digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

DIGGERS, let's get Ron Paul on the Daily Show! Make your voices heard.

comedycentral.com — The mainstream media is hiding Ron Paul and Mike Gravel from America. Diggers, we need to get Ron Paul onto the Daily Show. Digg this up and maybe Comedy Central will listen. Even if you don't agree with Paul, at least he lends hope for a better future. Digg, don't let the media stifle us now.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • itsameericle, on 10/12/2007, -12/+139I would love to see this. I've been telling anyone and everyone I know about Ron Paul and Mike Gravel. Let's get their messages out at the very least.
    • Kaosu, on 10/12/2007, -14/+46Diggers, digg up this submission: http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Get_Ron_Paul_on_The_Daily_Show_with_Jon_Stewart_2

      And leave a suggestion with comedy central by filling out this form:
      http://www.comedycentral.com/help/questionsCC.jhtml
    • sollycardy, on 10/12/2007, -9/+72ABC ARE STILL CENSORING RON PAUL AND MIKE GRAVEL:
      http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/ABC_No_mention_of_Ron_Paul_or_Mike_Gravel_as_presidential_runners

      Tell them how this makes you feel:
      http://abcnews.go.com/Site/page?id=3052660
    • wcentanni, on 10/12/2007, -9/+31I just posted this message for Jon Stewart, "I would love to see more of Ron Paul on TV! I want to know a little more about him. I am a democrat and will probab ly vote for whoever wins the nomination......but Ron Paul is the only other presidential candidate who has peaked my interest so far. I don't agree with alot of his ideas, but he is the only candidate I've seen who seems to know the constitution and our founding father's original intent. I think that is so important today. Put him on your show!" Thanks for the article!
    • outhouseinput, on 10/12/2007, -11/+30All people want is accountable, honest, and smart politicians. Diggers, however, should realize that Ron Paul and Mike Gravel are at two totally opposite sides of the political spectrum. So, depending on your views, each candidate's vision of America might run completely contrary to yours.

      Get the word out over their honesty and intelligence, but NOT their views. These two guys would kill each other if left in a room alone.
    • moofer, on 10/12/2007, -37/+6Cummon diggers. I need a million dollars. Let's make this happen!
    • Neiby, on 10/12/2007, -3/+80"Diggers, however, should realize that Ron Paul and Mike Gravel are at two totally opposite sides of the political spectrum."

      Not really. Don't let their labels confuse you. On many issues, Gravel is a left-leaning libertarian more than a liberal Democrat. Ron Paul is a right-leaning libertarian. They're not as far apart as you think.
    • gklitt, on 10/12/2007, -40/+12Sorry folks, I hate to be cynical, but the fact is that neither of these men is going to have a chance at winning the election. I'm not saying I dislike them, but neither of them has gotten nearly enough attention, and neither of them will, to win this election. Even if the entire Daily Show audience sees Ron Paul on TV, that's not nearly enough people to get him noticed. Also, Gravel certainly stood out in the Democratic debate, but has now essentially been established as the "crazy" candidate. If you really want change in a positive direction for this country, I would suggest working to support a candidate that already has a significant chance of winning, like Barack Obama. There's nothing wrong with supporting these candidates, just don't expect them to win.
    • p0tent1al, on 10/12/2007, -7/+70um Ron Paul is pretty much beating almost everyone in the republican party right now, it is people like you that would pretty much ruin it. As Gravel already said, all the top runners he was debating with had secret agendas, and you can witness that, go watch the democratic and the republican debate, and watch all of them sidestep issues concerning Iraq and anything else important, while the only ones who clearly come out and state what they are going to do, Mike Gravel and Ron Paul. I think it's basically like what happened the other day on Digg. If enough people know, and enough people feel compelled to do it, we could pretty much alter history.

      A bunch of diggers stood up the other night, and basically rendered Digg useless, flooded with Serial numbers.

      If you figure, if we were to have that type of dedication working for either of these people, we would probably be unstoppable.
    • dosterm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24@wcentanni
      This is not at all meant to be snarky, just a thing for future reference: "peaked" is actually "piqued".

      On a related note, I wish I lived in a country where we had credible news organizations that were not on Comedy Central. There's something very wrong when the only political viewpoint that seems to match that of an entire generation of people comes through a show meant to parody every form of major media news. If we want to see Ron Paul, it would be nice to do it in a forum that isn't meant for laughs. But I guess we really don't have that option.
    • foolfromhell, on 10/29/2007, -1/+40I have a sneaking suspicion that Stewart and Colbert visit Digg...
    • gjwatersjr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13For what it's worth, I've sent this in:

      "Jon Stewart and the Daily Show producers seem more honest than the media they parody. Prove it. Bring Ron Paul on (and be polite). The mainstream media cannot bury this man deep enough."
    • arenas46, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@sollycardy

      "ABC *is* STILL CENSORING RON PAUL AND MIKE GRAVEL"
    • TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14@foolfromhell why would we have to tell them to be polite? Ron Paul can handle himself. Plus I'd like to see Jon press him a bit, hear more positions from him on other issues.
    • manixrock, on 11/02/2007, -1/+35I have noticed 3 presidential candidates are mentioned most often here on Digg: Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, Barack Obama.
      Please note that generally a candidate will tend to say things that would get them ellected. Anyone can say anything, so supporting somebody for simply talking about wanting to do good is a simplistic aproach. What somebody has voted on however I think is a clear indicator of their true intentions. The following data is from http://selectsmart.com/president/2008/comparethem.html where you can click on the name of any 2 candidates to compare them side by side on the important issues, and gives sources.

