digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Don’t Go There: Top 20 Taboo Topics for Presidential Candidates

10zenmonkeys.com — They call it retail politics. It's a politic that has to appeal to an awful lot of people, but it doesn't have to appeal to them all that much. The successful prez candidate wants to establish just enough passion for their political stances that voters will waddle down to the polling place and vote for them. Too much passion could be dangerous....

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • KnightCrawler, on 10/10/2007, -10/+82America is going broke and becoming more corrupt everyday. After 9/11 nobody in the FBI or CIA was held accountable. We have become a two party dictatorship.
    • destinyland, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14That's taboo topic #21. :)
    • Chandon, on 10/20/2007, -4/+37> We have become a two party dictatorship.
      Ahh, the "secret second party" conspiracy theory again. Take off your tinfoil hat, there is no second party.
      • LordSlashstab55, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2very true, they are all against us
    • dynamitehacker, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20It's more of an aristocracy. The richest few buy the politicians on both sides so they can get the laws that they want. The rest of the population has very little influence.
    • hambend, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9It seems to me that when you have a first past the post/winner takes all electoral system such as in America, it's inevitable that you'll end up with just two strong parties, both of which have most of their policy positions in common. There's no real point in voting for a minority party since they won't win, and if you're not fond of the strongest party it makes the most sense to vote for the second strongest. Remember when Nader voters got blamed for handing Bush the 2000 elections?

      Around 25 years ago here in New Zealand we switched over to mixed-member proportional, and now there are five or six parties with seats in parliament. Picture this; you add another (let's say) fifty seats to the senate. Each voter gets two votes, one for their regional senator and one party vote. Regional votes work in the same way as they do now, with the most popular candidate taking the seat. However, each party is given a total number of seats proportionate to the number of party votes it gets nationwide. So if a party wins twenty regions and 20% of the party votes, it gets twenty regional seats plus ten extra seats, filled by candidates of their choosing.

      The net effect is that even if fringe parties can't win a whole electorate they can still get seats in congress, allowing minority and fringe views greater voice at the federal level. I think this would help America's political process no end.
      • doople, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6A proportional system with plurality vote would be great for the Senate. 10% of votes = 10% of seats. And don't even make it a regional vote, just one big nationwide one. Let the House of Representatives cater to local constituencies, and have the Senate represent nationwide party views. Forces the larger parties to cater to smaller parties for coalitions to actually pass things.

        Unfortunately, that's not how it's set up in the Constitution, and too many people think that damn piece of paper is holier than the diaper baby Jesus crapped in.
      • texpundit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I don't like the proportional system because it causes other kinds of discrepancies. I'd rather do away completely with the primary system...allow whoever to run that wants to (but you have to put some kind of ballot limit... like: your party has to have at least 10K registered voters to be on the ballot...or you'll get every psycho out there running). On top of that, institute Instant Runoff Voting. That will allow "fringe" parties to have a *real* chance in all elections.

        http://newamerica.net/programs/political_reform/instant_runoff_voting
    • mesmeriffic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6The real problem that diggers don't mention too often, is that the majority of Americans DON'T FOLLOW POLITICS. They don't care, they just have a vague understanding that Bush is stupid and a lot of people are running for president.
      If Americans don't want change, there won't be any.
  • Borramakot, on 10/10/2007, -7/+23Since its inevitable, let me bring it up: How many of these things does Ron Paul talk about, even when his opinions dont sound so politically correct in a sound byte?
    • giskard88, on 10/10/2007, -15/+5and that's one of the reasons he should not be president. you can't talk about these things and have a legitimate crack at the white house. it's just impossible. ron paul is the crazy guy that can say the things we all know need to be said, but no serious candidate can say and maintain broad support, rather than the diehard core that ron paul has. but the guy is still nuts. he wants to pull out of the un for christ's sake... sure it's refreshing to have some real straight talk, but the man is disconnected from reality.
      • matador3, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10Name one thing the UN hasn't completely ***** up. There's probably something but I can't think of any examples at the moment. Even if there is I'm sure it would be outweighed by their track record in Rwanda, Kosovo, East Timor et all. The UN is the perfect example of how centralized planning and large scale democracy doesn't work.
        • GreyICE, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Eradicating Smallpox, which killed between 300-500 million people in the 20th century alone (and that was before its eradication in 1977). Judging from that, if it wasn't eradicated, it would have been responsible for 100-200 million more deaths.

          Oh wait, your bias is showing.
        • ShrimpCrackers, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5We also pay a billions for UN projects every year, heck we pay the most for the UN itself. The organization gives little back and the other UN permanent members like China and Russia veto us all the time while we rarely veto them. Its not like there will be any real loss as there are the normal diplomatic channels that don't go through the UN anyway.

