digg

Join DiggAbout

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

[POLL] Which candidate will most likely restore all of the constitution?

dailykos.com — Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, or Ron Paul. Dailykos.com poll.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • zephris, on 10/10/2007, -12/+79Dugg. This is pathetic that we're talking about our gutted rights like it's a voting point. Should never have happened and there's very few things to reverse it.
    • ToadLeg, on 10/10/2007, -5/+30This poll isn't biased at all...
      • chyya, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4hmm... i think it might be just a little... bro!!!
      • alciadanet, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5yes, 3 democrats vs just 1 republican.
        • compdude32, on 10/10/2007, -11/+1Ron Paul is hardly able to be considered a republican, he only joined the republican party because he is too weak to stand on his own.
          • sandfish, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6No, Ron Paul is a true Republican, the others are just phonies.
        • BigW, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Which makes the poll a no-brainer. As much as I hate Ron Paul spam on digg, he it the ONLY choice on that poll that is even remotely appropriate.
      • cawpin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I consider myself a Republican very much but I like both Obama and Paul about the same. I think I may have to bury this story though because it is just another whiney ass that doesn't like something. There hasn't been anything taken out of the constitution, just some poorly worded laws passed. I agree they should be repealed but that isn't a constitutional issue.
    • chyya, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10agreed. americans were too blinded by those damned paris hilton and micheal vick headlines that we let this type of ***** slip under the radar. thank god for websites like digg that promote the truth
      • inhaler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4The reason we lost our inalienable rights is because of apathy and misdirection, so you're partially correct. Secondly, democracy is about participation, yet we just keep looking for someone to direct and lead us down a safe path. The point is, if someone is running that you don't agree with, well, then it's your civic duty to look for a better candidate or run as well. We also should have never traded any amount of freedom for any security (paraphrase of Ben Franklin there).

        This should have never happened, but we're going to have to live with the scars for awhile. The one thing that this country stood for since its inception we let slip away. I sollemnly do hope we get them back.As of this poll, it's fairly bias.
      • BigW, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Promote the truth???

        here, try this.... try to pass off far left bias as truth.
    • lithuin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7That is exactly why I'm starting a campaign for the election of Zombie James Madison by write-in. I've got most of the corpse, so now all I need is the services of a Haitian voodoo priest. Oh, and a pair of headphones to keep him moving, like in Weekend at Bernie's 2.
      • NJank, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1just make sure you get the ghostly beard from the pirate that killed him.... and carry some root beer around for protection.
    • arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14This poll pisses me off. I hate when polls try to skew the results.
      For example:

      "Do you think President Clinton should be impeached"
      - Yes: Convict the lying bastard
      - No: I don't care about honesty or the rule of law

      No matter what way you answer, you've given the same answer. The poll is geared toward validating the polsters point of view and allows for no other responses.

      In a poll like Kos',If you're going to do this, list ALL the canditates. I'm not voting for anyone on that list. I would have clicked Mike Gravel, but he's not on there, so it forces you to either a) not vote on the poll or b) give an answer that you don't really agree with.
      • hobonetweaver, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Haha, the primaries do exactly that too, listing... say...2 candidates. Forcing you to either a) not vote in the poll or b) give an answer that you don't really agree with.
        • hobonetweaver, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Sorry - I worded that poorly, and my edit time ran up.

          What I mean is, the primaries have a similar biasing effect on the final election. By that time, the poll is narrowed down to just 2 candidates, reflecting the biases of the two major parties... just as bad as reflecting the bias of one person. Either way, same effect - it forces you to (a) not vote in the poll, or (b) give an answer that you don't really agree with.

          We should take what we learn from internet polls and apply it to real life.
      • CorpT, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Welcome to DailyKos. If you're surprised by biased polls at DK you haven't been there for more than 2 minutes.
    • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Good thing too... because it's not like Gitmo Detainees can have lawyers and challenge their status....