      - Iraq War:
      RP: Voted against "Use of Military Force Against Iraq" (10/10/2002). Voted with Democrats in rebuking Bush's management of Iraq War.
      MG: Was one of the first current or former elected officials to publicly oppose the planned invasion of Iraq in 2002. He appeared on MSNBC prior to the invasion insisting that intelligence showed that there were indeed NO weapons of mass destruction, that Iraq posed no threat to the United States and that invading Iraq was against America’s national interests.
      BO: As a state senator, he spoke out against Iraq war, before the war started. Has long favored a phased withdrawal.

      - Security/liberties:
      RP: Has consistently voted "no" on civil liberty curtailing issues, and generally "no" on security issues for similar reasons.
      MG: Believes failures during Hurricane Katrina highlight structural changes that need to be made at the department.
      BO: He voted against and later for bills to reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act.

      - Same sex issues:
      RP: Supports civil unions for same sex couples.
      MG: Supports same-sex marriage.
      BO: Opposes gay marriage; supports civil union & gay equality.

      - Trade issues:
      RP: Paul is an ardent free-trader. (this presents a source in which he claims "I oppose CAFTA for a very simple reason: it is unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly grants Congress alone the authority to regulate international trade.")
      MG: Believes NAFTA is unfair.
      BO: Has a mixed voting record of trade issues.

      - Budget issues:
      RP: The balanced budget championing Concord Coalition gave Representative Paul a rating of 99 percent in their most recent report card.
      MG: Advocates the replacement of income taxes and the IRS with a national sales tax.
      BO: Senator Obama voted against the most recent effort to raise the national debt limit.

      - Marijuana, illegal street drugs:
      RP: Received a 100% score from the DPA (Drug Policy Alliance) DPA is the nation's leading organization working to end the war on drugs.
      MG: -
      BO: Famously admitted to using illegal drugs in his book.

      - Gun control:
      RP: Strongly opposes gun control laws.
      MG: Supports right to bear arms.
      BO: bama supported the interests of the Gun Owners of America 0 percent in 2005. Based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all state legislative candidates in 2004, the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund assigned Senator Obama a grade of F.

      - Minimum wage:
      RP: Has consistently voted against minimum wage increases
      MG: -
      BO: Voted for increases in the minimum wage.
      For those of you who have the assumption that minimum wage has only advantages, please check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage .


      I should add the fact that Ron Paul has apeared in the documentary America: Freedom to Fascism talking about the unconstitutionality and immorality on the income tax and the Federal Reserve (you can see it here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsZO6G7dfpI) where he expresses his views on it.
      If you would like to learn more about the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and why they are unconstitutional it's a must to see the documentary The Money Masters, which is 3h 30m long but worth every minute. You can see it here: (Part 1) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8753934454816686947 and (Part 2) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7336845760512239683 .
    • manixrock, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Please note I am not affiliated with any of the candidates in any way. The above were copied and pasted from the given site.
    • Pureeviljester, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Gravel also supports legalization of marijuana and putting an end to the drug war.
      And Gravel wants to switch Income Tax with another form of legal tax.
    • oscarsonthepond, on 10/12/2007, -14/+2I think people on digg just like ron paul cause they think "libertarian" is the same thing as "liberal"
    • milomilomilo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3noble effort but sad in a sense.

      If one could go back and fight for a cause years ago it might be shouted through a bullhorn with 10,000 people in the streets, many would join because it might have been the right thing to do.

      Now what? We are reduced to begging for a half decent politician to be interviewed on a comedy show, "screaming we will be heard".
      sounds like a wisper......
    • maskidat, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Let's include Dennis Kucinich. He was the only 2004 candidate who read 'the report' and voted against the war. It eliminates all of the backtracking to be right the first time 'round.

      www.kucinich.us
  • jeffiek, on 10/12/2007, -25/+64Uh, guys, think about this. Stewart makes fun of the ridiculous things politicians do.

    Ron Paul on the Daily Show = dead air
    • psyjoniz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+78i disagree. Stewart lightheartedly makes fun of them and in doing so brings very important topics to light with comedy. IMHO, the daily show and The Colbert Report are where i go when i want the news without corporate or government influence on whats being said (or, as little of those two as you can get on prime time). fox news? give me a break. they should just call it 'government filtered and redirected news'. its all formatted to push ***** agendas.

      the candidate who claims he/she will abolish the patriot act and all the insane taking away of freedoms is the one who will get my vote. i'd like my freedoms back, thanks.
    • thepompano, on 10/12/2007, -29/+9Stewart halfassedly tries to debate half of the conservatives who come on the show regardless of their tact, who get laughed at for stupid reasons. It would be *painful* to watch The Daily Show interview Ron Paul. Did you see Ron Paul on Maher?

      The guy needs some positive air-time. I don't know if Comedy Central is the place.
    • EBFoxbat, on 10/12/2007, -21/+1He may new do ridiculous things but his policies are ridiculous. I can't imagine subscribing to some of the things he ways. Quite Bush-like in his own regard.
    • Saccharin, on 10/12/2007, -7/+29There's plenty of comedy about Ron Paul. Stewart wouldn't be starved of material. I think the problem is, he doesn't care about Ron Paul. Perhaps if the Diggspammer movement can be translated to something like a real grass roots organization, popular support, and donations instead of simply gaming internet polls and flooding websites.
    • psyjoniz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@thepompano - yeah, you might be right, actually.
    • flippinjeremy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11@psyjoniz

      lol, you watch Colbert Report and The Daily Show to get your news? Just some advice when watching those shows; remember, they are comedians. They get paid to stir up trouble and make people laugh.

