digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at i206.photobucket.com —

Urgent! We are NOT going to break Hillary's $6.2 Mil record

i206.photobucket.com — According to this projection, we are going to raise a little less than 6.2 million dollars. C'mon guys, dig deep and call your friends. A little extra money will result in a huge way the media reacts to this story. Hillary's record already has been proven fake, but the media keeps spitting that figure out.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • diggadigga, on 12/17/2007, -19/+141Has been submitted before, but this one's title is much more accurate. The only other one doesn't seem like its going to get on the front page, It is very important this info gets on the front page ASAP. This is only one and only chance to break Hillary's "record". If everyone just donates an extra 5-10$, no doubt that will give us just the extra push we need to break the 6.2 million barrier. We are so freggin close.
    • tehstyles, on 12/17/2007, -6/+10The other one did actually make the top 10 list. However, it was taken off. Probably because of this article is a duplicate. You should have waited longer but since the old one got taken off, we have no choice but to go with this one. I agree though, this title is more accurate.
      • jkizzle, on 12/17/2007, -27/+17or because its spam
        • kingkilr, on 12/17/2007, -19/+16Seriously, it's just blatantly asking for my money, thats up there with Viagra for me.
        • killaspike, on 12/17/2007, -16/+4Im sorry that the majority of people on digg are Ron Paul supporters, if you dont like it leave, and donate on your way out.
    • dankosaur, on 12/17/2007, -2/+32If I didn't read Digg every day, it would be hard for me to figure out this was about Ron Paul. The only hint was a tiny "ronpaulgraphs.com" tag at the top of the image. His name isn't mentioned in the title, blurb, or almost any quotes. What an insider culture has developed here...
      • anthonyy, on 12/17/2007, -8/+13DONATE, DONATE, DONATE! Are you going for coffee tomorrow? Well screw it! Use that to help push it past the "6.3 million" mark instead!
    • SpazticChips, on 12/17/2007, -43/+15I am so ***** sick of hearing about Ron Paul. He may sound good to you, but his economic policy is crazy, he will never be elected because he would ruin the economy. Luckily your donations are stimulating the sectors of the economy that he would most likely minimize due to his absurd proposed reforms. I don't want to hear just about Ron Paul, I would like to hear about all the candidates. Funny thing is, the Republican Party is so royally corrupt/ screwed the guy may have a good second place to Huckabee, another nut. Please donate, waste your money, the guy would get totaled as he has no foreign policy experience, and makes decisions on gut instinct. My hope is once he loses the primary I will come back to Digg, currently it has been overrun by selfish-moneymongering-RonPaul Zealots. Think about your fellow man, the world would go hay-wire if everyone had to fend for themselves. Look as the Scandinavian countries, and their infrastructure and excellent standard of living. Ron Paul would give us the opposite, but selfish people will have a moment of fulfillment while everything collapses. He has yet to actually address how he will fix Bush's screw-ups in a timely fashion because his proposals would not work within the confines of his presidency.

      So ***** Ron Paul and his idiotic-money-zealots.
      • ShogunWarPig, on 12/17/2007, -4/+7facts or it didn't happen...
        • bugsy187, on 12/17/2007, -0/+3The Great Britain that Charles Dickens describes in his novels is possibly the closest thing to unregulated capitalism that we've seen, according to Michael Alberts of MIT. It functions... sort of... but I'd consider it far from a desirable system. When we had the Great Depression here in America, FDR introduced the New Deal, and it kind of softened the blow. It didn't solve the economic problem, though. It was actually WW2 and the war economy that improved the US economy. Consequently, we would have slipped back into a depression without what the head of GM after WW2 called a "permanent war economy". We've constantly been declaring war on communism or something since that time, specifically to improve the economy. That kind of economic intervention isn't capitalism.
      • buckrogers1965, on 12/17/2007, -3/+4]] the world would go hay-wire if everyone had to fend for themselves

        Screw the nanny state. Let's push everything down as local as possible, and if people in a community don't take care of each other, then screw them, they are selfish bastards and are getting the kind of government they directly deserve.
        • bugsy187, on 12/17/2007, -1/+4European countries like Sweden seem to do well with their "nanny state". Capitalism is too unstable. Certain kinds of central planning stabilize the economy and create growth.
      • newinvestor123, on 12/17/2007, -3/+5You're wrong. Watch this interview - All three parts of it, and do some research instead of regurgitating what you read on some anti-RP blog posting somewhere. His monetary policy is sound, and would create a profound shift away from the entitlement state, put a check on government spending, drastically lower taxes, and create a stronger economy. He's the only one who has a ***** clue what he's talking about in that regard. As for foreign policy... Well, show me one person who knows more about American history, both pre and post Civil War era, and who has a more profound understanding, willingness, and capability to connect the dots in global politics. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz689NHcAKo&NR=1
      • streak, on 12/17/2007, -4/+1Bump.
      • Viral, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1 SpazticChips, are you now or have you ever been a total douche or a member of the communist party?
    • Neiby, on 12/17/2007, -4/+10SpazticChips, perhaps you should take a course in macroeconomics before you embarrass yourself in public like this. It's very unseemly.