      Oh, wait....


      http://digg.com/world_news/U_S_Agrees_to_Grant_Leg ...
  • clintontj72, on 10/10/2007, -25/+35One of those few things that you can do is supporting Ron Paul...that is why his support base is growing so rapidly...to the chagrin of those not so conservative Republicans.
    • unreg, on 10/10/2007, -10/+7I'm confused. Why am I suppose to support Ron Paul?

      Is it because he's the front runner in some geeky, biased poll?
      • Protonz, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6You should probably just put a Giuliani '08 bumper sticker on your car.
        • EarlOfLade, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7Oh brother... Ron Paul is a nobody with no chance in hell for anything. If you really want to take this country to an even newer level of *****, vote the idiot RP.
        • RonBurgundy76, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Care to explain why you feel that way or are you just talking out your ass like most people on here? I listen to reasonable argument, but unsubstantiated drivel (see your post) gets you nowhere fast.
      • inhaler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Viable question. I'm disappointed in the choices tbh. I think it'd only be fair if every candidate was listed.
      • BigW, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2What really makes me wonder is why did daily kos include a republican candidate in there at all? I mean I know the far left is falling all over themselves about the republican anti-war candidate, but c'mon if he wins, sure he'll pull out of Iraq, but after that all the far left's socialist dreams will be cast asunder by the man they all used to like so much.
    • TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Diggers and Ron Paulists flooding a voting poll online means...what, exactly? His support base is not growing so rapidly. It may be growing, but he is NOT GOING TO GET THE NOMINATION. He does not tow the party line. The Republican old guard wont stand for that.
      • RonBurgundy76, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3What's that you say? Screw the old guard? Sounds good to me!
        • NJank, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2yes, you and the thousand others will surely outweigh the millions who decide otherwise.
          • RonBurgundy76, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Well, in a democratic country, the idea is that we get what we deserve, right? Vote for evil and you get... evil. Funny how that works.
  • Radanator, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3Duh, . .
  • Vicujozobenaxod, on 10/10/2007, -17/+6If there are no candidates in the running that would an axe to gun control laws and expand the freedom to buy, sell, trade and own firearms, this poll is useless and so would be the title of "restoring" the Constitution.
    • edheler, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5You are right that none of the anointed "major" candidates support your idea, but you're wrong that none do. You really need to check out Ron Paul's stance. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/second-amendment ...
    • neodorian, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5So I guess you would get rid of drivers licensing and other licensing of dangerous machinery?
      • WilliamDavis, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Driver licensing is not about driving. Largely, it's a police tracking tool anyway.
    • MadKennyP, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2The 2nd Amendment has never been found to protect an individual's right to own a gun. In fact, the two times the Supreme Court has addressed it, they found it provides no such protection.
      • nixfu, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Yeah I guess you can just ignore that little word "People" in capital letters in the 2nd amendment there huh?
      • cranium, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Dude, stop with this stupid *****. Ironic that you posted that in a "gutted constitution" thread. You're part of the ***** problem.
  • RobRobRob, on 10/10/2007, -6/+36The choice is pretty obvious.......
    • jumbalia, on 10/10/2007, -11/+4just to be clear; we're all thinking Hillary right?
      • RonBurgundy76, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I was thinking Hillary, actually. Thinking of how scary life would be under her iron boot.
    • Pilot85, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4because there are only 4 choices. ? Of course it's obvious.
      • BigW, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Because there's only on of the choices who actually would "restore" the constitution. Nationalized health care (a core value of the other 3 choices), is not exactly an idea represented in the constitution. In fact strict interpretation of the constitution would force socialized health care back to the states as a responsibility.
  • Corrosionx, on 10/10/2007, -27/+42Stupid poll... who else but Ron Paul would restore ANY part of the Constitution?
    • swanny89, on 10/10/2007, -12/+15Barack might, but Ron's a sure thing.
      • LadyKofNYC, on 10/10/2007, -3/+25Obama voted to reauthorize the Patriot act.
        • Smokersroom, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7What does that mean?
        • bobburn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10@smokersroom, it means that he's for the government entering into one's private life. He's for illegal wiretapping, and he's for the fear-mongering that the "war on terror" has created.
    • NeoRicen, on 10/10/2007, -9/+18Kucinich
      • 0xbaadf00d, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13So the second amendment isn't part of the Constitution?
        • bjornski, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4Are you in a militia?
          • RonBurgundy76, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2He doesn't have to be as far as I can tell.
        • inhaler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Last I checked the neocons haven't disabled it yet, and if anything are courting the NRA and other interest groups.
        • thecolor11, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9No, but I do fall under the category of people. It does say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"
        • cranium, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2No, that's the part the liberals gutted. ***** hypocrites.
      • UglieJosh, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8He is not against the right to bear arms, anyways. He is simply for regulation and thorough background checks.