      So if you're looking for news without the "corporate influence" ... Good Luck. It doesn't exist. A good way to receive information is to look at the source, look at the content, look at the intentions, and then do other research to get different perspectives.

      If you're only relying on one news source for all of your information, then you're just as blind as the rest.
  • anitab83, on 10/12/2007, -11/+42What's up with all the Ron Paul stories on Digg? Are diggers really that supportive of him?
    • blapierre, on 11/02/2007, -14/+121Diggers are supportive of people who speak their mind like Ron Paul and Mike Gravel. Unlike all the other "mainstream" candidates.
    • Nudar, on 10/12/2007, -6/+41Yes
    • CDTyphoonSR, on 10/12/2007, -11/+233Uh, I don't know, let's see................

      Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record

      He has never voted to raise taxes.
      He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
      He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
      He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
      He has never taken a government-paid junket.
      He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
      He voted against the Patriot Act.
      He voted against regulating the Internet.
      He voted against the Iraq war.

      He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
      He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

      Sure, I'm supportive, how 'bout you?
    • 1013, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28Yes, and most of us are very motivated people who want to see our country move in a more positive direction. We are very committed!!
    • mikepictor, on 10/12/2007, -33/+48There is some kind of Ron Paul task force on Digg, I don't know if it's a team at his office, or just a citizen's group, but his support on digg is almost surreal.

      Don't get me wrong, maybe he's a great guy, but really, the comments seen here are almost cult-like.
    • Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+46"Don't get me wrong, maybe he's a great guy, but really, the comments seen here are almost cult-like."
      It's because Ron Paul is somewhat maverick and offer the possiblity of fundamental change. Whether you are for one or the other party, he has extremely refreshing arguments, even if you disagree with some of them.
    • tehkain, on 10/12/2007, -4/+32People truly belive a candidate like him could change this country for the better. So they are very motivated. You may perceve this as "cult like" but they are doing this because they belive this man can change the world. If thats not a reason to firmly promote your feelings I do not know what is.
    • joel8x, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23Cult like? The fact of the matter is that Digg has a large population of free-thinkers who's agenda is to have people in government with some sort of accountability. Both Gravel & Paul have gone into their respective debates with ideas that fall in line with what a lot of Diggers support. They also answered questions without the ***** answers we are used to hearing by the top candidates. The time to make a major change is now and if enough people stop thinking that these kinds of candidates are unelectable, then maybe we'll see a government that represents what this country was founded on instead of what major corporations want it to be.
    • foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Digg has liked Ron Paul for like 3 months now, en masse.
      I remember iun January/February there was a group of 20 people burying all Ron Paul stories and Digg had a huge 1000+ digg story on that...
    • noseeme, on 10/12/2007, -22/+2Actually, I think diggers just really like his proposed drug policy, but realize how much it makes them sound like scumbags when they say it.
    • catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10@noseeme

      I don't think any digger would have a problem saying they support Paul's stance against the war on drugs. Don't feel bad that everyone disagrees with you, look at it as more of a wake up call that you are probably wrong. I'm sure the Paul supporters would gladly welcome you to this side if you ever change your mind.
    • tech42er, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@noseeme
      You' should be free to have your own views on whether or not people should take drugs. You should be free to pay people not to take drugs. You should be free to protest peoples' takings of drugs. You should be free to not associate with those that do not take drugs. You should not, however, be free to lock up those who take drugs.
    • nevesis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15I'd never heard of him before I saw some story on Digg. I've now met him in person and am arranging a local awareness campaign.

      So I'm very supportive of stories like these. Hopefully, you'll wikipedia him and become a follower as well!
    • larethdf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8This kills me. It's hysterical. The idea of paid staff gaming DIgg, that is. I went down to visit Ron Paul's Campaign office in late March to see what was going on. There were 3 people in it. That is the extent of his paid staff as far as I know, plus a new guy in Hew Hampshire. Everybody else here is on their own. No instructions from on high, just a few messages every once in a while on the campaign site, thanking everybody for the support. It's the classic definition of a grassroots movement. From what I've seen as part of this internet movement, we are pretty chaotic in approach. Our leader is letting us run amuck and do promotion our own various ways. Which makes sense, considering he's the Liberty candidate. Soon, we take to the streets. The net is only the beginning, I believe most of us realize. But it's doing the job nicely so far.
    • Mirag3, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I'm sorry but I'd like to point out that he votes for non-governmental intervention such as the repeal of income tax, Medicaid, Medicare, etc. I applaud his social policy, but the government also has a duty to help its people, which it cant do without taxes. Without governmental restrictions, companies do what they do best - make money. I see nothing preventing that except governmental restrictions on monopolies, etc. and Paul is voting to repeal that.
    • jbennett1128, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Absolutely! Ron Paul is the greatest, I've been a fan of his for years. I'm 27 and I've voted for Libertarians in every election I've been able to thus far. Here's to bringing in a new era of Personal Responsibility!
  • aknappjr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+52We should have a digg poll and see who wins.
    • psyjoniz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14agreed
    • tito13kfm, on 10/12/2007, -16/+10It does not matter who leads the polls 18 months before the election. Peoples' opinions change and diggers are known for jumping on the bandwagon of whatever is the next big thing, and jumping ship just months later. See earlier articles where people claim they are voting for Obama, I bet these same people are now on board with Paul or Gravel.