      I would also recommend the book "Free to Choose" by Milton Friedman. Read it. Learn it. Live it.
    • redbootrobinson, on 12/17/2007, -3/+2Why is this not top 10
    • XBSHX, on 12/17/2007, -4/+2Come on everyone. One last bomb! Lets show them what TRUE Americans can do when we are united under a just cause. LETS SHOW THEM THE MONEY!
      • streak, on 12/17/2007, -4/+3true americans eh? showing money eh? riiiight.
    • diggadigga, on 12/17/2007, -2/+3Update: We did it with only 13 minutes to spare!! That was freggin close!! This is no exageration, if it wasn't for the last effort of all you diggers, this wouldn't have been possible. We made history here tonight fellas.
    • econojon, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1Buried for Inaccurate! The $6 million figure raised on 12/16 is only the ONLINE count. There is still an offline count via wiretransfers that are still being counted and the estimate is ~$400,000 pushing Ron Paul to $6.4 million and the clear record-breaker. Please wait for official word from Ronpaul2008.com

      Source: http://paulcash.blogspot.com/2007/12/tea-party-200 ...
    • Aroundtown27, on 12/17/2007, -0/+2Anyone else notice how on the graph for the day there is a little down turn in dollar value? What the hell happened there?
  • juankovo, on 12/17/2007, -18/+183Hillary does not have a $6.2 million record. Kerry once raised over $6 million, but it was for a general election. Raising this much in the primaries is unprecedented.
    • georgemason01, on 12/17/2007, -2/+30CNN and Fox News claim Hillary made $6.2 million in a day, even though she didn't. We have to break her fake record so they can't repeat over and over that we came short of Hillary's "record".
  • ZWarren69, on 12/17/2007, -11/+1845.7 - John Kerry, day he was nominated

    Hillary ~2-3, according to her FEC filings, she lied if you aren't catching my drift.
    • Throatpoker, on 12/17/2007, -6/+38I think Kerry's record is 6.7, but still, he did it with the ENTIRE party behind him.
    • wstrucke, on 12/17/2007, -2/+6yeah, the figure is incorrect but so long as someone in the media implies to the public that she did $6.2 million then Ron Paul beating that figure will be all the more relevant.
    • killaspike, on 12/17/2007, -4/+10OPEN THE FLOOD GATES AND PUSH US OVER 6.2 MILLION, 2 HOURS TO GO!!!!

      Spending money never felt this good.
    • n0gnuz, on 12/17/2007, -0/+3Saying Hillary lied is like saying Rosie O'Donnell likes donuts. It's redundant.
  • diggadigga, on 12/17/2007, -10/+95Yeah, I already mentioned that her record is fake in the opening post. However, the MSM still brings that figure up. Why? I have no idea. Here is an example of Fox news doing it:
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,308404,00.html

    Lets not depend on us shouting to correct the MSM, we should know by now that this is very ineffective. Lets give the MSM no excuses!
    • n00854180t, on 12/17/2007, -3/+6Most likely they just won't report on this, regardless of any amount raised. Media has failed to report on much more important and dire things before, it won't be the first time.
      • Scaryclouds, on 12/17/2007, -2/+6No they will report it. They talked a lot about november 5th. The MSM has been unfair to Ron Paul, but not that unfair.
      • asforme, on 12/17/2007, -2/+2Fox has already been reporting it. I don't have any links, but I've seen it on a few times where they mentioned that he passed his Nov 5th numbers around 6pm.
    • lolwaffle, on 11/03/2008, -3/+7A lot of the internet is boycotting the use of "Main Stream Media" and referring to it as "Old Media". Get with it!
    • sgglynn, on 12/17/2007, -2/+5""He's getting close to what I raised on our first day. ... so I am delighted that he's been able to raise what he needs to go forward, and it's only two-thirds as much or a little less than that than we raised on our first day," Romney said."
      that kind of backhanded compliment should earn you a kick in the junk
  • antipaul, on 12/17/2007, -73/+19No, you aren't.
    • Ajajadude, on 12/17/2007, -43/+11You'd think Paul fans would be against excessiveness of this nature. Massive amounts of expenditures on political campaigns is nothing but a serious waste of money.
      • skatastrophy, on 12/17/2007, -10/+30In actuality, it's an investment in my future.
        • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 12/17/2007, -32/+11Yep we throw money at Ron Paul so he can do nothing with it.
        • bjornski, on 12/17/2007, -6/+7Another blimp will save us!
          • fac3less, on 12/17/2007, -5/+3Actually, the blimp was paid for by supporters -- not by Ron Paul and his campaign.
          • chaosium, on 12/17/2007, -1/+2"Actually, the blimp was paid for by supporters -- not by Ron Paul and his campaign."

            It's money that could have done to the campaign, dummy.
        • Ajajadude, on 12/17/2007, -19/+7An investment for your future? My investment is a stock portfolio. The difference? My money isn't being gambled on someone who no one has heard of up until a few months ago and most likely won't be alive in 5 years.
        • dantrenner, on 12/17/2007, -6/+4Yeah, right! And with the banksters in power as usual, you actually believe you'll get to spend it. Sigh! What a dip stick. Ron Paul is the last chance you're going to get to keep your freedom to keep what you earn. Get a little smarts.
          • chaosium, on 12/17/2007, -0/+2"with the banksters in power as usual"