          Considering Darfur happened even after Rwanda, Kosovo and all the other genocides, its clear the UN isn't doing its job. Actually I'm not sure where next to go on the gigantic list of UN failures but it seems like a happy party full of thugs.
      • sabach, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6I've been saying for years that we should evict the UN from that nice building in New York and use it for low-income housing. The UN can go to Paris or something.
    • bitcloud, on 10/10/2007, -6/+29Ron Paul may not be the best man for the job, but he's the best man running.

      Even when his policies aren't agreeable, the man isn't lying. He doesn't deceive us - he simply outlines his opinion and outlines why.
    • M4tt3r, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Almost every single one. /if that wasn't rhetorical
  • jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -7/+38Direct Democracy is a HORRIBLE idea. Tyranny of the majority is something to avoid. You are not going to win more rights for minorities by handing all the power to the majority. Civil rights for blacks were not obtained via a populisty movement. They were obtained through the courts and people fighting for the rights of the minority.

    I don't think beards are as much a problem as he thinks. Bernanke doesn't come off as a hippy and he has a beard. It's just the style today.
    • Qtip42, on 10/10/2007, -6/+7Bernake is growing a beard to mask his smiling face after letting millions of people lose their homes.
    • HUKI365, on 10/10/2007, -7/+10I have to disagree. The US may not work. But other democratic systems seem to work relatively fine, especially when the "tyranny of mobs" is allowed to rule. For example the Australian general public voted to give Native Australians the vote, but a government governing for the "minority" instituted the "stolen generation" policy. It goes both ways. Perhaps the reason why it doesn't work in the States is because people don't take RESPONSIBILITY for problems.
    • OatmealBatman2, on 10/10/2007, -5/+41Here's how direct democracy would have worked right after 9/11 in America: all Muslims would have been jailed. The public is quick to judge and gets scared easily, and political leaders exploit these factors often.
      • bitcloud, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2don't say that too loud in your racist country... they'll implement it...
      • WaterDragon, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2No, that would not have happened. If we had direct democracy, the public would have removed the fascist manipulators who control the corporate-owned news media and the FCC. The propaganda machine that encourages and creates fear to maintain control would have been dismantled...and will be if the people ever learn how to get back the power that was so respected by our forefathers and guaranteed by the Constitution.

        Somehow, it still never feels entirely correct to say that kind of 'patriotic' thing (about forefathers and such), when I recall how the actual NATIVE 'Americans' were slaughtered and marginalized by those European occupiers who then declared their independence from other Europeans.
      • darienphoenix, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3The American public are stupid and ignorant because the media MAKES THEM stupid and ignorant. They could be hearing about real political policies, things happening outside the safety of the US, and real issues, but instead they get 24/7 coverage of Paris Hilton's time in jail, and a reality TV show where an Australian tennis has-been is thrown in a house with random women.

        I mean, for ****s sake. We can't even really blame the media, either - because WE'RE THE ONES WHO GIVE THEM RATINGS. If intelligent shows and current affairs programs rated well, we'd have more of them. But they don't, so we don't. And we're getting dumber by the minute because of it, while our democracy disappears from under us... and we continue sitting on the couch, not caring - as long as the TV keeps running.
        • SeraphX, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Do you really believe that? The 'media' is a business, one that gives the people what they want.
        • BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's called Bread and Circuses.
    • MeneerR, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3The benefit of a direct democracy would not be the perfect governance.
      Its the fairness. You get the kind of government you deserve. No worse, no better.

      You had one good president. And you killed him.
      Ask yourself:
      - why do we not trust our neighours (want to have guns?)
      - why do we not trust our politicians (they will exploit us?)
      - why do we not trust our police (they will repress us?)
      - why do we not trust our freedom (sex, drugs will destroy us?)

      Because in the end, you know YOU are not to be trusted!
      Hell, 99% of the world-view of americans is completely paranoid.
      Yet, american history keeps proving those paranoid ones right.

      Don't get me wrong. Our politicians are not perfect either. But I do trust them. I trust my neighbours, i trust the police, i trust freedom. All this fear just leads to the dark side, remember?
      • JonForTheWin, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7I trusted my government on the morning of 9/11 to later find out NORAD stood down.
      • M4tt3r, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3The Unites States is built on trust. Credit Cards? Mortgages? and so many others....I wonder.... who was the first place to have credit cards ?....hmmmm... "The credit card was the successor of a variety of merchant credit schemes. It was first used in the 1920s, in the United States, specifically to sell fuel to a growing number of automobile owners. In 1938 several companies started to accept each other's cards."

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_card#History

        So take your lack of trust and shove it.
        • Y2JCrisis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4You call that trust? Credit Cards? Mortgages? Sounds not like trust but indentured servitude. You get in debt, and get to spend an insane amount of time (pretty much your whole life usually) trying to pay it all back. It's not trust or they would not need severe punishment to enforce defaults.