      By 2008 it will come down to A vs B and we'll all fight because B's brother is best friends with the election official in the state that won him the election. We will then spend millions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of man hours trying to prove that our beloved candidate A couldn't have lost in a fair race, while President B declares jihad on an extremist muslim state. That sounds about par for the course.
    • 1013, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22So people aren't allowed to change their minds? I guess we should just call off all future debates. I know what a mess this country is in, but we cannot be so cynical. We all have to do what we can to make a change.
    • nygrissplz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I changed to Gravel because I simply did not even know he existed up until that first debate. Once I heard him speak, however, my mind was suddenly changed and set on him.
  • mojibyrd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Spread the word and let's make it happen...
  • Influsion, on 10/12/2007, -4/+32I didn't think I'd get to do fun things like this with the potential for changing the politics in this country when I first joined digg. Awesome.

    Dear Jon Stewart,

    I'll stop watching your show for the duration of the 2008-2012 presidential term* if you don't interview Ron Paul. (Colbert will be very happy).

    -Concerned American Citizen

    *OK, not really because your show is too good, and you'll have more material if anyone else gets elected... but pleazzze, you are hurting America everyday you don't interview Ron Paul...
    • Buckiller, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Thats a great letter!!

      I bet ron Paul would be better on the Colbert Report though...? Let Colbert make fun of him cause he isn't a true Republican like Bush.
    • dmjarrington, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I say let him be on both shows.
  • psyjoniz, on 10/12/2007, -15/+3wow, the diggs jumped from < 100 to > 200 in like 3 minutes on this one..
  • kazet, on 10/12/2007, -37/+3Everyone loves people like Paul and Gravel because they provide entertainment at these debates. I mean really, if Paul was elected he would move to abolish everything resembling a government. He is a libertarian and his views clash with alot of people.
    • 1013, on 10/12/2007, -2/+29He wants to get rid of government institutions, laws and policies that are bad for this country. What's wrong with that? Stop labeling and dig deeper into what he really supports and wants for this country.
      For example. The IRS is nothing more than a collection agency for the NON FEDERAL Federal Reserve. Do more research on what the Federal Reserve really is and how it was established and you will see why he wants to find a better system.
    • rabidsnail, on 10/12/2007, -4/+38"He is a libertarian and his views clash with alot of people."

      Libertarianism is not only what this nation was founded on and how it operated for one hundred and fifty years, but it is also how most people really feel when you ask them. If you ask someone a question like "Do you like government involvement in your personal affairs", "Do you think we should move to nationalize industry", or "Would you rather have a power central government than a limited local government" the answers are almost certainly going to be No, Very No, or Absolutely Not. The problem is that nobody ever asks questions like this. They ask questions like "Terrorists are going to kill you if you don't give the president absolute power. Do you want to fight terrorists?" and "Lunatics will barge into your house and kill you if the government doesn't institute gun control. Would you like to be killed by lunatics?" (I'm using hyperbole. No flames, please). America hasn't had a real discussion about what we want our government to look like since Hoover. If we did, I think the results might surprise you.
    • OnlyShawn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Yes...I'm afraid you're not really sure what a libertarian is. If you'd like, go here:

      http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

      You can see the sorts of questions that "RabidSnail" was referring to, and decide yourself if you tend to be more or less in line with libertarian thought.

      "The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods." --H. L. Mencken

      A primary tenet of libertarian thought is the reduction in the power and influence of these dealers in stolen goods. If you'd like to learn the eventual outworkings of non-libertarian thought, I encourage you to read a book written to almost unanimous scorn in the 40's, but eventually hailed as nearly prophetic in its recognition of trends leading to socialism; trends we are experiencing (with the best intentions) in our country.

      http://www.amazon.com/ROad-Serfdom-Routledge-Classics-S/dp/0415253896/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-5804651-2760011?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178468546&sr=8-1
    • OnlyShawn, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1deleted. dupe.
    • Buckiller, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml Libertarian information!
    • Chandon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22Ron Paul wouldn't "abolish the government", because the president doesn't have the power to do that.

      What he would do:
      - Reduce overseas military presence significantly by ordering troops home. Suggest that some now empty military bases be sold off.
      - Veto the crap out of everything that implied a larger government. Biggest impact - any omnibus budget bills would need to have enough support to override his veto. With some luck this would result in spending cuts.
      - Fire some executive branch bureaucrats.

      Basically, he'd set back the growth of "big government" by 15 or 20 years while at the same time halting the train wreck that is interventionist foreign policy. I'm not sure that I'd want the libertarians to have a congressional majority. But a term as president? Hell yes.
    • tech42er, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6"if Paul was elected he would move to abolish everything resembling a government. He is a libertarian"

      And that's... bad?
  • luteslinger, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Thanks for watching Comedy Central!

    Unfortunately, due to the volume of e-mail we receive we are unable to respond to every message. If you are submitting a suggestion or fan letter, we thank you and will forward your message to the appropriate department. We will respond as soon as possible.

    Thanks for writing Comedy Central!
  • knute5, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5Do I smell astroturf?
  • SIDSI, on 10/12/2007, -15/+2Yeah great get them on the comedy news show, America will really take them seriously after their on the Daily Show.
  • Anthet, on 10/12/2007, -22/+32Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
    Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)

    Rated 67% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
    Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)

    Rated A by VOTE-HEMP, indicating a pro-hemp voting record. (Dec 2003)

    Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)

    Rated 76% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003)

    Rated 76% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record. (Dec 2002)

    Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003)

    Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)
    Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)
    Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration. (Dec 2003)

    Rated 89% by NTU, indicating a "Taxpayer's Friend" on tax votes. (Dec 2003)

    Seems like a mixed bag to me, wouldnt get my vote due to his religious bias aswell as his stance on imigration and abortion, but dont care about me im in Sweden :)


    • 1013, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10Considering he has voted on hundreds of issues, this is very biased. His overall voting record shows him to be a strong conservative constitutionalists.
    • Saccharin, on 10/12/2007, -18/+6The record isn't what matters to Diggers, it's the spin.
    • shanesan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Dugg due to facts (something people lack nowadays). However, this needs a source and so does every statement presented therein.
    • Neiby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+32You need to understand WHY he voted that way on those issues. You can't simply post his voting record and think you can understand him. For example, he pretty much always votes no on bills that demand Federal funding for something. He may agree with the heart of the bill but he generally doesn't feel that it's appropriate for the Federal government to take money from taxpayers to fund those projects.