        OMG, I have to wait three days to get my gun, instead of one!!!1! This is unkonstitooshinal!!!!
        • cranium, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Serves no point other than to make battered women dead.
    • christor, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4"Restore the Constitution" is a loaded phrase. There never has been a unified view of what the Constitution represents. However, there is better consensus as to what it forbids, namely that central to its design was the restraint of tyranny. Ron Paul has one view of the Constitution, but his is not the only one or even the most widely held among the public or constitutional scholars. I happen to think Ron Paul's views on policy and on the Constitution are deeply flawed. Whatever you might think about that, I highly recommend Jack Balkin's (Yale prof) group blog - http://www.balkin.blogspot.com - for those interested in the arguments (pro and some con) that Bush has made a mockery of our Constitution. (And Sandy Levinson argues that Bush has exposed how deeply flawed parts of our Constitution are.)
  • vault, on 10/10/2007, -14/+28Because DailyKos readers know the first thing about the constitution?
    • christor, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7Why would you say this? Should only experts be able to voice opinions on matters like these? The Constitution is written for the People. Also, I rather suspect that DailyKos readers are more educated than the average American on the Constitution. Not to say that participants there are right about everything - they're a diverse group with some excellent and insightful opinions and some that are, well, not so much.
      • cranium, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4While at the same time spewing the most *****-stupid interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

        Yeah, like we put that right there in the Bill of Rights to keep government from disarming itself. Seriously, guys, get a clue.
  • FreakyD, on 10/10/2007, -12/+42Hmmmm lets see... a political poll, on the internet, one of the choices is Ron Paul............... hmmmmm

    Ron Paul?
    • dildoolielly, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Hmmmm lets see... a political poll, on FOX, MSNBC, and CNN, none of the choices are Ron Paul............... hmmmmm

      Guliani?
      • EarlOfLade, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4Nobody but pimply face geeks living in mommas basement with cheetos stained fingers cares about Ron Paul. In the real world, he is a nobody and without chance of going anywhere.

        About time to stop the Ron Paul spam.
        • Bilabrin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9You are incorrect sir.
        • cranium, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5That is totally unfair. I haven't been in your mother's basement for over three weeks.
        • RonBurgundy76, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Fail.
    • Detritus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4I wish it wasn't... it would have been a more informative poll. Instead all the zealots standing by with their proxies just spammed the crap out of it. If we drop all the Ron Paul votes I think it is interesting to see people identifying Obama as the key candidate. I wonder if that is more indicative of a distaste for Hillary and an ignorance of Edwards.
      • RonBurgundy76, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I wouldn't vote for Obama if my life depended on it.
  • NeoRicen, on 10/10/2007, -6/+54What about Kucinich and Gravel. They seem much more earnest about it too.
    • pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12i don't understand why they were left out.
      • coheedcollapse, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8Yeah. Very stupid that they were left out. Especially since (whether they know it or not) Gravel is much more aligned with the political/non-religious beliefs of the Digg population than Ron Paul. (At least from what I've read...I guess I could be wrong.)
      • Luminoth, on 10/10/2007, -7/+16They were left out because the poll is a passive Ron Paul advertisement. There, I said it.
        • UglieJosh, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Luminoth is right and you know it, so stop burying him.
    • LeadOffMan, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4they are candidates not worth mentioning, even in a meaningless poll
    • Blisshead, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7Kucinich is very anti 2a, which is also a part of the bill of rights. In other words, a very important part of the constitution.
    • patch6, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Gravel is for Direct Democracy, which entails gutting the entire constitution for what the majority wants. He's for tyranny of the majority.
      Kucinich is a militant gun-grabber who hates the second amendment.
      • coheedcollapse, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The tyranny of the majority? Where the hell do you get your propaganda? The Direct Democracy cuts out the middle man and allows the people to choose directly what they want in a government. Even if he was for the "tyranny of the majority" is it any worse than the "Tyranny of the few" that we have now?