            I find it funny that the biggest loudmouth idiots who preach about BIG BANKING are also the biggest anti-Commies, the closer you get to the furthest right, the more you flirt with the extreme left.
        • AdamGeld, on 12/17/2007, -6/+2So Ron can do nothing with it? What planet are you living on "XXXXXXXXX..."?
      • purzzzell, on 12/17/2007, -1/+12but it's voluntary.
      • newinvestor123, on 12/17/2007, -2/+3So is mine, but the payoff from an RP presidency would be enormously larger than the payoff from a well run stock porfolio. I've contributed about 1% of what I earned last year, and I'd contribute more if I were not essentially a pensioner now. That's a small price to pay in order to get us off the boom/bust cycles and never ending (and accelerating) inherent in the current monetary system.
      • AdamGeld, on 12/17/2007, -2/+2I can't think of a single good reason not to donate to his campaign.
  • sixdust, on 12/17/2007, -15/+25Well we are getting much closer.
    • borninda818, on 12/17/2007, -7/+10This may be our last shot. Unless he wins the nomination there won't be another tea party.
  • Ragecloak, on 12/17/2007, -18/+79Fake or not, $6.3mil dollars would generate a lot more press coverage than $6 mil. We have to do everything we can to hit 6.3!
    • Ajajadude, on 12/17/2007, -21/+7A killing spree would get you even more coverage than that.
    • ufia, on 12/17/2007, -19/+6But if Ron Paul get enough press coverage, it kinda contradict all your complaining about evil big media silencing you, thus voiding the need for Ron Paul in the first place to save you from the alleged fascist police state. You sort of cornered yourself in a catch 22 there. That will teach you to base your campaign on false paranoid pretenses. Loser!
      • Neiby, on 12/17/2007, -4/+6No, it doesn't contradict anything. It simply proves that we had to make Herculean efforts to get him into the press.
      • newinvestor123, on 12/17/2007, -4/+5Woot for defeating a hideous straw man argument!
    • soporificfrog, on 12/17/2007, -30/+28Seriously. What. The. F***.

      We "have to do everything we can to hit 6.3" because it will generate so much more press than $6M? Am I the only one who finds this whole thing absurd? Is this really "URGENT"? The genocide in Darfur is urgent. Poverty is urgent. The forthcoming global recession is urgent. The constitutional crisis in the US is urgent. The displacement of millions of people from their homes because people want to drive an SUV is urgent. Raising $6.3M rather than $6M is NOT urgent. Get a little freaking perspective.

      • DeathRay2K, on 12/17/2007, -12/+8This comment made me wish I could have 'favourite' comments!
      • Ragecloak, on 12/17/2007, -7/+11Uhm, because everything you're talking about (besides darfur and the SUV thing...not exactly sure how people are losing their homes because of SUVS but i digress) can be solved (or at least being closer to being solved) if Ron Paul becomes president. The media keeps saying that Hillary had the one day fundraising record of 6.2 million in one day. Therefore if we break that record, it will make it even more historic and the resulting media coverage will be worth millions of dollars more.
        So yes, it's that urgent.
        • soporificfrog, on 12/17/2007, -12/+7Do you seriously think anyone is going to think to themselves "gee, I wasn't going to vote for that Ron Paul fellow, but now that he has raised $6.3M and beaten a fictional record that Clinton will just claim to have beaten next week, maybe I'll change my mind!"

          No. You lose points for even attempting to rationalize the urgency of greed in the face of overwhelming REAL problems.
          • Laughsatyou, on 12/17/2007, -7/+2starving people in darfur and sudan is their problem, solving the problems in the united states is our problem.

            ill donate my money to paul, you can donate yours to people who continue to breed kids to starve to death.
          • chaosium, on 12/17/2007, -0/+3"solving the problems in the united states is our problem."

            Ron Paul doesn't give two ***** about starving people in the US as well.
        • rarson, on 12/17/2007, -3/+5He will have raised more money in a day than any other candidate, and from average Americans too. That's huge.
          • soporificfrog, on 12/17/2007, -10/+1Huge it is. Urgent it is not.
          • chaosium, on 12/17/2007, -1/+2"He will have raised more money in a day than any other candidate"

            Nope, he didn't.
          • rarson, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1So who did? Hillary? Right...
      • SiNN4R, on 12/17/2007, -3/+14Darfur is a direct result of US interventionism in Ethiopia.
        • soporificfrog, on 12/17/2007, -13/+3And that makes it less important than Ron Paul raising $6.3M rather than $6M how?
        • rarson, on 12/17/2007, -2/+10Put two and two together: get Paul into the White House, and the US will stop creating new Darfurs. I would say that's pretty damned important.
      • jcm267, on 12/17/2007, -6/+4"The displacement of millions of people from their homes because people want to drive an SUV is urgent."

        Useful idiot.
      • newinvestor123, on 12/17/2007, -4/+2If raising the most money in one day of any candidate ever is huge, and Ron Paul becoming President would be a good thing, and time is running out for donations today, then yes, it's urgent.
        • soporificfrog, on 12/17/2007, -0/+4Except that one doesn't follow the other. Even worse, in the end, when Paul has to drop out of the race because in actuality most Republicans don't agree with his positions, all this money is just going to fill the coffers of some other Republican candidate.