      So, don't assume he's against something in general just because he voted against Federal government involvement.
    • OnlyShawn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13neiby's right...you're applying traditional two-sided politics to the question, and a libertarian candidate is going to be outside that measuring category. Again, go to http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html and check out whether you're a libertarian, stasist, republican, or democrat. You'll find that some categories that a libertarian will support are more traditionally aligned with republicans, while some are more typically democrat planks.

      "...voted against Federal government involvement" is the key here, as neiby pointed out. A libertarian individual will believe that very very few things, specifically enumerated in the constitution, are appropriate things for the federal government to be involved in. MOST items, however, are state-choice items, thereby allowing individual states to try whatever particular voters want, and if it doesn't work in that particular location, it can be changed more easily, or if an individual is not happy with it, they can move to a different state.
    • dmjarrington, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The problem here is that some people misunderstand his reasoning to vote in certain ways... such as the "NO" vote against the stem cell research bill. The reason why he doesn't vote for programs like these is because he doesn't want the government to get involved in what should be a state issue. I believe his argument is that programs like this are not authorized by the Constitution. The Constitution is a science in and of itself. Ron Paul knows it through and through, and that's how I know he's the best choice. It cannot be denied. The Constitution works.
    • inaneframe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Thank the gods that I don't believe in that you are NOT in this country and you have no right to make a judgement since these issues are OBVIOUSLY not universal unless you are some kind of Globalist. If you are Globalist, I hate you.
    • Satertek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Many times he will vote "NO" on an issue he would normally agree with, but is best left to the state and local governments to decide on (or best without any legislation at all), hence the apparent "mixed bag".
  • belvedere, on 10/12/2007, -26/+4No, neither of them have a chance, especially Ron Paul. He's a libertarian, and the GOP primary base is far and away not libertarian. Plus, the only people that really support him are the nutty anti-tax libertarians that also think the government was behind 9/11 and that you should invest all your money in silver scrip (i.e., those scrip liberty dollars, which are only slightly more stable as currency than Delta SkyMiles) that cost 30% more than the market rate of silver.

    Apparently, there are a few outspoken libertarian retards on digg that keep getting these stories raised to the front page before more normal readers can bury them.
    • shanesan, on 10/12/2007, -21/+6He's not a Libertarian. He is not pushing the Libertarian Agenda, doesn't talk at all about Libertarians or their party and is taking from the small money tree the Libertarian party has to fuel his war chest.

      Libertarians are voting for him and throwing money at him because he is the closest there is to "Libertarian" that has a chance to win. For Libertarians in general, how quickly they abandon their base morals for a Republican who doesn't show, promote, or better the word "Libertarian" or their agenda (because the only reason he got into office is because he calls himself a Republican) is just unfortunate.

      This will be Dugg down and out because of truth.
    • Neiby, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28shanesan, you're completely wrong. Ron Paul is libertarian (small L) and was once in the Libertarian Party. He, like most reasonable Libertarians, realized that the Libertarian Party does not have enough support for its candidates to get elected. He switched the Republican Party simply because it has visibility, not because he is anything like most modern Republicans.
    • Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18The fact that other parties can't get noticed or ever reach reasonable levels of support shows how much of a sham the system is.
    • kethraal, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Shanesan:

      He is a libertarian. He's no longer a Libertarian because he, like myself, realized that the Libertarian party has mis-managed itself into the ground, and lacks any popular support. It's great to "stay the course" and stick with your political party no matter what -- but when you have a chance to change things for the better by being the front man for another party, you take that chance.
    • Bohnanza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Sure he's a Libertarian. He was the Libertarian candidate for president in 1988.
  • donjuan571, on 10/12/2007, -22/+4Sorry I just can't deal with another president from Texas right now...
    • blemisher, on 10/12/2007, -15/+1But whatever has a president from Texas ever done wrong donjuan??
    • netdawg, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4dood he might be from texas but he's as far from texas as alaska
    • 1013, on 10/12/2007, -7/+23Get it straight...Bush is NOT from Texas. He was born on the East Coast. In Texas, if you weren't born here,then you ain't from here!
  • AsylumAleikum, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3I prefer business as usual. Barak Hussein 2008!
  • mcduckov, on 10/12/2007, -28/+12This man-crush that diggers have is getting a bit creepy.
  • Solis, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6Who the hell is Ron Paul and Mike Gravel?
    • Hush, on 10/12/2007, -12/+7who the ***** is solis?
    • Solis, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I never claimed to be anybody, but you'd think instead of digging me down for wondering who these people are you want to (and others to support) that you'd either answer the question or link me to someplace that will answer it for you.

      Great way to spread the word on people you want to endorse as opposed to insulting someone that doesn't know!
    • Buckiller, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Popular candidate among Duggers.

      Gravel is a democratic that speaks his mind. Sometimes looks crazy by doing so.