        Let me try: "Ron Paul is an internet-humped god-lover who wants to create a government around religion. Even though he is pro freedom, he's still anti-abortion, which is a little iffy if you know what I mean."

        Funny how you care so much about the right to run around with your little gun, but little about the ability of a woman to choose whether she wants to keep that fetus or not.

        Oh yeah, he's also against stem cell research.
  • crypt, on 10/10/2007, -4/+32[POLL] Which poll will most likely lead to Ron Paul winning?
  • rhabd0mancer, on 10/10/2007, -26/+18Looks like the RonBots have arrived.
  • diggstown, on 10/10/2007, -27/+34Can we have a new bury category called "This is Ron Paul SPAM"?
  • vileS, on 10/10/2007, -10/+18Biased Poll... there wasn't a "None of these" option.
    • bobburn, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4None? Really? Your bias is showing. I'm sure you're one of the people who voted for Bush in 2004.
      • vileS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Opinions are inherently biased. That said, a poll shouldn't force an opinion to prove a point. I'm simply stating the poll is inaccurately focused, and should have more available choices to be deemed appropriate. Some of us don't believe in any of these idiots, and should be able to voice that opinion.
  • spasticjedi, on 10/10/2007, -11/+19WTF, why wasn't Mike Gravel on that poll? Lame.
  • Scumbunny, on 10/10/2007, -21/+21Buried for being another obvious Ron Paul piece
  • seks03, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4I'm voting for RP if he gets the GOP nomination, if he doesn't get the nomination I'm voting for Edwards, who I believe more then Clinton or Obama.
    • NewDirection, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Make sure to vote in the Republican Primary. Very Important! You may need to Register as a Republican to vote in the Primaries.

      We need your help. http://www.RonPaulForums.com/
  • seedofc, on 10/10/2007, -6/+24While I'm a huge Ron Paul supporter, I definitely have to say that the poll was biased. The answer is blatantly obvious with the selections provided.
    • Xtopherous, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5And yet, people still chose one of the three wrong answers. This is a quiz, not a poll. Fortunately, most people got it right.
  • 1337Einstein, on 10/10/2007, -5/+14Chuck Norris, only he can restore the 18th Amendment and hold on to the 21st as well.
    • kiroh, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Your God-given right to a roundhouse kick to the head?
    • bjornski, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2The Chuck Norris jokes haven't been funny for years.

      You know that annoying person at parties, that keeps telling the same joke to everyone he walks buy, and laughing at his own joke even though nobody else does?

      That's you.
      • JorgeGT, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3This is not your party...
        ...THIS IS SPARTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA *kicks bjornski in the chest*
      • 1337Einstein, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2That's exactly right. That I made a Norris joke is all the proof in the world that I am a complete social failure. An excellent prognosis, sir!
      • NJank, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2internet memes will always be funny when used appropriately. this was. you know the ignorant prick at parties who feels the need to point out everyone's miniscule imperfections to hide his own lack of adequacy?

        That's you.
      • RonBurgundy76, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Buried for denying the power of Chuck. Hope you can duck quickly, his foot will be headed for your face soon enough.
  • airiox, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3If you want some good reading about the Constitution and its history i recommend this book, "The Words We Live By: Your Annotated Guide to the Constitution," by Linda R. Monk
  • Jonsblckhwk, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5as an avid RP supporter, i understand why you would make a poll like this but i have to admit this is not and should not be "news" to anyone...