          And I'll repeat what I said before, do you SERIOUSLY think that anyone who wasn't going to vote for Paul before IS going to vote for Paul because he broke some fundraising record? There are urgent problems, this may be time sensitive but not urgent.
      • soporificfrog, on 12/17/2007, -3/+3The reference to SUVs was one regarding climate change and the ensuing population "relocation" it will cause for the residents of some places. Most of these people don't live in the United States, and as US citizens are the only people that exist I can see why you might not understand the reference.
  • tehstyles, on 12/17/2007, -13/+65That projection was made several hours ago. The new projections seem to be more towards 5.8 million. If we don't break Hillary's fake 6.2 million, we'll need to start working towards clearing up who the real record breaker is. The next biggest record btw is John Kerry at 5.7 million (that was at the democratic nomination though, after the primarys, and had his whole party behind him). We should beat that, so even if don't break the fake 6.2, we'll still beat the real 5.7. That is a huge accomplishment considering that this is even before the primaries.

    Breaking 6.2 would be awesome, but breaking 5.7 is good enough.
    • jkarhu24, on 12/17/2007, -6/+7Second place is for losers.
      • AdamGeld, on 12/17/2007, -6/+2How can you be so apathetic to your country's future and your well-being?
        • chaosium, on 12/17/2007, -0/+2We're not, we just hate scumbag survivalists and their pseudo-dixiecrat john bircher fanbase.
  • uscfan7690, on 12/17/2007, -15/+50Anything extra will help! Give up tomorrow's latte for a better shot at four years of freedom!
    • siszam, on 12/17/2007, -19/+10Yeah, freedom for million's to go another four years without health care. No thanks. You can love the constitution without being greedy. Ron Paul won't care about the families going bankrupt and having members who die from expensive healthcare or services not covered by health care. It's time for America to catch up to the civilized world.
      • hmac, on 12/17/2007, -7/+4It won't subsidize the corrupt pharmaceutical companies, either.

        Healthcare is a service. You can't force people to do a service for free.
        • diggduggjoe, on 12/17/2007, -3/+4That and stealing money from one family to give to another does not fix the real problems with health care. The core problems are poor diet, lack of exercise and bad habits like smoking and drinking. Without fixing the real health issues, national health care is only a transfer from our wallets to the medical establishment.
      • bacon_skoda, on 12/17/2007, -6/+5and jail doctors. he's ok with that too.
        • chaosium, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1But Scientology is a-o-k. He even coordinates operations with their frontgroup the CCHR.
    • pr0t0, on 12/17/2007, -4/+8I've essentially just adopted my girlfriend's three daughters from a previous marriage and Christmas has been very tight this year financially as a result. Still, nothing is more important to my future and theirs than the freedom and liberty that's at stake. I don't know if breaking a fake record will put RP in the spotlight or not, but I think it's worth sacrificing a little to find out.

      I gave what I could, for the first time ever. If you feel strongly about RP and have not donated yet, I urge you to search yourself (and your wallet) and donate what you feel you can. I evangelized RP to those I thought would respect my opinion on the matter. I thought that was enough. But if the revolution comes, I can truly say I helped make it happen, and for my small part... I'm proud.
    • fatlip, on 12/17/2007, -1/+2maybe even 8 years if we're lucky!
  • sirpyro, on 12/17/2007, -15/+33If this hits, we'll get our 5.7 million. If not, it's going to be close....

    Hum, my little brother is in town and he;s a Paul supporter... Time to track him down and strongly persuade him match my donations.
    • Me1000, on 12/17/2007, -5/+8$2300!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      remember, you will just pay it in taxes next year!
      • Quakee, on 12/17/2007, -2/+7I don't even have 2300 TOTAL in every bank account I own (which is one).
        if its not 6.2 by 11:30 I'll do another hundred, but I got bills that won't wait till taxes next year dammit!
  • jcm267, on 12/17/2007, -88/+26Buried as SPAM
    • sirpyro, on 12/17/2007, -21/+30Burried YOU as SPAM
    • phy6uva, on 12/17/2007, -18/+35pissed because this one got through your "bury brigade"? What are you guys so afraid of?
      • jcm267, on 12/17/2007, -26/+15Afraid??? No. Sick of relentless spamming by Ron Paul's army of spammers? Yes.
        • banmaster, on 12/17/2007, -9/+13These are the same bunch of 20-30 spammers that donated more than $4.2m on nov5 and well over that today?
          I wish I could spam like that.
          • jcm267, on 12/17/2007, -11/+10You are being intentionally obtuse.
          • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 12/17/2007, -15/+9Yeah, no ***** ***** you spammed that much. Ron Paul has the most fanatical and crazy supporters I've ever seen. They show up to other campaign meets like Obama's and start chanting Ron Paul like morons.
        • cactus476, on 12/17/2007, -5/+5We are not the spammers, the spammers aren't even for Ron Paul, they just spam his stories in the hope that the general population will get sick of their comments and not pay attention when the important articles come up on the table.
        • hardwickj, on 12/17/2007, -4/+4Apparently the Ron Paul *fanatics* have never heard of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" before. It's too bad really, because the Ron Paul *FANS* are the ones who will get screwed in the end.
        • newinvestor123, on 12/17/2007, -3/+1What you anti-Ron Paul zealots don't understand is that this is how democracy works - If a candidate gets people excited and gets them participating, who can fault either the candidate or his supporters? If you don't like reading about Ron Paul, then go out and foster some "fanatical" support for your favorite candidate, and drown RP's supporters out! Oh, wait, you have no chance in hell of doing that, because all the rest of them (except Kucinch and possibly Obama) suck balls? Oh, well, that's too bad...
        • numb, on 12/17/2007, -3/+1Sorry, but you're not fooling anyone jcm. You've posted at least ten times to this story alone. You're not sick of it, you get off on it. Strange, but obvious.
          • jcm267, on 12/17/2007, -1/+4I wouldn't be upset if all of you spammers just went away.
    • joaob, on 12/17/2007, -22/+9buried. how did this get past me? weird
      • AdamGeld, on 12/17/2007, -3/+1Because you aren't very good at reading things through, or you don't have very good reading comprehension?
    • krnldmp, on 12/17/2007, -7/+2Cue the next furry animal item.
  • mooseontheloose, on 12/17/2007, -27/+130I've donated $500 - if I can afford it as a poor college student, so can you!
    • quiznos, on 12/17/2007, -11/+132If you have 500 dollars to donate, you aren't a poor college student. Regardless, I'm glad you did.
      • drizzlelicious, on 12/17/2007, -7/+23Maybe he missed the whole week's meals for it
        • atbnet, on 12/17/2007, -1/+42$500 is more like a month's worth
        • MWeather, on 12/17/2007, -0/+26Maybe he stopped buying weed for a month.
        • quiznos, on 12/17/2007, -1/+11That sounds more plausible, MWeather.
      • purzzzell, on 12/17/2007, -1/+9he coulda charged it?