          And actually, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were both written because America is founded on the fact that we absolutely DISTRUST authority. That's why we have checks and balances in government, and guaranteed rights to protect us from the government itself.
        • M4tt3r, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I was stating a basic attitude, that is all. Don't go off on a tirade on what you think I meant. That is not indentured servitude by the way, you are agreeing to a contract, and are not forced to, so you are WAY off. And I didn't say trust authority, if anything if would be, trust a fellow American.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant
        • Y2JCrisis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1In indentured servitude, you also agree to a contract... It's the same. You get something in exchange for an extended period of work.
      • WaterDragon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5You trust your politicians, the police, your neighbors...?
        I'm guessing you are either
        1. Someone who lives in Canada, or
        2. An American, but living under a rock (or in your parents' basement playing with your Wii!)
        • M4tt3r, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I honestly trust my neighbors more than I do any police officer or politician. I know my neighbors would definitely help if my house was on fire, if I needed someone to watch my house, or someone to help me move stuff. But I can't say the same thing about people I know; my neighbors and I have trust in each other to be good people. If I don't get help from one of my neighbors (e.g. ask to watch my house) then don't expect anyone to help them. That's what neighbors are for...that and some sugar.
      • M4tt3r, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I think some of use have a different use for the word trust here.... so this might lead to some unneeded arguments, even on my part. my bad.

        http://www.answers.com/trust&r=67 (I was using the first definition, as, one is innocent until proven guilty, but whatever)
    • M4tt3r, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10You all obviously missed the entire point of that paragraph. Here, let me help...

      "Now, direct democracy scares the crap out of me unless the power of the people is mitigated by a robust, libertarian system of rights protecting us all from the majority. Still, the tools for giving citizens agency are at hand and we may as well talk about it."
      • macabaret, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Thanks - thought I'd have to post that exact quote. RTFA, people.
        • M4tt3r, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2No problem, I knew it would happen as people have a tendency to stop reading once they see something they don't like, so when I read that part to the end, I knew what was actually said. Some other people on the other hand, stopped reading so they could rant on the part taken out of context. It's funny how many there are too, which one can tell from the diggs, but o well, at least the curious ones actually know what was in TA.
  • nreynolds, on 10/10/2007, -14/+5Too many of these "taboo topics" are just the author's opinion. Not to mention certain candidates (Ron Paul, just one, there are others) talk about nearly all of these topics.
    • theaceoffire, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Please give citation.
      • RogueIlluminati, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Watch Dr. Paul's YouTube interviews, and basically anything he's said in a debate.
  • holycrapitsed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+44I think impeachment might be the most taboo subject. Does anyone remember how the most popular Youtube Debate question was on impeachment, but CNN conveniently decided to not ask it?
    • Darksidevoid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I admit that I never found that video, but I sure would like to see it. Does anyone have a link to it, or even the name of the video?
    • destinyland, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I think they didn't ask because they knew that once someone was elected President in 2008 -- then they'd probably be opposed to impeachment!
  • patricklynch, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Speaking of Ron Paul - see number 8; "Daddy Where Does Money Come From?"

    "Any presidential candidate worth his or her stripes should talk about how money works and ask whether we couldn't make it work better, but he or she would be labeled a 'fringe crazy.' "

    Yeah, that sounds about right. (for more information, see abc news)
  • persept, on 10/10/2007, -12/+10Dugg down for calling Mike Gravel a lunatic. In my opinion his political views are exactly what this country needs.
    • destinyland, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12If you'd read the story, It AGREES with your position on Mike Gravel. Here's what it actually says....

      "Of course, the only candidate talking about this is way out on the fringes – Mike Gravel. And he's treated like a total lunatic."
      • chogie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9No here's what it actually says, you forgot the last part.

        "Mike Gravel. And he's treated like a total lunatic. Oh, wait a second. He is a total lunatic."
        • chiggah, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1He is a total lunatic. Making statements that are both naive and shocking is what he is trying to sell.
          IF you seriously think what you see on TV have any values other than Advertisement and political drama (Those LOL debates people loves), than you obviously have not been paying attention to politics long enough, that or you refuse to see the whole pictures, but only what appeals to you.
      • M4tt3r, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I think the lunatic implication was a good thing. That's how people see him because he brings up these issues, so implying he's a lunatic is like saying, "he's crazy, but he's right".....in a not so subtle way. Or that's how I took it....maybe I'm crazy.
        • maninblack, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You're crazy... but you're right.
        • BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1How can someone be crazy if they are right?
        • LuciusBrutus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The ones that scare me more the "lunatics" running for office are the ones who know they are lunatics. They just give you lip service and then will do as they please after in office.
  • RobotBuddha, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20
    12: Question Israel's Authority
    Dear candidate. You may not seriously question or challenge any of Israel's military policies or actions. My fellow Jews in Israel can, and they do it all the time, but you can't. (Nyah nyah!) I guess it's sort of like with black folks and the "N Word." Except this is kinda like about war and peace in the Middle East and the future survival of humankind and stuff. Mazel Tov! Signed R.U. Sirius, a Jew.

