Presidential Candidates' Science and Tech Policies

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."

Comments

Where's the column

[joeflies]

on whether the candidate supports PS3 or XBOX360? Or BluRay vs HDDVD? Or KDE vs GNOME?

Re:One of these things is not like the others

[Oriumpor]

let me fix that:

o Auto
o Digital/Tech
o Climate/Energy
o Environment
o Cowboy Neal
o Infrastructure
o Science/Education
o Space

Meaningless drivel

[Normal_Deviate]

Every election year, people get caught up in the candidates' "positions" as if they meant something. Face it: the Presidential election is the world series of lying, and you are not wise enough to detect it. In a political debate, you may safely ignore any sentence that does not begin with "When I faced this problem before, I ..." Remember, under Jimmy Carter we got deregulation of trucking, airlines, and natural gas. Under Nixon we got actual wage and price controls (!), and the EPA.

Re:Geeks for Fred Thompson

[Entropius]

Thompson's platform is basically "I am more like Ronald Reagan than any of the other candidates, including the advanced age and partial dementia. Thus, since you are a good Republican and fellate statues of Reagan on a daily basis, you should vote for me."

Re:Not every candidate

[Anonymous Coward]

He opposes them personally. But his beliefs that the federal government should have no say on abortions whatsoever trumps that. You can either wait for a candidate that aligns with you on every single belief you hold, or you can go for one that might disagree with you but will never use the machinery of the state to enforce that.

Re:Not every candidate

[Elemenope]

I support Paul and Obama at the same time. It goes something like this:

"I'd like the government to curl up and die [Paul], but if I can't have that I'd rather it be in competent hands with interesting ideas [Obama] than incompetent or malevolent ones [most other Democrats, all other Republicans]."

Re:Not every candidate

[Elemenope]

Actually, Paul is the exception to his statement. With his policies, he's so likely to run the the country into the ground that no amount of military budget reduction can offset it (unless he completely eliminates the military altogether, allowing the people to revolt against the quagmire government he'll create).

And you're against this...why? A government should be "weak" enough that it cannot survive a determined effort from its citizens to change its form. I sincerely doubt that Paul's policies will "run the government into the ground", but even if they managed to I can't see myself getting very worked up about it. Government has been running people into the ground for so long, it might do for a teensy change...

Re:Not every candidate

[jcr]

Competent and interesting ideas like more taxation, more spending, and bombing an ally?

Obama's entire qualifications are 1) he's not GWB, and 2) he's not Hillary. Once you get past those admittedly great points in his favor, all you have left is an utterly conventional politician.

-jcr