[SpiderMatt]

Originally Posted by Kosst Amojan

Well I would hope they would do absolutely nothing. When politicians say they 'favor' something, it usually means they want to take more money out of my pocket to pay for it.

I always go for the candidate who threatens to steal less of my money then the others. What else can I do?

Amen to that. Although based on your signature quote, it seems you're not a fan of Atlas Shrugged. That's too bad.

Originally Posted by spooky69

While I'm sure it's plenty of fun to try and marginalize the importance of the United States and its government (I'll be the bigger man and not point out the fact that most of Canada's population literally lives right next to the northern margin of the US), the fact remains that, for now, we're still the single biggest innovator in the realms of science and technology.
As a result, the person who serves as the president of our county ends up becoming extremely important to the development of these disciplines not only the US, but also worldwide. The president's attitude toward science and technology is important locally because it significantly impacts the atmosphere under which new innovations are developed (or not developed). Most notably, his (or her?) appointments into various positions within the government can have drastic effects on how science-related research is supported both financially and legally. More directly, the president can veto legislation dealing with science and technology that he (or she) doesn't agree with. If I'm correct, I believe George W. Bush's first line-item veto was on a proposal about stem cell research, and his actions in relation to that topic have created a large emigration of intellectual capital to other countries throughout the world where the attitudes toward science are less repressive. There are, of course, many subtler ways that the President of the United States of America affects technology worldwide, economic policy (especially in relation to trade) probably being the most obvious.
Now, call me an arrogant American, but I'd say that the idea that the president of this country has nothing to do with technology is indicative of an ignorant or ill-informed attitude not only toward the very important relationship between US politics and science, but the similar role played by the government of any country and its leaders. How's that suit ya, fancy pants?

A good president will absolutely not "significantly impact the atmosphere under which new innovations are developed." Such are the things that should be left up to private enterprise. The only impact government can have if it decides to meddle in the affairs of others is a negative one. What Bush vetoed concerning stem cell research was public funding of it. I agree that we should not be publicly funding research, but we currently fund a lot of research (much if it less useful than stem cell research) with taxes. However, adding more wrongs to the already large pile held by the government won't eventually result in a right. So it's true that the president does have an impact on technology, but he should have nothing to do with it beyond his use of it.

In terms of e-books, it's seems that Obama would be more aware of the future impacts of the technology and more tech savvy, but this is mostly due to him being the youngest of the candidates. I think his policies would have a terrible impact on business, however, and what's bad for business will never be good for something like e-books (e-books are not yet important enough in the public conscious to warrant any kind of legislation). So which candidate will be best for e-books? The one that won't stick his nose in it and will let the business grow of its own accord. Wanting the president to have an impact on such an industry is wanting the president to decide what's best for consumers. Tsk.

Originally Posted by spooky69

Overall, please keep an open mind about who you will vote for in the next elections!

I referenced Ayn Rand earlier in this reply and I find it apt to end it with one of her quotes

[There is a] dangerous little catch phrase which advises you to keep an "open mind." This is a very ambiguous term—as demonstrated by a man who once accused a famous politician of having "a wide open mind." That term is an anti-concept: it is usually taken to mean an objective, unbiased approach to ideas, but it is used as a call for perpetual skepticism, for holding no firm convictions and granting plausibility to anything. A "closed mind" is usually taken to mean the attitude of a man impervious to ideas, arguments, facts and logic, who clings stubbornly to some mixture of unwarranted assumptions, fashionable catch phrases, tribal prejudices—and emotions. But this is not a "closed" mind, it is a passive one. It is a mind that has dispensed with (or never acquired) the practice of thinking or judging, and feels threatened by any request to consider anything.

What objectivity and the study of philosophy require is not an "open mind," but an active mind—a mind able and eagerly willing to examine ideas, but to examine them critically. An active mind does not grant equal status to truth and falsehood; it does not remain floating forever in a stagnant vacuum of neutrality and uncertainty; by assuming the responsibility of judgment, it reaches firm convictions and holds to them. Since it is able to prove its convictions, an active mind achieves an unassailable certainty in confrontations with assailants—a certainty untainted by spots of blind faith, approximation, evasion and fear.