    I've always loved R.U. Sirius. Didn't realize it was him until I reached that point.
  • Leach, on 10/10/2007, -8/+10Mike Gravel has commented on most of these but he has no real chance of winning he can actually be honest. Too bad, he would actually give a ***** about the people he would govern like Ron Paul but not have any of Ron Paul's deregulation, free market nonsense.
    • Y2JCrisis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4It sucks that comments like these get dugg down because if there is anyone that you can trust less than the government it is businesses, and specifically large corporations. Look back at the gilded age, and any labor job before unions came along. Corporations will do whatever they can get away with to make a buck. Fair, unfair, dangerous, or otherwise. The consumer does not benefit because most consumers work for these companies.
      • Takalth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Exactly backward.
        The difference between corporations and government is that government has the power to force us to do what they want. I pay a lot more in taxes than I spend at any corporation, and if I don't like what a corporation is doing, it's easy to spend my money elsewhere. It's much harder to move somewhere with a better government.
      • BabaRamDass, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If I don't like Wal-Mart for any reason, I can shop at Target. If I don't like the federal government for any reason, I can..... vote..... once every 2 or 4 years and hope things change.
    • Triachus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Gravel and Paul are the only two progressive candidates out there breaking any of these rules mentioned, but Paul's social conservatism does not sit well with me while Gravel is almost acting as if he's saying all the taboos that people wish were said but don't because they hold current office and aren't about to die. Still, it'd be a wonderful world if we could have some progressives in office for once.
    • macabaret, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4You're absolutely right - I'll get dugg down for saying it, but Ron Paul's sensible ideas are counterbalanced by crackpot ones like disbanding the FDA and having the free market regulate drug companies. What a fabulous suggestion, that we stop buying Company X's drugs once they kill thousands of people!
      • texpundit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Like the FDA has been doing its job worth a damn lately...? Hell.. I'd rather have another Underwriters Laboratories for the drug market. At least THEY make SURE the products are safe before getting to market.
      • litcigar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Free market forces can work for the betterment of the consumer. Look at consumer reports, look at bond and stock ratings, look at building codes, look at the internet domain names. These are all controlled by free-market forces. Ron Paul isn't for unchecked corporatism. He is for restraining corporations by limiting the power of government to grant them subsidies/influence laws.

        As stated by the post above mine, just because something is controlled by the government doesn't mean that it is a perfect solution. The FDA has cleared drugs that have gone on to cause harm to thousands of consumers. This is not to say that non-government solutions are perfect either...just that one isn't necessarily better than the other, one just costs the consumer less.

        Additionally, you must understand that Ron Paul does not wish to phase out all programs immediately. There is no light-switch for eliminating these programs. Ron Paul is not about to end the FDA before he ends numerous other programs that ineffective money-sinks.
      • BabaRamDass, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The FDA kills more people than snakeoil ever has. How? By stalling the introduction of life-saving medicines. The current process takes close to ONE BILLION dollars and TEN YEARS of research to make it to the shelf. A perfect (if a government-caused tragedy can be called perfect) example of this is beta-blockers. When the FDA approved beta-blockers they heralded it as a new miracle drug, which would save 10,000 lives every year. If it saved 10,000 lives a year, doesn't that mean that 10,000 people DIED every year that the drug was prevented from being sold? That's right, and in fact it's reasonable to assume that--given the FDA's own numbers--100,000 lives would have been saved had the FDA not prevented individuals from using an untested drug. Also, it's important to know that if apsirin were developed today, it would not pass the FDA's stringent approval process because it would show harmful side-effects in rodents, whereas those effects are not shown in humans. I wonder what other medicines have been developed only never to make it past the approval process? People should have the right to put whatever they want into their body. If you want to keep the FDA, at least let people and their doctors choose whether or not they should try out a new drug.
    • RogueIlluminati, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0What about a Paul/Gravel ticket?
  • zdux0012, on 10/10/2007, -6/+12Gay Rights.
    The reason we are a republic is to prevent the majority from stomping on the rights of a minority. Gays have the right to equality which means the right to visit in a hospital (to be considered a family member), care for children, take out an insurance policy.
    People have the right to freedom of religion.
    So gays can have a marriage ceremony though their religion and should have the rights to be considered a family by the state.