        I had no cash on hand, but plenty of plastic when I was in college
        • hardwickj, on 12/17/2007, -4/+15And that would be incredibly intelligent...about as intelligent as the rest of our country who took out sub-prime loans....
          • Neiby, on 12/17/2007, -4/+2If he's in college, he's probably already in debt up to his eyeballs with student loans. You're going to fault him for a little credit card debt?
          • LacanX, on 12/17/2007, -1/+4Yes.
        • borninda818, on 12/17/2007, -3/+5That's why so many college kids commit suicide.
        • trogdoor, on 12/17/2007, -3/+9How fiscally conservative of him...
      • Flashtone, on 12/17/2007, -2/+4its called student loans. come on guys use up those student loans!
      • x626, on 12/17/2007, -1/+2He's poor now...
    • alittleroy101, on 12/17/2007, -4/+44Apparently you aren't that poor.
    • jcm267, on 12/17/2007, -55/+21I think you should have found a worthwhile charity to donate your money to instead of the going-nowhere campaign of some geriatric kook.
      • mitchlourens, on 12/17/2007, -11/+8you're comment isn't going to last long
        • jcm267, on 12/17/2007, -13/+12Shouldn't you be doing your English homework right about now?
        • n00854180t, on 12/17/2007, -5/+3Shouldn't you be aiding terrorists, jcm267 known terrorist sympathizer?
          • jcm267, on 12/17/2007, -3/+3Now precisely what is this comment based on?
        • Ajajadude, on 12/17/2007, -3/+6I didn't know comments disappeared.
    • 1wackycharacter, on 12/17/2007, -26/+9*wasted $500
      • TheLaw1026, on 12/17/2007, -3/+4Win or lose, the money we raised today and the memories we'll have and the impact we made, big or small, is completely worth every penny. I feel bad for people like you. If you don't have faith, what do you have?
      • JT114881, on 12/17/2007, -2/+3Troll
    • moraldebate, on 12/17/2007, -9/+8I'm glad you guys believe in the political process as much as you do, but if you are as poor as I was then, you could've done something a lot more effective with half that money and some creativity.

      I simply don't trust any organization to do something as responsible with my money as I would do myself. I think $250 in strategically placed banners, pamphlets or anything would've probably gone further to helping Ron Paul.

      This is why I never give more than a few bucks to charity also, I don't have a lot of money and I don't trust my money to be spent wisely by someone else.
    • rarson, on 12/17/2007, -0/+3I just donated another $100. I donated $100 earlier today.
  • badwithcomputer, on 12/17/2007, -14/+43thanks for the heads up! i'm giving another 25 bucks now. i already called my immediate family about this today, but it's time to hit up the buddylist and dial a few more numbers...
    • dawnraid101, on 12/17/2007, -9/+5i wouldnt your buddys will think your a political freak, when you ask them for money.
      • AdamGeld, on 12/17/2007, -1/+2That's what is wrong with America, people who ignore politics. They don't like to even bring the topic up, because to them it reminds them of only bad things. America will not improve if people ignore their country. You are not a freak if you care about your country and it's people.
  • vulcanx, on 12/17/2007, -12/+26just try your best and call all your friends!
    • joaob, on 12/17/2007, -33/+17my friends know that ron paul doesn't have a chance in hell. why waste their money?
      • chijim70, on 12/17/2007, -8/+6You and your friends are idiots who obviously don't want any change and don't believe in the democratic process.
        • Ajajadude, on 12/17/2007, -5/+5If you elect the geriatric ward, there will be change: when the VP has to take over when Ron Paul dies of old age. Of course, that's assuming he's still alive. Based on how often his proposals get shot down in Congress, it makes me wonder.
        • trogdoor, on 12/17/2007, -2/+5I do want change, but I do not believe in the "democratic process", don't worry, when RP looses the primaries you won't believe in it either, though for a different reason than me. That said I know of no better system, nor any candidate I can in good faith support. Isn't politics great?
        • bacon_skoda, on 12/17/2007, -4/+3i know the democratic process will allow RP to split the republican side and assure hilary victory.
          go ahead, keep donating.
        • Fraize, on 12/17/2007, -1/+2@bacon_skoda, Shhhhh!!! The RP bots haven't figured that out yet! Third Party Candidate FTW!
        • joaob, on 12/17/2007, -0/+3This thread is like an episode of Looney Tunes.
      • CC440, on 12/17/2007, -5/+6Yes, we believe in the democratic process. We believe that Paul will be slaughtered by candidates who appeal to the mainstream. You cannot win an election based on partisan, fringe support. We believe that congress would just ignore him and go around his executive power at every opportunity, because they can. Checks and Balances exist to keep loony ideas such as repealing the Department of Education from becoming reality.
  • ajb2015, on 12/17/2007, -94/+28BURIED AS SPAM!
    • pictureDIGGER, on 12/17/2007, -5/+17Thanks for sharing.
    • throop77, on 12/17/2007, -5/+14But did you donate?
    • cactus476, on 12/17/2007, -4/+6Get it through your head, we are not the spammers, the spammers aren't even for Ron Paul, they just spam his stories in the hope that the general population will get sick of their comments and not pay attention when the important articles come up on the table.