      Ron Paul is a republican with a Libertarian lean, looks intelligent but can't garner support from the GOP/media ass of yet.
    • healthydose, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3To Solis:
      I dug you UP ,it's 8:35 a. m.,! I'm terribly sorry for the callused way which your very frank question was treated. Diggers is not this what we WANT! People to ASK , who is this guy Ron Paul !? I'm just a common worker, like most people, who up till about a month ago had never even heard of Ron Paul. But, due to searching, reading, looking, asking questions I think now I have a pretty good idea who he is, and what he stands for. Solis, He has NEVER voted against what the Constitution clearly states are the Federal Gov. limitations. Pure and simple. For example, he voted against Gov. FUNDING of stem cell research, and said funding can be found other places. He has always voted against the giving of Congressional Medals of Honor but, he HAS put up his OWN money to help pay for them. His entire political career he has always voted in accordance WITH the Constitution, many times standing alone--that takes character. Solis if you want somebody who is honorable, and truly believes in the Constitution as our guiding principle of government.... then Ron Paul is for you.
  • indio007, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20Ron Paul is kicking a$$ in this ABC and NBC polls .

    http://abcnews.go.com/politics/beseenbeheard/popup?id=3135373&POLL288=4000000
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18421356/

    Vote fewls!
    • 1013, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3So let us know what polls are valid or should we just ignore them all?
    • Morphinity, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5Because digg is spamming them...
    • randge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7
      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18421356/

      Just look at the portraits in this poll.

      Paul is the only one without a strong full frame facial image. The Paul photo catches him looking somber, pinched and distant. The other candidates are either smiling or giving us the square jawed John Wayne take.

      The contrast is just to obvious to overlook.

      MSNBC thinks folk are just plain dumb.
  • indio007, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9If GW Bush or his lackeys in the Democratic leadership are what passes for sanity. Ron Paul should seem like a fortress of mental stability for you. See how good everything has worked out the way currently govt is?
  • KnightMareInc, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2I hope ron paul gets aids and dies in a fire at the sametime.
  • indio007, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5No ***** internet polls aren't reliable samples. Polls shape public opinion and TV news reports internet poll results. The fact that news organizations report polls results which have zero probative value in gauging ANYTHING should give you pause. The fact is the poll is a tool I'm using to get Ron Paul more exposure.
  • dialektic, on 10/12/2007, -9/+0Enough with these us against the world call-to-arms headlines.
    This gets buried because of "Diggers, Let your Voice be Heard!"
  • synapz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7UGH. You have to register before you can leave a message. Of course, it's for Ron Paul, so I did! :)
  • yflicker, on 10/12/2007, -10/+0Do you guys honestly think there is any chance of either of these two guys winning? I've seen a few videos with Gravel and I'm sorry but I think he's a little over the edge. You people are being way too impractical....get a grip on reality. And enough with this "let your voices be heard" crap - fine the whole AACS key thing made big headlines but get over yourselves.
    • nosecohn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Whether or not they win, as long as they remain in the public eye, they shape the debate, forcing the other candidates to address issues that they're bringing up.

      But yes, I do think they have a shot. People are fed up with the status quo, and the internet is leveling the media playing field a little, so they might just get enough exposure that they can't be ignored any longer. Stranger things have happened in politics.
    • dmgordon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I support the candidate I think is best, not the one I think other people are going to vote for.

      That's why I support Ron Paul.
  • Retnuh730, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2I could have sworn that this is 2007, not 2008...
  • chicoer2001, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4What I dont understand about Ron is; if he's so against the war in Iraq, why did he voted against taking the troops out?
    • dippyskoodlez, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Yes, lets pull out 100% of the troops.

      Lets take out the first 3 floors of the empire state building too, its a waste of space. The top will be fine!

      ./sarcasm if you didn't notice.
    • Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Politics sometimes forces you to do things that would be abhorrent to you if you were able to act alone. I'd rather trade some areas of minor uncertainty and listen to the central drive of his platform.
    • moofer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1"...why did he voted against taking the troops out?"

      Awesome. He done did it for he felt like it.
    • Nogger, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2> Politics sometimes forces you to do things that would be abhorrent to you if you were able to act alone.

      So you say he has no spine. Too bad. As President, he would depend on the Congress and Senat as well (they make law), He would not act alone and bow to the party line, just as he did now.

    • painted82, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Um.... WTF are you talking about?

      He didn't even vote for the war in the first place. WTF gave you the idea that he voted against taking the troops out?
    • Chandon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5It was a funding bill. He voted against it because he's against funding the war. The fact that it had verbiage in it that said "we may possibly want to pull the troops out in a year or two" is irrelevant - he wasn't going to vote for spending billions of dollars more of taxpayer's money on a war that we started.
    • allenthar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Here's a column from Paul describing why he voted against the funding bill.

      More Funding for the War in Iraq
      http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul378.html
  • caplist, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Ron Paul being ignored by the mainstream press needs to be picked up by the Drudge Report for the story to have any legs.
  • moofer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9It's funny how you want to get him to appear on a comedy show to be taken seriously. It only illustrates the sad state of affairs in today's media.
    • dippyskoodlez, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Its only funny because this is the only way he WILL be taken seriously in this country.
    • Infinite84, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The Daily Show just seems less controlled than the bulk of the mainstream media & a good forum to get out to young people but I guess time will tell.
  • bouche, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3lamest news post ever!
  • Mikovio, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5Jon Stewart will never do this. Ron Paul would cut off the $3 billion we give to Israel every year, and refuse to go to war to protect their (and oil corporations') interests. So Stewart will do (or "not do," as it were) the worst possible thing for Paul -- ignore him.