    This is not a popular position but it is inevitable. No politician will touch this. (nor the crimes commited daily by israel, nor the crimes commited by this government on 9/11)
    Lets face it people if we are looking for leadership then every single candidate fails.
    Ron Paul comes close, Dennis Kucinich too. I'm not familiar with Mike Gavel but he has recentaly commented on 9/11 which impressed me.
    The rest should be thrown out.
    • Darksidevoid, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5I don't exactly agree with your like of Ron Paul, but everything else is completely correct.
    • macabaret, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5You lost me with the 9/11 conspiracy nonsense. The lunar landing didn't happen! Israel caused the tsunami!! The government is responsible for swimmer's ear!!!!1
  • diggdong, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2http://www.metacafe.com/watch/154212/rudy_giuliani_in_drag/ How many marriages?
  • raober, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10Peak oil. Don't think people want to hear about what could happen in 5 to 10 years.
    • LordSlashstab55, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I can't wait till oil goes buh bye
    • Triachus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The fall of suburbia? Intense urbanization? I look forward to the fall of peak oil.
  • 1337diggster, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6start buying gold/silver.
  • tonto69, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5He hit the bullseye with #12 except that it should be #1
  • ezstan, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11They forgot free energy. That one will get your birthday removed.
    • LordSlashstab55, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1true that!
    • tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Laws of thermodynamics? I'm just saying, why would you even talk about something like that if there's no reason to?
      • ezstan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Um, the Laws of Thermodynamics are only a VERY small reality of free energy and a limited one at that. I don't understand your issue with my comment.
      • ezstan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I think my last comment was elusive and unfair to your question so I'll at least point you in a direction to research.
        Nikola Tesla, Eugene Mallove, Tom Beardin, Steven Greer to name just a few have already proven that free energy is a reality and oil is not needed. I hope that answers your question on my comment.
  • 9a3eedi, on 10/10/2007, -14/+2Saying that no Muslims are allowed to become a Presidential Candidate makes me bury this due to racism. Nothing wrong with a person who follows Islamic practices CORRECTLY and doesn't impose it on its people....
    • destinyland, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14The article is "things you can't say if you want to get elected" -- and he's trying to CRITICIZE the racism you're talking about, by saying that a lot of Americans wouldn't vote for any Muslim candidate.

      And I think that's true. A lot of evangelical Americans would make a point of voting against any candidate who wasn't Christian...
      • 9a3eedi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6oh I see. Should'nt have buried this then ._.
        • matude, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I'll digg it for ya, otherwise I'd had left it untouched.
        • LordSlashstab55, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1he flip flops! It's a good thing though. One should be able to change their stance or opinion(provided more intelligence reveals different). Only if Kerry had some god damned sense, what a douche anyways.
  • epos159, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2I'm one that is thankful for our freedoms and I believe that there are things that could and should be changed in our government. However, I'm a firm believer in "love it or leave it!" There are problems in every government. What you or I think should be changed another WILL disagree with. This is why we are a democratic republic!
    • JonForTheWin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"love it or leave it!"
      Translation: Give up like a loser.

      • LordSlashstab55, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1so ***** true! This country is made to remake, to bend to the people's interests.
    • darienphoenix, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What JonForTheWin said. You're like one of those people who tell Michael Moore to leave the country since "he doesn't like America". You idiots, stop being such mindless morons and realise that blindly following your government isn't patriotism, it's stupid.
      • epos159, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0rofl... It's amazing that there are three comments and not one of them stopped to read my entire post! I said there are things that need to change, but they are not likely. and since things aren't the way I want I'm going to bash the whole system!
        • ezstan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Whats wrong with love it or change it? I'm not going anywhere.
    • litcigar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Your two ideas are inconsistent. You say that the government "could and should be changed" but that people who think like that should "leave." The "love it or leave it" idea is a hobson's choice--it isn't a true choice, it is the enforcement of one's will on another through the restriction of alternative options.
  • JonForTheWin, on 10/10/2007, -3/+18Ron Paul DOES go there on:

    3: Open Borders
    6: U.S. Militarism
    8: Daddy, Where Does Money Come From?
    10: Stop The Drug War
    11: Bloated Military Budget
    15: The Nanny State
    17: The Great Gun Debate? Irrelevant!
    18: Are Our Leaders Accountable?

    and probably more.
    • TritonX, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Now you know why he won't get far in the presidential race.
    • Moriya, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Um, I hope you mean open borders as in he DOESN'T support them. Ron Paul is against amnesty for illegal immigrants and for closed borders.

      source: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56216
      • texpundit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Well... he's not for COMPLETELY closed borders. He's very much for LEGAL immigration...and even making it easier for legal immigrants to come into the US. He's worried (and rightly so) about the massive ILLEGAL immigration problem we have.
        • p0tent1al, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1In a truly free market, we would actually welcome immigrants to this country in open arms. Ron Paul has said this himself. Think about it. If our country was really flourishing like it should be, there would be a lot of jobs. Immigrants would fill that position, doing the jobs that no one else wants to do.