      At the same time, I want to think that some of the negative comments are actually made by supports to encourage us to act.
    • 89992, on 12/17/2007, -1/+1Yes, you have been buried as spam, this is correct
  • datdamonfoo, on 12/17/2007, -100/+23Who's this "we"? Screw Ron Paul. Let's keep the religious right out of politics this time, please.
    • pictureDIGGER, on 12/17/2007, -20/+22You would vote for Ron Paul if you were properly educated.
      • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 12/17/2007, -32/+16Shut the ***** up. Everything I've learned in my historical education proves Ron Paul wrong. Laissez-faire does not historically work, and his states' rights ***** were resolved two hundred years ago.
        • Daedalos, on 12/17/2007, -13/+12This country has been going down the tubes for the last hundred years you jerk. The Government has been ***** everything up. Get a clue...
          • kingkilr, on 12/17/2007, -0/+5Last hundred year... what on earth are you smoking? The US wasn't even a major power 100 years ago, it is now. If that qualifies as going down the tubes pass me whatever you are smoking.
        • smacksaw, on 12/17/2007, -16/+1hahahahahaha

          There is one thing you have in common with a lot of the pro-RP people out there: you know ***** about the real world and I laugh at your historical education. If you've ever been successful in the real world, you know what sort of things hold you back and what sort of things help people - Ron Paul stands for a lot more of that stuff than the alternatives. Just because a bunch of starry-eyed college kids got it right the first time is a testament to good taste even if they come on a bit strong, but you have no excuse if you've lived in the real world or are just parroting whatever ***** your professors are telling you.

          Seriously...Laissez-faire examples are so 10th grade Civics. STFU yourself.
        • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 12/17/2007, -12/+5Yeah for the last hundred years we definitely did not become a superpower.
          • pictureDIGGER, on 12/17/2007, -2/+6Replying to yourself? Get a grip man.
        • pictureDIGGER, on 12/17/2007, -2/+4Prove yourself right.
      • freakk123, on 12/17/2007, -2/+1pictureDIGGER, that is a ridiculous thing to say. People have opinions. Just because they're not the same as yours doesn't mean they're wrong.

        I'd like to consider myself properly educated, and guess what? I'm not voting for Ron Paul cause there are many issues on which I disagree with him. There's no such thing as a "right" candidate to vote for, because there is no such thing as a "right" opinion.

        Anyway, best of luck to his fundraising efforts, I think he'd be better than most of the field, even if I'd rather see a couple of other candidates beat him.
    • pistonhonda, on 12/17/2007, -10/+12I don't see how he panders to the religious right at all:

      "It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.

      Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism.

      The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. "

      -Ron Paul
      • MetalHead73, on 12/17/2007, -6/+3owned.
      • Phoster, on 12/17/2007, -3/+6We the People Act would allow prayer in schools.
        Also wrote legislation to outlaw abortions by declaring life begins at conception.
        His states' rights approach would allow homosexual acts to be outlawed.
        Before you spout your liberty nonsense you should make sure you and Ron have the same definitions.
        He supports the religious right ALOT.
        • fac3less, on 12/17/2007, -2/+21. The we the people act would allow anything to go, depending on what the STATES decide. If you don't like your states representatives you can always toss them out on their ass *every* year.

          2. I wouldn't mind that one myself, given the amount of emotional damage it does to each woman to have one. On the other hand I think given his 'state runs the show' mentality, it's something that can be voted at on the STATE level. As it should have been, per the constitution.

          3. Sure, if they voted for it in the state. Move to another or kick your state leaders out. On the other hand, it'd allow the feds to stop coming in and arresting people in states where marijuana is legal. It gives the states control, where it should be.

          4. He does hold the same views as I

          5. No, he supports the STATES rights a lot. He might be a Christian but that doesn't mean he's forcing his beliefs down our throats.
          Go Ron Paul! :)
      • Stevo23, on 12/17/2007, -5/+5Let's see he's a) Anti-choice and he b) Doesn't believe in evolution. Sounds like a right-winger to me.
        • meloco, on 12/17/2007, -1/+1What are you talking about? Huckabee, Brownback, and Tancredo were the ones who said they did not believe in evolution.

