cellulosic ethanol. One of the advantages of cellulosic ethanol is that there are a couple of major ways to make it. That makes it a pretty safe bet that the necessary technology will develop. The other advantage is that it can be made from agricultural waste.

    Hillary said a bunch of stuff but it was the kind of stuff that a politician would say. I really liked that Obama was specific. That makes his proposals much more likely to happen.

  2. Re:not easy to follow at all by Empiric · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yeah, Ron Paul likely would, but probably largely because of his economic stance. "Against stem cell research" and "against federally-funded stem cell research" (your link) are different statements, with different drivers for evaluation involved.

    Good point, though.

    --
    ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
  3. Re:Not every candidate by bckrispi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well he's had at least one proposal that no-one else in Congress has had the guts to initiate. You've gotta give some credit there.

    --
    Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
  4. Ron Paul on /.? by damncrackmonkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I understand why everyone thinks the US would be better if things like the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, Energy, and Education were completely replaced by the free market.

    What I don't understand is /.'s support for someone to whom Microsoft's "monopoly" would just be a normal, acceptable result of said free market?

  5. Re:Not every candidate by pintpusher · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If there was ever an argument for instant runoff elections, that's it right there. I like candidate A, but if he/she doesn't get enough votes, then I go for candidate B. That way you don't completely lose just 'cause your first vote didn't win.

    --
    man, I feel like mold.
  6. Re:Not every candidate by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Kucinich gets my support simply because he wants to reduce the military budget.
    I heard a speech he gave on the radio. It was some college station and I only caught about 8 minutes of what was a broadcast of a complete speech. I couldn't believe I was listening to a presidential candidate. He actually sounds like an extremely intelligent and thoughtful person. Person not public-relations robot. And unlike at least two of the Republican candidates, he actually accepts Darwin's theory of the origin of species as a viable explanation of evolution!

    I'm afraid he could never carry Megachurch America.

    I'm voting for him just because any funny looking little guy who's not rich and can get a hot piece of ass wife like Kucinich's got who actually seems to be in love with him must have some serious Mojo. I know this sounds funny, but that's exactly the kind of guy we need to deal with the Iranians and Chinese.
    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.