          But instead of addressing the problem of the open market, people just want to address banning immigrants all together. It's called pressure from above, and pressure from below. You make a problem by doing something, and you make a solution which doesn't get rid of the problem, but just temporarily seems to fix it. What we are doing is a temporary fix, we need to fix the problem at the root. Ron Paul is the only candidate who truly understands this concept, and if people would take like 2 god damn minutes to listen to what he has to say, you would find that he has some ideas that could truly open your mind to what the world really could be like.
      • BabaRamDass, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1He's mainly against completely open borders because of the welfare state we've created. Get rid of the honeypot that is the welfare state, and he'd have a very open border policy.
    • mempko, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Hey looky, Mike Gravel speaks on these issues as well! Ron Paul is not so unique as everyone here on the interwebbs makes him out to be. Mike Gravel is among those few who are not afraid to tell the truth.

      http://www.gravel2008.us
  • ItsTheSun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3insanely good article and it wasnt about macs or blogs!!
  • rmeddy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Dugg for number 13.
  • jellomizer, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2This guys does go a bit far in his examples, stating how extremes in some of the behaviors shouldn't be an issue. If the president doesn't show restraint and "morality" in such things then there is a good chance he wont for other things. Remember Emperor Nero, playing his fiddle as rome burned, while history states this may not have happened, the image is still in the people perception. As a president we are not really electing a Leader We are electing what we hope to be the Ideal American Icon... Now for the last presidential election the Americans voted for Bush over Kerry for reasons other then just I stand for this or that but for the fact that Kerry seemed only interested in himself while Bush (To the moderates which excludes most digg readers) seemed to have the general public in mind, and shown himself to be a stronger (not nessarrly better) then the people thought during the 2000 elections. Americans in general want themselves to be viewed as strong self reliant people, moral (God Fearing (I Hate that term, because it makes the only reason people pry to an all loving and all mighty God is because they are afraid if they get on his bad side he will strike you down, not because you want to do the most good in the world)) people.
    • WaterDragon, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2your claim about the last election is totally inaccurate and wrong. The last presidential election was clearly stolen, just as the 2,000 election was...by the conspiracy of criminals who have been corrupting America for quite a long time now...since way before they put Bush the moron in place as one of their puppets.
      if you want to learn something, go and watch the video called 'monopoly men' ...then watch Zeitgeist.
    • darienphoenix, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Americans aren't 'self-reliant', they think and do exactly what Fox and CNN tell them to think and do.
    • KataLieb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Ah, Nero may have played the fiddle as Rome burns, whereas Bush strummed on his guitar while New Orleans drowned..History repeating..
  • wilhoitm, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Um duh, what about Race! So taboo it is not even in the list!
  • LucidHawk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5No Federal Reserve?
    You know that thing that Ron Paul wants to abolish.. That private bank thing that prints money and loans it to the government at interest which a extremely large percentage of our income tax goes to paying.
    • LucidHawk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Watch:
      http://youtube.com/watch?v=3fgw3J_WYLQ
      Or if you prefer something less conspiratorial sounding there are DOZENS of documentaries which show its corruption.
      Just search google.video for "Federal Reserve"
    • spyd3rweb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5The power over our currency is currently held by a few powerful men on some quasi-governmental reserve board. Congress is who was originally given that power. However giving the power to print money to the people who like to spend it rampantly seems bad too.
      • stro2425, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The control over the money supply is what the debate is all about. If our government had control then all income tax would go toward our benefit. We would not lose a huge percentage of our taxes to the pockets of a few bankers. There could still be strict rules governing the expansion of the money supply. The money supply is usually what determines prosperity or recession unless there are shortages of commodities. Why should a few bankers be in control? They answer to no one.
  • compucomp2, on 10/10/2007, -10/+1This is the most ridiculously crackpot article I have seen in a while. Someone must have smoked too much weed yesterday.
    • Triachus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1How exactly is it crap? You must represent the perennial electorate that votes in the most handsome, all-american, wife-***** assholes into office that say and do what popular intellectuals found out would be ideal fifty years ago instead of right now.
    • RavagesOfTime, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4So why can't an atheist or agnostic realistically become President, then?
    • TomRitchford, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You can tell really good articles because they have a lot of people saying how crazy they are but never any specific refutations...
  • evocatus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Precisely why the "fringe" candidate with real issues & solutions will never make it; thier solutions would benefit "us" and not propagate the continued profit margins of the politically nepotistic corporate oligarchy.
    And also why the vast majority will reach party nomination status to make it to the polls in the first place.
  • faithfreedom, on 10/10/2007, -7/+19: No Muslims! Maybe, just maybe, we can elect someone named Barack Obama. But he better not get caught bowing toward Mecca. Obama was a Muslim. His father is a Muslim. Hence, he had to be a Muslim by Islamic law. Check if he was circumsized or not, if he was, he was born as Muslim. Remember, forks, once you are Muslim, you can not leave Islam. In addition, he has a Muslim name. He attend Islamic kindegarden and elementary school in Jakarta, Indonesia. What else would you expect ?
    • skbt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"Obama's childhood in Hawaii and Indonesia was a swirl of faiths and cultures. His father, a black Kenyan economist, was raised Muslim but was an atheist by the time Obama was born. His mother, a white Kansan, had Baptist and Methodist roots but viewed organized religion with a gimlet eye, wary of how often it cloaked intolerance."