    And BTW, i was at the PBS republican debate last night and i was kind of dissappointed with the overzealous support for Ron Paul. Thats great if you want to shout and cheer on the street but not when you are in an auditorium packed with people trying to listen to a candidate ***** his way through a question given he only has 1 minute to make a fool of himself.
  • LeadOffMan, on 10/10/2007, -8/+15Ron Paul hands down
  • krummz, on 10/10/2007, -8/+10isn't it obvious? Ron Paul, who else?!
    • Flower2112, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1No. No he's not. 'I will toss everything back to the States' is not the mantra I'm looking for. Gays should be able to adopt. If a religion will marry them they should have every right a straight couple has and if they can't find a minister to tie the knot they should be able to have a civil union. Whether abortion is legal or not should not be decided on whether I cross a State line. You do not need a machine gun or a LAW to be complete or have adequate protection for yourself and I should not have to worry about having one also so I can protect myself from your nutjob ass. There should have never been any debate about whether a Wiccan soldier should have a pentagram on his grave. And this is only the tip of the iceberg.

      And as kronix2 has put it so well, Ron Paul's way would provide NO protection for civil rights. The entire reason for the REPUBLIC was to protect the people from the majority. It's why we are not a democracy. So yes, I do want a government that will someday say 'Gays can marry if they damn well please and all those laws that the States passed are null and void." All (wo)men are created equal (notice how the suffrage and civil rights movements expanded that line to include something more than white Christian males. ) The pursuit of happiness. Etc are things that Ron Paul would sacrifice to have his small and tidy federal government.

      ***** that. Give Dr No a taste of his own medicine.
      • arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I wish I could digg you up more.

        Libertarians don't understand that they play a VERY dangerous game. Libertarianism, just like pure capitalism, assumes that people are inherently good, that people won't take advantage of each other and we'll all get along just fine without any help. I'm sorry, but this is naive at best and dangerous at worst. People are not inherrently good and will take advantage of anything and anyone whenever possible. The market proves this: without market regulations, big corporations will ***** the people as much and as hard as possible. Without anti-trust laws, business will buy each other up unitl there is only one media company, one pharmecutical company, one internet provider, etc. And when there is no competition left, they will chage the most outrageous prices for their services possible. And if there is no minimum wage, those same companies will pay their people $1.50 per hour, give no beneifits and if the employees complain, they'll be told to take a hike. It's not like you as an employee could do anything about it, becuase there's nowhere else to go. There is no "let the market decide" and "if you don't like Company A go to Company B" because there will be no Company B.

        Do you people really think that if civil rights aren't protected that we won't end up right back with segregation again? Because I can damned well assure that we would most definitely end up there. I live in north east Tennessee and I can tell you that if people thought they could get away with it, anyone who is not caucasian, who isn't a Southern Baptist, who is gay or different in any way would all be beaten nearly to death and run out of here as fast as possible.

        Pure democracy doesn't work beacue it's mob rule. A pure republic doesn't work because it will be corrupted. There must be a hybird. Yes, I want the gov't to stay out of my business as much as possilbe. I don't want domestic wiretapping, warrantless searches, cameras on the streets, etc. But there are things where the gov't has a responsibility to its citizens. The government should not rule, it should serve. The people rule, the gov't makes their wishes happen.

        Look at how different of a society we are now than when this country was founded. We are no longer an agrarian society where people farmed their own land and basically fended for themselves. We are a market driven society. And there are things now that the founders didn't see. Healthcare must be assured and protected for all citizens. A LIVABLE wage must be ensured for all citizens. All citizens should have the exact same rights, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. The right to marry, adopt, have an abortion, etc. should be guaranteed for ALL citizens. And if that isn't granted by the gov't, then no one is going to let it happen.

        I should be able to live here and know that my rights are the same here and would still be the same if I moved to Alaska. The typical Libertarian line of "let the states decide everything on their own" means that we really aren't a cohesive country anymore. Each state would essentially be a country itself and the United States would be no different from any other federation, such as the EU. I should be able to say, "I am an American, and whether I live in Nebraska or New York, I have the same rights, freedoms and assurances." This would not be the case under the libertarian ideal.