          Ron Paul does in fact believe in evolution.
      • yellowcalx, on 12/17/2007, -0/+0uh..that was on racism not religion. although considering the makeup of the religious right i can see how....nevermind. anyway here are his thoughts on religion entitled "the war on religion" (lol)

        http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

        here are some good quotes: "Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view." "The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America" "This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state."

        another christian republican who thinks the "elitist secular left" is out to get him. sorry he is bill o'reilly!
    • deadseksy, on 12/17/2007, -0/+5guess that means Huck's out
    • shoeman22, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1Despite being a religious man, his beliefs in individual choice and freedom are MUCH more important to him than imposing his beliefs on people. And before I hear "but, but, but he wants to overturn roe v wade", all he wants to do is turn the decision over to the individual states...I personally disagree with him on this issue, but I can appreciate its roots in the idea of strong state's rights.
      • Phoster, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1You've got your facts wrong their pal.
        He tried to pass a law declaring that life begins at conception to make an abortion murder this year.
        http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.109 ...
        • shoeman22, on 12/17/2007, -0/+2I can see how you can come to that conclusion, but I tend to disagree...

          (2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

          See how he kicks enforcement powers right back to the state? This is right in line with his pro state's rights views and desire to limit judicial activism. Currently with Roe v Wade in place, the states can't really enforce any kind of curbs on abortion (even if the local public wants it) due to the supreme court ruling. He wants to nullify that ruling...note how the rest of the bill puts in specific measures to block the Supreme Court from meddling in the future. If the ruling is nullified then individual states can act as the will of the people so choose. California might be pro-choice while Kansas is pro-life. Each state and its citizens would get to make their own call on this topic.
    • AdamGeld, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definiti ...

      "The plural nominative case of the pronoun of the first person; the word with which a person in speaking or writing denotes a number or company of which he is one, as the subject of an action expressed by a verb."
  • bingobongony, on 12/17/2007, -83/+23This is an all new low for the RonPaulians. BEGGING. Spamming is not enough. But not your spams are plain begging.

    Records do not matter. No one ***** cares how much you raise in one day . It means absolutely nothing.
    • mooseontheloose, on 12/17/2007, -8/+22Except you, apparently, since you care enough to post here. Thanks, your comment will help this get to the top 10 faster!
    • ngnboone, on 12/17/2007, -2/+14Do you not watch the news? Ever?
      • Me1000, on 12/17/2007, -3/+5I dont!
        That is probably why I support Dr. Paul!
        • Fraize, on 12/17/2007, -2/+5and are thereby showing your ignorance.
          • Me1000, on 12/17/2007, -1/+1How So?

            The lamestream media only gives me the side of the story that advances their political and social agenda!

            Plus, they are always a a few days late with their news!

    • PleaseJustDie, on 12/17/2007, -4/+15Records do matter, if Ron Paul's supporters can break a record then he gets free publicity on all the news agencies that will talk about how much his supporters have given. It will get his name out there more and can make some people wonder why so many people are crazy for this guy and then they will google ron paul and could then realize that he is the person they want for president. So its not "just a record" its free publicity and potentially a free chance to gain more supporters, not to mention the fact that he will have more funds to campaign and in return get more support.

      So really, breaking this record is win all the way around for his supporters.
      • Ulisses, on 12/17/2007, -9/+2Ron Paul should avoid public exposure at all costs, that's what you can't get through your thick social-darwinistic skulls.
        • newinvestor123, on 12/17/2007, -2/+1Actually, that's exactly what he needs, because the MSM is biased against him, and he doesn't have a chance in hell to win if he does not make waves that they cannot ignore. 60% of people still do not even know who Ron Paul is, whereas everyone knows Billary, 9/11 Giuliani, Obama, and Romney, because those are the candidates the MSM supports. People simply like Ron Paul's message - It resonates with many people, regardless of political affiliation, race, religion, etc, and it JUST MAKES SENSE. I think that as his campaign continues to pick up steam, and people continue to find out who he is, he will continue to gain in the polls.
      • Ajajadude, on 12/17/2007, -7/+2Wait, let me get this straight: if he raises a record amount of money, he gets free publicity? Anyone else notice the irony in that?
    • AdamGeld, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1You have us confused with you. We are not you. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. It's sad that you're reading this if it annoys you so much.
  • bennig, on 12/17/2007, -11/+45If everyone who donated today, (almost 50,000 people) donates another 20 dollars, that's an extra million. That's surely to beat any records. If you can afford it, give an extra 20. Or even 5, if you that's all you've got.