      http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0716/p01s01-uspo.html
    • faithfreedom, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1As I told you, Muslim are not allowed to leave Islam once they became Muslim. Therefore, his father is stuck with Islam and so did he. Anyone who publicly renown the Islam faith will be punish by death. I'm not kidding, read the sharia law.
    • fuzzmeister, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Islam is a religion, not a race. Your mother or father has nothing to do with it really, you are only a Muslim if you believe in Islam.
  • LordSlashstab55, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0cue the hired con bloggers in 1.. 2...
  • jekylltech, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Can somebody please tell me what LAW GW Bush Broke?
    I want an actual law, with a source, not just a reply of 'he's a douchbag'. I am NOT a supporter of Bush, but I want to know why there is thus push to impeach.
    PS: Bush did not lie about Iraq, he believed bad intel from the CIA and MI6, so he is gullible, but a liar.
    • foreverseethe, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Thank you.
      That's what I ALWAYS thought. But i guess it's easier to say "He's an idiot" when you know others are going to agree with you. And you can't be bothered with actually THINKING about where your government went wrong.
    • TomRitchford, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Even incompetence, taken to a certain level, is criminal. If you make some terrible series of mistakes and people die, you can't just say, "Duh, I'm stooopid" -- you face charges for criminal negligence.

      But forget about that. Bush is a war criminal, plain and simple, under international law, a dozen times over. He failed to plan for the safety and well-being of the Iraqi civilians involved in this war -- at this very moment, during the heat of the summer, there is no water in Baghdad and people are literally dying of it.

      Four million people dead, injured or homeless now in Iraq -- out of a population of 24 million or so. One in six. As many as half a million dead -- one in 50.

      It's very clear that no plan was made for these people and no plans are now being made to ensure their safety. This is a war crime. Hundreds of thousands of dead, millions injured or displaced.

      If Bush or Cheney ordered torture -- and it's completely clear that they did to most rational people -- then they are again war criminals, under international law. There's enough evidence for this alone to justify a subpoena of their records.

      The destruction of Babylon by running US tanks all over it is one of the worst archaeological disasters of recent times. The destruction of the Iraqi museums was not as complete as initially thought -- perhaps even half of their contents survived. That means that half perished forever.

      By making no plan for the preservation of these international heritage sites and these cultural artifacts of seven thousand years of history, by in fact rejecting these plans when given to him by trusted American experts, Bush also rendered himself a war criminal. It was his moral and legal responsibility to safeguard these treasures of humanity. This is a lesser crime than the others but would be much easier to prove.

      But you don't want war crimes? Let's see: destruction of records. Wiretapping is also a felony. Conspiracy.

      Um, I forget the name of the crime where you redirect billions of dollars of the government's money to pay greater-than-economic prices for goods and services from your company Halliburton so you make hundreds of millions of dollars, but I do know that that's a rather serious felony. If you could prove that he lied to do it, you'd get a felony fraud charge too.

      Heck, even the SEC might get interested -- Enron was talking to the Bush administration every day during their crisis, and Enron has been proven *in court* to have committed an astonishing number of felonious acts during this time. Now, you'd think that the courts would have forced the release of the tapes of these discussions, as material to the criminal investigations? But no. No reason given either. A court could subpoena these tapes.

      So there we go. Many war crimes, graft, torture, wiretapping, destruction of records, fraud, and all sorts of financial misconduct.

      Lots and lots and lots of crimes, the least of which is worse than what Clinton got impeached for.
      • obliviousfool, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Actually, if you want to get in the wayback machine (speaking of the SEC) Bush was never cleared of the Harken energy thing. The investigation just stopped going forward. Also, the recount in Florida in 2000 was illegally stopped. I don't see how they could have organized that whole thing in a state without a brother as a governor so you have election fraud and conspiracy to commit election fraud right there. Actually, Rep. Conyers released a list of laws that he suspects George W. Bush has broken. http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/alerts/95 Since he's on the house judiciary committee he might know better than all of us.
    • BabaRamDass, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's called the Constitution.
  • chrgrose, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2This should be #1 or at least very high on that list:

    Bring up the fact that (or even question that) the United States was not (was)founded on the Christian Religion.
  • chrgrose, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Mike Gravel would be a lot more popular if he didn't come off as so angry and had the demeanor of, say, Ron Paul. He's a smart guy with good relevant experience and willingness to talk about new and real solutions to problems but he doesn't convey them well.
  • BattleChimp, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Imagine if a highly educated atheist ran for office. My guess is he/she would be largely portrayed as the anti-christ and would likely be in danger of assassination by theist extremists. Atheism is apparently "the most discriminated-against characteristic of the eight tested in the research," behind homosexuality, gender, and race. This is very sad and disturbing.
    • texpundit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That's because a good number of atheists portray themselves as "freethinkers" and being "the most open-minded" while hatefully lambasting anything that doesn't fit within their notion of "logic and reason should rule all" and "religion and spirituality are biggest evils there are." I mean, seriously, how many hundreds of times have you seen atheists on Digg saying that religion should be eradicated?