        Libertarianism and pure capitalism are borderline anarchy. And while I would love to believe that we as a society could handle not having a gov't and we were able to coexist without laws and regulations, we cannot. We are not that evolved, and just saying that we are will not make it so. And the problem is that once you start down that path, you cannot come back. Just like I've always said about Net Neutrality. Folk say, "Well if the issues you people complain about come up, THEN we can regulate it." No, you can't. Once the market has taken hold and created their monopolies and have bent the consumer over the barrel and lined the pockets of the legislators to protect their positions, you will never get the neutrality back. The lack of neutrality must be prevented before it ever comes to fruition. And the same goes for the rest of the government: you let this country devolve into a loosely bound federation and let the capitalist market ruin our economy, and you will never be able to fix it.
  • jjmac, on 10/10/2007, -9/+10Anyone not voting for Ron Paul simply doesn't know the difference between libertarianism and everything else we have right now, or else they just don't know what the constitution says.
    • Pureeviljester, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5It's sad that a president running on the constitution can't get more support...
      F. U. America, you want to die
      • kronix2, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4He's not running on the Constitution.

        He submitted the We The People Act, a bill which would prevent the federal courts from ruling on the constitutionality of state laws banning such things as abortion, the morning after pill and homosexuality, while allowing states to get away with putting up Christian artefacts in public buildings. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:h4379:

        Now, why do you think the bill specifically mentions sexual practices, abortion and gay marriage? He wants the individual states to be able to ban them with impunity, when the bans would clearly be unconstitutional. For example, a state could ban gay sex outright and the Supreme Court would be *unable* to hear any cases brought forward in order to overturn the ban.

        Constitutionalist my ass. He's running on a states' rights / Christian fundamentalist platform.
        • Pureeviljester, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3that's because the federal government isn't supposed to be telling the states what to do.
          Read a history book you dumb *****.
          The states should have the power to govern themeselves and if NY bans abortions then move to a state that allows it.
          Seperate states united as one country.
          • Flower2112, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3THEY ARE MY RIGHTS! Not the States. My rights do not change just because I move from Utah to New York.
          • arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2@flower
            Exactly.
            This "states rights" *****, beside the fact that it attempts to remove rights from the people and give them to state legislatures insead, also creates an environment where each state is essentially a country of its own, and the US exists only as a loosley bound federation and not a country.

            And I agree with you that we should be able to say "These are my rights" no matter where we live in the US, but "states rights" would prevent that. One state would allow gay marriage, gay adoption, right to choose, strong civil rights, universal health care, equality for all, while another state could essentially be a fascist state with no equality, no choice, illegal forms of sex, no personal privacy, surveilance, etc., That should not be the case. If you live in NY you should reasonably expect that if you move to Montana that you have the same rights and freedoms. But that would never be the case under a strict "states rights" situation.
    • kiroh, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Or they just don't like Ron Paul...
    • bjornski, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Whoops. Accidentally dugg your Ron Paul spam up.

