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."

Re:not easy to follow at all

[wizardforce]

Great idea, mediocre execution. (And why is gun control on a list of science and technology issues, but not stem cell research?)

or for that matter, what is their stance on whether or not we should ignore the constitution in regard to intelligent design being taught in schools? [probably been answered but hey what else on this list hasn't either?] seems like a rather important thing to know about a potential POTUS- whether or not they intend to inject religion into science education and all... It was rather dissappointing to see that clinton was the only one to say anything about her plans for the country in regard to space exploration.

Obama is quite specific

[Anonymous Coward]

I was interested in the difference between Obama and Hillary. Obama's strategy depends heavily on Cellulosic ethanol [wikipedia.org]. 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.

Re:One of these things is not like the others

[WindowlessView]

The inclusion of Gun Control in this matrix is as peculiar as the absence of trade and labor issues.

Yeah, he had the best answers overall.

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama definitely had the most thought-out positions of anyone I read (though I didn't read them all, by any means). I'm a little troubled that he thought we needed stronger copyright enforcement, though, even if he was for patent reform. Still, that he thought any kind of reform was needed at all is heartening when compared to the other candidates. I doubt we'll find anyone who is willing to advocate a deep enough reform there to be meaningful, anyhow.

It's good enough that I'll probably cross party lines to vote for him. Not that a Republican registration is even meaningful with the pathetic crop of candidates we have to choose from. Sorry Ron Paul fans, but while I agree with him on a considerable number of points, it's for all the wrong reasons.

Re:not easy to follow at all

[Empiric]

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.

Re:Not every candidate

[Entropius]

No, because he opposes reproductive rights.

Hold on a second here

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, is this a pro-Ron Paul article or not? Tell me now, before I read it, so I can know whether to bash it or not.

Re:Not every candidate

[bckrispi]

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

Re:Not every candidate

[Skater]

Really? There's a big article this month about video surveillance - what's possible and what's wrong with it.

In other issues in recent months/years I've seen editorials and articles explaining the problems with DRM and the like.

Those don't sound pro-corporate to me.

Re:Not every candidate

[PresidentEnder]

Ah, my friend, you should pay more attention. It's not that he supports making abortion illegal across the board, it's that he believes it ought to be decided on a per-state basis. Indeed, this might be best for the "fetuses aren't human" side of the argument: if your legality is federal, then the feds (under a government run, for instance, by a former baptist minister) could make a sweeping decision that it's illegal. In fact, Ron Paul voted against a bill [vote-smart.org] which would have forbidden minors from crossing state lines to get abortions without parental consent. This earned him no friends in pro-unwanted-life circles. The point is this: he votes in accordance with an accurate interpretation of the law, not according to what is popular.

Re:not easy to follow at all

[mrchaotica]

The list tells us plenty, because Ron Paul is the only one for which the distinction matters (and he does make the distinction for Ron Paul).

Re:Not every candidate

[Elemenope]

You do realize that before his somewhat half-hearted about-face, Kucinich was strongly against "reproductive rights" too, right?

Ron Paul on /.?

[damncrackmonkey]

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?

Re:Not every candidate

[pintpusher]

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Not every candidate

[PopeRatzo]

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.

Re:Not every candidate

[pintpusher]

I'm not sure that's what 200 proved. More it proved that poorly designed ballots can confuse people (note that I've never seen a butterfly ballot, so I could be talking out my ass (an amazing feat that I'm beginning to master!)).

I'm also not sure that "many people won't understand" is a valid reason to not use a better system. It's a matter of presentation. A well-designed ballot that clearly states what the voter is to do should be easily handled by most people. And if you go electronic (ignoring for the moment all the problems with the current electronic implementations) it gets really easy: Screen 1 "Please select your top choice for this office" Screen 2 "If your top choice doesn't win, please select who you'd like instead". Dead simple.

And the backend mechanism: IRV, Condorcet, whatever, can be changed as needed once you get people into a mode of selecting more than one candidate.