      The hypocrisy is obvious...but since most of the human race is at least spiritual is some sense...do you honestly think atheists will be a popular choice for office?
      • BattleChimp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The part that bothered me is that half of the Americans polled said that they wouldn't vote for an atheist simply because of the fact that its an atheist. I believe this also includes agnostics. So essentially, if you're not religious, people wont vote for you. Its very interesting that people are more willing to vote for someone of a religion other than their own, but not willing to vote for an agnostic or atheist. And, being that this is America and you're SUPPOSED to be able to have whatever religious tendencies you want, an atheist in office doesn't mean that religious institutions will be somehow abolished! Only 5% of Americans said they wouldn't vote for a certain race or gender, but 50% said they wouldn't for atheists? Discrimination of any kind is wrong, and there's obviously mass discrimination here. That's appalling.
  • Tarl, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Probably the best top x list I've seen all week.
  • dissident, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3it's not that the american public doesn't want these issues discussed, it's the masonic/illuminati/globalist/corporate/banker controlled media won't allow these issued to be discussed without smearing the candidate or ignoring him as they are doing on Ron Paul's case.

    Any democrat or republican that dares bring up abolishing the federal reserve or withdrawing all troops from the middle east and dropping aid to Israel doesn't stand much of a chance, and if somehow he made it, they'd kill him or his family if he went too far overboard.
  • stro2425, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2911 should be number one on the list. This topic is so hot, journalists will not speak it either.
  • stro2425, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Control over the money supply is the issue that supersedes all issues. If our government had control then all income tax would go toward our benefit. We would not lose a huge percentage of our taxes to the pockets of a few bankers at the Federal Reserve(private corporation/bank). There could still be strict rules governing the expansion of the money supply. The money supply is usually what determines prosperity or recession unless there are shortages of commodities. Why should a few bankers be in control? They answer to no one. They continue to perpetuate the poorest traits of our nature. All that power and all the bankers know to do is scramble for their own meaningless personal gain. No vision, just slaves to their limbic systems.
  • drivers99, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I have to somewhat disagree with this one: "Well, if you're running for President, you've got to pay some lip service to taking on bad choices people make that might best be private." Because I'm the opposite: When Hillary started up on censoring video games it put me off. Then again, I am kind of sick of that fact that the only people who ever make it past the primaries are either a former VP (Al Gore, George H.W. Bush) or worse: related to a previous president (Hillary Clinton, George W Bush). At any rate, only the most boring and stiff candidate can make it past the primary, only to lose (Kerry, Gore, Dole, etc.)
  • Goldkill, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Even the person who wrote this was too much of a coward to point out the number one no go area for discussion: America's relationship with Israel.
  • jonstafari, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Dear Author,

    Please run for the Presidency!

    thank you
  • esmaeelp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2seriously, Obama and Kucinich would look so much better with beards.

    and Hillary too!
  • dissident0, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Don't forget about corporate welfare, corporate tax evasion, rising inequality, or the anti-democratic world trade organization. I can think of a whole host of topics that would be front in center of every debate if we had a real democracy.
  • thailand1972, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Father's rights to access, men's health / suicide rates, male victims of domestic violence, paternity fraud, boys on ritalin for "pathological behaviour" (i.e. being boistrous is worthy of medication).

    Feminism has turned any concern for men into a taboo subject; we're meant to be shamed into ignoring problems facing men - after all, women have far more pressing and urgent issues than men all the time (we men are the oppressors don't forget).

    Family breakdown is a big issue in the west, but the real causes of this are too taboo to broach for politicians - they'll get flak from the feminist lobby for daring to criticise the lopsided approach to gender issues in the west.
  • HowieHardcore, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0#8 is a good start and the only one worth really talking about however the author doesn't mention that our debt is fast approaching $9 trillion. This is money we the taxpayers have to pay back and all of our tax money goes to just paying of its interest. $2 trillion of this is owned by foreigners and if they want to collect on it we have to pay them with money we don't have, so we'll have to borrow more. It's all a time bomb ticking ever louder and any candidate that tells you about some great new program or step to save you from something your first question ought to be "what will that cost?" and if the price is anything over $1 you ought to tell that politician to take a hike. We've got a painful lesson coming our way.
  • mempko, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Mike Gravel spoke on most of these issues. Who would have thought, a candidate with a moral compass and some serious balls.
  • Takalth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0From the article:
    "The majority of Americans believe in pretty much all the conspiracy theories"
    Where the crap did he get that from?
  • daytripperOz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Dugg up for: "Home of the brave, my ass. What kind of a country needs to spend more money on "defense" than all the other nations on earth combined and is still as collectively paranoid as a cuckolded husband in the throes of an amphetamine psychosis?"

    Funny and apparently true.
  • BabaRamDass, on 10/10/2007, -0/+110 Things You Can't Say In America by Larry Elder
  • kmcq, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1yea this article maybe true for a few of the front runners, but ive heard several of the candidates addressing many of these issues (ron paul and kucinich especially...)
  •  

    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.