      My bad
  • rmtatum, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7I am a Ron Paul supporter, but please list other candidates (also include third party candidates).
    • unreg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That might change the bias
      • RonBurgundy76, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Then so be it. At least it would be comprehensive and open to all that way.
        • arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1But that's not the point. The point here is for Kos to drum up RP support. That's why the poll is skewed. He doesn't want you to answer any other way.
  • orichter, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Not likely that any of these would remove such things if they became president. They are Socialist leaning and therefore want the government to have "firmer" control of the populace. You know: "Because we know better what is good for you."
    • biggaayal, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Oh yeah keep drinking it I'd say. Just because hitler's party had "socialist" in it, doesn't mean he wasn't a right-winger. How easily you are deceived by a word.
  • psykiv, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4Ron Paul 2007! We need him now, not in 2009!
  • cdylws, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8The only way to go is Kucinich. Check out his stance compared to any of the other candidates. He seems to be the only one truly concerned with basic freedoms and rights.
    • kronix2, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Exactly. I don't see how anybody can say Ron Paul is a libertarian when he's submitting bills which would allow individual states to limit the freedoms and rights of women, gays and non-Christians, and prevent the Supreme Court from overturning these (unconstitutional) limits on freedoms.
      • breckinshire, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Dugg you way up. Ron Paul would replace the tyranny of the federal government with the tyranny of the state. I live in a conservative section of the country (red states all around me) and I prefer to have New England, California, etc balance it out.
        • LeadOffMan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2then move there
        • arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Exactly. What's the point of calling ourselves Americans and even having a constitution if the individual states can just do whatever the ***** they want to do? You could have Tennessee declare itself a theocracy, ban non Southern Baptists from living in the state and set life prision sentences for gays. That is NEVER acceptable, no matter how much you think the state should have its "rights." There has to be a higher authority to keep it in check and to prevent that from happening. And you can't say "Well the people of TN would never let that happen." Oh yes they would. They would welcome it with eager and open arms. You have to have people outside prevent it from happening to protect those who would be the objects of that persecution. That's why there needs to be national laws that govern discrimination, that cover civil rights. You have to have ways to prevent theocracies from happening, because if you don't, they WILL happen, and anyone with a level head living in the south would completely understand this.
  • Flower2112, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Which interpretation? And which parts of the Constitution get more weight? Not like the points in the Constitution haven't been debated for, oh say, the past 200+ years.
  • drizzlelicious, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Is this a joke?
  • Leomarth, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Every President takes an oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. Not any of them do it anymore. The Constitution started being compromised about 50 years after it was passed as the law of the land. That trend hasn't stopped.
  • JSVH, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10I would love to sack ride Ron Paul as much as the next guy. But Obama did teach Contitutional Law for 10 years at the University of Chicago...
    • bobburn, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7It's sad that even with that experience, he still voted to renew the patriot act.
  • aresef, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_preside ...
    One of those guys.
  • aresef, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Oops didn't mean to DP
  • orichter, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6Except Ron Paul; who is totally retro with his talk of no entangling alliances, pining for the late 1700's U.S. I suppose. He lacks any sort of vision of history and the conflict we are currently in (which is a conflict of cultures), as well as a complete lack of future vision of what will happen if we instantly withdraw from Iraq. No, Ron Paul is the most unlikely candidate, and shows his lack of vision and thought by expostulating on Iraq.
    • dildoolielly, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Are you paid to post this *****?
      • EarlOfLade, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Truth? No need to pay people to tell the truth, is there?
        • bobburn, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I'm sorry, i think he's the only one who knows the recent history of the world. Blowback? Iran? Lebanon? Iraq? He has consistently backed up his opinion with modern, important issues.
          There's a need for the truth to be spoken, and it isn't coming from the top candidates from the GOP or the Dems.
    • Bilabrin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yeah, I guess he thought the vision of the founding fathers was good enough.
  • thugok, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5E. None of the above.
  • ScottShelby, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3doomrat, I think the leadership of this country has been within two families for 24 years not 16, I think you forgot to mention daddy.

    My question is why do we always have to vote for the lessor of two evils and never have a clearly better candidate??

    S
    • RonBurgundy76, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Voting for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.
  • soaringeagleone, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3None of the above. Nice try.
  • dildoolielly, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7I believe the candidate most likely to restore all of our constitution is the only one who seems to be talking about doing so. That would be Ron Paul.
    Everyone else, Repukes AND Democraps seem to be bought and paid for by corporation. Our country has been highjacked by corporate whore lobbyists and if the American people don't turn off the corporate owned media and get behind RP in '08, our country could be beyond the point of no return.
    • kronix2, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1The more I read Ron Paul fans bitching about corporations, the more I laugh. Ron Paul is a guy who would remove almost ALL regulation and give corporations a freer hand than they already have. If you hate corporations, vote for somebody who'd increase regulation of big business. But you won't, because regulation equals evil socialism.