    The Israeli lobby ("AIPAC") is the 2nd-most powerful special interest lobby in Washington, behind the AARP. And being opposed to Social Security, Paul doesn't exactly have the AARP's love either. So his campaign will be waged in opposition to the two most powerful special interest lobbies in Washington, in addition to some of the largest corporate lobbies, which makes this battle so uphill in nature. Indeed, they have tried to unseat him in his own district numerous times.... but his message always wins out, because it resonates with the people, when it's able to reach them....
    • rs99, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Nice, well said comment.

      So of course it is getting dugg down.
  • jcs_goog, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2Neither has any chance of winning. Plus no one has ever heard of these guys. Face it, it's either McCain or Giuliani. Giuliani is the only one with a chance because he's nearly a Democrat.
  • demonsnake69, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Ya'know, I like Ron Paul and everything, but Digg is full of a bunch of flip-floppers. First it was Obama, then Mike Gravel (for like a week), Al Gore seems to be thrown in every now and then, and now it's finally Ron Paul.
    • lokoluis15, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6You know, I'm still a big Obama supporter and plan on voting for him in the primaries. For me, the Gravel/Paul thing on digg is more of a stand against the monopoly on thought that the mainstream media wants to have. I find it sickening that they would ignore and even go as far as deliberately hurting a candidate's campaign to push private lobbies and agendas. The media should exist to report events and facilitate the exposure of each candidate's ideas fairly, not to ignore cadidates, ban them from debates, and manipulate stories to feed the campaign of a selected nominee. It's a rather sickening situation, and that's what the Paul and Gravel thing are all about. I personally don't want either to be president, but they should be allowed a fair campaign and have their ideas heard.
    • Chandon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5You do realize that there is more than one user on Digg, right?
    • gjwatersjr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I've donated $200 total to Paul's campaign in March and April, registered as a Republican so I can vote for him in the primaries (while holding my nose), and will donate time and money in May and beyond. This was despite an assumption that Paul didn't have much of a chance. His website is lame, and besides several libertarian Blogs, his message hasn't been put out much.

      I voted at MSNBC the night of the first GOP debate, and was shocked by how well he was doing. He easily won the debate ---if it can be called one--- though I doubted other Americans would be able to see that. It would be unfortunate if his success in the polls was due to spamming. It's sad, but it might take that for others to see him as a viable candidate. People seem to vote for the "winner", not those who represent their beliefs.
    • tech42er, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Digg is not a bunch of clones. There is a liberal/Democrat presence and a libertarian presence here. Generally, the former will support Obama and the latter will support Paul. Of course, there are also Giuliani, Clinton, McCain, and 9/11 conspiracy Diggers.
  • h00ligan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4HELL YES!

    jcs stop spitting your propaganda .. you're just copying and pasting that same ***** into every Ron Paul post.

    ig
    no
    rant.
  • stalepie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I agree. I want to see either Paul or Barack Obama in office. I *don't* want to vote for Gore, Hilary, Guiliani, or this Gravel guy.
    • Xill, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Guiliani mad huge profit in the weapon sales for Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war. Another traitor.
      Worth researching. The guy is a complete fake nwo pawn.
  • syxle, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9ron paul ftw.
  • kurtwinter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3A great system we have. I'm sure the most corporate connected, slick money lubed candidates will have a chance to argue on behalf of their industries. We'll either have more of the same energy policy or revert to media dominance. Either way, I'm sure the voting machines will tabulate whoever they are supposed to.
  • FunkBuddha, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Here's a link to contact information at MSNBC. It got buried for some reason so I'm posting it to all Ron Paul articles i can find.

    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Manic_Monday_at_MSNBC_Courtesy_of_Ron_Paul_Supporters#c6539831
  • Downwritemad, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4I like a lot of his ideas but there is one issue where I don't agree with him and it's a major hang-up. His economic policy of returning to the gold standard seems misguided to me. Many countries faced economic trouble using this standard. It was done away with for a reason. For a free market jockey to propose such a change makes me cautious.
    • painted82, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6.....

      I'm quite speechless. Would you rather continue the current economic policy of government subsidies and inflation up the ass? You won't find a bigger supporter of free market than Ron Paul... In fact, he's probably the only one smart enough to understand it and the only one with enough balls to stand up to the establishments about it.
    • ichbinladen, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Agreed. The gold standard is for economic lightweights. There is not enough gold on Earth on which to base our currency.
    • Chandon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The federal reserve is sketchy, but I can't say that I know enough about economics to have a relevant opinion. What I do know is this: The president doesn't have the power to change the currency base (or much anything else) by himself. Therefore, even with Ron Paul as president there won't be any really drastic changes unless Congress plays along.
    • billybigrigger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0President John F. Kennedy signed an executive order that allowed for the printing of debt free legal currenty by the treasury. Ron Paul could use this same order to print more "Green Backs" and offer them in exchange for Federal Reserve notes to anyone who wished. This would probably be the first step in getting rid of the Federal Reserve.
    • steamedlice, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"His economic policy of returning to the gold standard seems misguided to me."

      Uh, right... so you want your imaginary money backed up by nothing of value instead. Smart. Real smart.
  • zarloniusrex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6hmm.

    of the people--for the people!
  • booyaben, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2I don't see why people are so against raising taxes, yes it sucks, but we need to raise it for the right people. Like the super rich and major corporations. America continually runs massive debts and something very bad is going to happen to the economy when we realize what we have done over the past 7 years. I think people say, yeah its a few trillion, but weve been in debt as long as we can remember and nothing bad has come of it. Everyone wants to pay low taxes and have everything magically happen around them like better schools are roads, but someone has to pay for this.
    • feelgoodinc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Who are the right people? The upper 2% of Americans? Newsflash, they're already playing over 80 to 90% of the taxes in this country. Corporations pay NO taxes what so ever; you pay the tax for them every time you buy a good from them since the tax is built into the price of the good/service. I despise - absolutely DESPISE - the current tax system in this country. It's grossly unfair, it promotes class warfare, it caters to special interest groups, and it's abused by politicians to buy votes from ignorant people.