      Although most Ron Paul fans are Republicans who are ashamed of the fact and now call themselves libertarians instead of conservatives, there's a minority who honestly don't know what he stands for beyond "he's a constitutionalist".
      • rmtatum, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Ron Paul supporters talk about corporatism because it is the philosophy of socialism (the merger of the corporation and the state) that has so severely damaged our country. We believe that laws should be written to protect the rights of all not just those of a select group
    • LeadOffMan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1What is a corporation? Individuals collectively making decisions for their own benefit.
      It's such a cop-out when I hear idiots whining about corporations.
      Everything flows to and from individuals, stop placing blame on an invisible enemy
  • daxsymbiont, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1the candidate that most likely represents the people.

    oh wait, there's no such thing..

    one has to realize representative democracy is only democratically elected dictatorship and not a wholly bad thing, but only the best thing there is currently with the current technology. when technology will reach a point when with digg-style algorithms people could vote securely(most of all), frequently and for anything they like, only then democracy will come to real fruition. at this time we have cabals made by people traditionally in power that simply satisfy the status quo.
  • nvisi0n, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Oooo Oooo wait, where is Giuliani?
    • engwar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Too busy at the latest Hitler Youth rally to respond.
  • Gosunkugi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3... isn't this question rather, I don't know, leading? It's like asking "Which musical group wrote the best songs with 'love' in the title, Metallica, the Sex Pistols, N.W.A., or The Beatles?"
  • biggaayal, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9Yeah what a worthless poll. If you make one, you include ALL the candidates. I vote Gravel.
  • hankidic, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1good thing digg is not the entire voting public
    • RonBurgundy76, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I don't know... there seem to be a lot of the far right on here lately, but they still get voted down... seems to represent a fair chunk of the population to me.
  • NewDirection, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Ron Paul is the only real choice.
  • oceanrain, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2Dumb poll...we all know the answer is "none of the above".
  • mwalker05, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0mike huckabee should be on that list. he is probably the 2nd most "progressive" republican. and by progressive i mean understanding that the current system is broken. He is also in favor of abolishing the IRS and talks about enforcing the constitution in all his speeches.
  • eddievs5, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Is this a mainstream media poll? At least you could put all the candidates on there...
  • EnjoyFailure, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3NEWS FLASH: Constantly pushing Ron Paul down the throats of undecided voters will NOT make them vote for him.
    • Bilabrin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3This article wasn't about Dr. Paul. The poeple have spoken. Get onboard. We need this guy! Let's see, a Doctor, A Flight surgoen for the Air Force for 5 years, 10 terms in congress. Never voted against the constitution. He's great. I'm sorry you feel he's being pushed down your throught. You must REALLY hate Jesus.
  • Icebath, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Barack Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago.
    • Bilabrin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.
    • RonBurgundy76, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Barack Obama also supported the Patriot Act. Apparently he never actually READ the Constitution while he was teaching about it.
  • fuckinhell, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I just have a few things to say to all those who say they won't vote for Ron Paul because you disagree with him on this issue or that issue:

    We are losing America. The constitution MUST be restored or we have lost the most important thing that makes America - America. I myself don't agree with all his stances on everything but if we don't fix America first, we won't have to worry about any of the other issues because they will be DICTATED to us by the government.

    Ron Paul wants to restore what makes America great. Liberty and Justice for ALL!!!!

    It may be necessary temporarily to accept a lesser evil, but one must never label a necessary evil as good.
    ~ Margaret Mead


    • Flower2112, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I do not subscribe to Ron Paul's version of the Constitution. I am not going to vote for him period. And if you give what I said any modicum of thought you will realize that is a good thing if you really want to restore America.

      What the Constitution means and how this country should implement it should be heavily and passionately debated. It should drive us to participate in the political process. The day it isn't is the day we will bury the United States.
    • RonBurgundy76, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You don't have to agree with ANY candidate 100%, as none of them will ever match your beliefs exactly. Voting for the one that is most closely aligned with you is the idea.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 63 of 63 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.