      Wanna take care of all of this? Implement the FairTax (www.fairtax.org) and repeal the 16th amendment. Done. Now everyone can either pay more or less in taxes based upon their spending habits.

      As far as WHY I'm against raising taxes of any kind, take a look at the gross mismanagement we currently have in our governments when it comes to budgets and special projects. I think then you can see why some people such as myself are tired of shelling out money from our paychecks for political greed.
    • Chandon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Federal taxes should *absolutely not* be paying for schools. Here's why:
      - If a town collects taxes to pay for schools, most of the money goes to the school. There's an administrative burden - maybe the town accountant and half a selectman or something, but 90+% of the money actually goes to the school.
      - If a state collects taxes to pay for schools, less of the money goes to the school. A lot of it goes to pay for state education department bureaucrats, and - even worse - some of the money that does go to the school has to get spent on staff that exists simply to convince the state bureaucracy that their specific school deserves funding.
      - When the federal government collects taxes to pay for schools, almost none of it gets used for anything useful. Most of it gets spent on federal bureaucrats, layers and layers of them in giant federal office buildings - each of them with an expensive office, an amazing salary, a world class retirement package, etc. Getting any of the money left over actually requires that the local school districts *spend money first* to comply with all the requirements for federal school funding - they have to buy products to censor their internet connections and they have to commit to things like abstinence-only sex education. Then, when they do get federal money it's in giant single-purpose bursts: $3 million to build a shiny new auditorium, $2 million to replace all the school's computers with new machines. The local district can't save any of the money for whatever they actually need - not teacher salaries. Not a couple pieces of science lab equipment.

      This same argument applies to many other local uses of money. Sure, the federal government should pay customs inspectors. Sure, the federal government should run the post office. But - however much I may be *for* education - I can't support federal tax dollars paying for it. I'm sure that the local school board can make much better spending decisions than some federal bureaucrats off in Washington or somewhere.
    • tech42er, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Should the Fed Gov run the PO? I think we could probably privatize it with little to no consequences. I mean, look at DHL, UPS, and FedEx.
  • phibre, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6The wonderful thing about the Constitution is that it is an open standard protocol for people with differences to get along by living in the state that suits them best. That's why both the Kos Kids and fundy netroots support him. The Left and Right voter bases both are sick of the top-down, boot on throat, coronations that pass for nominations at the conventions.

    The MSM and their handlers in the CIA, CAMERA, ETC have appointed our forced, false election choices for too long. Poppy Bush was head of CIA; Hill and Bill were recruited in college. In Soviet Russia, you could vote for any party, but only commies were on the ballot. Now you have to be a CFR Trilat to run in America. Sad but true, until Ron Paul wins in '08 and drown the parasitic hybrid Republic-Rat party.
  • danconia, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Those of you who are Ron Paul supporters and on Facebook, join his largest Facebook support group here:
    http://usc.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2229718737

    Invite friend and tell everyone! SPREAD THE WORD!
  • scifipirate, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5DIGG is not your personal army
  • UomodiRispetto, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4I totally agree he should be on the Daily Show. Also small bit of news if you haven't seen this yet. John McCain was voted as the winner of the GOP debate on FOX NEWS.

    John McCain is part of the Secret Society at Yale, 322 Skull and Bones.


    http://digg.com/politics/Fox_News_is_only_covering_John_McCain_because_he_s_Skull_and_Bones_322
    • FAT_PIGGY, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2 Was he even on the Faux News poll ?
  • ichbinladen, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4Jesus, Ron Paul freaks. Give it a rest.
  • cryptoki, on 02/01/2008, -2/+9Ron Paul's a Patriot. He's got my vote.
  • vatosplace, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2No more Texas republicans.
    • THX1979, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0There's an implicit comparison here between Paul and Bush because they are both Republican party members who spent a substantial part of there life in Texas, and that's insane. Bush is 100% New England blue-blood. There are maybe a handful of Texas Republican office-holders to which you may compare Ron Paul.
  • rootneg2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Mike Gravel already got the "Colbert bump"
    http://www.studentsforgravel.com/Colbert050207.mov
    • nygrissplz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm curious if that increased his standing at all in the polls.
  • FriendlyOtter, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1I don't understand the description of Ron Paul as a "right-leaning libertarian". What exactly is left about him? I don't think he would make much progress as a president, good or bad. His ideals are much too stark in contrast to the Democrats who will have the majority of Congress at least until 2010. Gravel may dish the truth, but he's way out there, and he even admitted during the debate that he wasn't serious about the Presidency. That's the only reason he isn't getting presstime. Why have someone on your program or debate if he isn't in it for the long run?

    As for The Daily Show, they will certainly have Ron Paul on if he will agree to it. The Daily Show is a major checkpoint on the road to the 2008 presidency if the candidates haven't already realized it. The Daily Show would never not have someone on that didn't go with their ideology either, because like someone mentioned before, it's good for ratings. His highest rated shows are the ones where he interviews the very people he makes fun of every other show.
    • Xill, on 10/31/2007, -2/+6Shuting down the federal reserve is not good progress?

      What about getting the hell out of Iraq and exposing the lies?

      He would do his best to take america back to liberty.
  • interpaul, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3RonPaul2008.notlong.com
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 145 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.