    More importantly, remember to vote in your states primary.
    • Flashtone, on 12/17/2007, -0/+5Your Comment made me give $25 more!
      GO PAUL!
  • rtcrump, on 12/17/2007, -34/+13Buried, Hillary does not have the record.
  • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 12/17/2007, -119/+25Shut the ***** up. Stop begging for my money.
  • Gandhilion, on 12/17/2007, -64/+18Who cares? Ron Paul isn't going to win anyway so why waste your money?
    • mooseontheloose, on 12/17/2007, -6/+10To piss you off
      • Ajajadude, on 12/17/2007, -4/+4Yeah, wasting your money will sure show everyone!
        • Me1000, on 12/17/2007, -1/+3Well the USD is worth less than my ***** now, so...
    • apollyon, on 12/17/2007, -4/+4To those who say what Grandhillion has just said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBCiF9tPn9I
    • SpazticChips, on 12/17/2007, -3/+5The money stimulates the economy, it's like fertilizing the ground with dead people. He won't win, but at least he's employing people.

      p.s. Ron Paul fails, Digg needs to stop being overrun by these few Paul-moneymongering-Zealots.
  • uziko, on 12/17/2007, -18/+98I just donated the maximum $2300 you should too.
    • jcm267, on 12/17/2007, -34/+17You'll be kicking yourself for not throwing that into your IRA or spending it on something worthwhile like a nice vacation to Europe someday. That "someday" will likely be very soon.
      • RIMberry, on 12/17/2007, -2/+31LOL, the way the dollar is going $2300 won't buy much in Europe.
      • tenesmus, on 12/17/2007, -5/+19Hmmm....

        Vacation to Europe versus doing everything I can to get my country back.... Gee, that's a tough one....

        • ryodoan, on 12/17/2007, -0/+5Well, EVERYTHING you can would mean picketing the streets, going door to door for money while passing out fliers and singing a Ron Paul for President song.
        • moraldebate, on 12/17/2007, -1/+5I'm gonna have to go with vacation to Europe on this one.

          Your money isn't going to change things as much as your actions are. Read books (like Freakonomics for example) about what the difference in money has meant to elections in the past before you sell the house. Unless you're very wealthy - which you very well could be - it could really mean a lot less to Ron Paul than it could mean to you.

          There's more to a campaign than money.
        • aerogant, on 12/17/2007, -1/+1@moraldebater That isn't exactly correct, you should read Freedomnomics. FYI some parts of Freakonomics have been debunked both in flaws in their statistics and in the reasoning of those statistics. Incumbents have the advantage, the only way non-incumbents win is to have more money. This is one of the reasons incumbents typically want campaign finance reform in the way that prevents non-incumbents from getting the funding necessary to win the election.
      • dictum, on 12/17/2007, -0/+6My guess is if he/she's donating 2,300 they aren't terribly strapped for cash, I donated 200 and while it's a lot for me I'm not terribly worried about it affecting my vacation plans. Thanks Uzi and good luck to everyone else who donated.
    • bjornski, on 12/17/2007, -27/+4Donate again.

      The Ron Paul campaign itself has said they can't track the donations. There's nothing stopping you from sending more.
      • uziko, on 12/17/2007, -2/+18That would be illegal.
        • bjornski, on 12/17/2007, -11/+3But....but....but....there are no rules against it in the Constitution!
      • cookiecaper, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1The Ron Paul campaign means that they have no mechanism in place by which they can screen the beliefs of each donor, _not_ that they can't tell if you've donated before or how much you've donated in total. They are required by law to keep accurate records and report donors and donation amounts to the FEC. Assuming you even could send more than $2300, the campaign would be forced to return the overage at filing time.

        The campaign has made comments discussing the plausibility of screening the individual beliefs of each donor after Fox, AP, and other media outlets have tried to discredit Paul by mentioning his appearances on the Alex Jones show and that brothel operators in Nevada (specifically, Dennis Hof of the Moonlite Bunny Ranch) have donated to and endorsed Paul.
  • MalumProhibitum, on 12/17/2007, -5/+22thow it in if ya got it, Itd be great to beat 17,760,000 for the quarter today.
  • cheenamalai, on 12/17/2007, -14/+68Lets go guys. I am donating $2000 right now. Who wants to go more than that? Lets have a competition! :)
    • WaterMedia, on 12/17/2007, -4/+16Ha, ha - God bless for the huge donation. And well... you win. :D
    • spieswanted, on 12/17/2007, -11/+5i will donate $100 million dollars........
      • dawnraid101, on 12/17/2007, -1/+10i will donate $100 billion dollars........ oh wait that can buy me a couple of months worth of iraq war
    • zspeed78, on 12/17/2007, -3/+12While I dont want to say "I dont believe you".. making random claims on the internet is easy and sorta pointless. Id rather hear about hundreds making little $20 donations, which would make me want to donate $20 as well, than hearing about a maybe $2000 donation, and thinking "well *****, that guy donated more than i ever could, so why bother". I know thats stupid, but thats the reality of it.
    • moraldebate, on 12/17/2007, -4/+1Hey everybody - news flash - this guy is lying! This is like being tricked by your parents into eating all your food as a baby.
      • cheenamalai, on 12/17/2007, -0/+0I didn't you were that poor. I still love you for supporting Ron Paul though.
    • joaob, on 12/17/2007, -0/+6I am donating 2,000,000,000 Turkish Lira.

      Whose going to top that?
      • catacuta, on 12/17/2007, -1/+12 billion Turkish Lira makes $1,677,852,348 dumbass.
        1 TL = 1.18 USD
  • optize, on 12/17/2007, -50/+17I'm so tired of hearing about this.
    • EXreaction, on 12/17/2007, -8/+15Then why the ***** bother to post or even read it?

      GTFO you troll.
    • banmaster, on 12/17/2007, -5/+5Good! Help get RP into the white house and you won't have to listen to all those that have woken up any longer. You can just sit back and passively watch as your country get made whole again and power given back to the people from the corporations who stole it!
  • easyfnmoney, on 12/17/2007, -9/+52Just got home from the Casino and made a bunch of money. Woohoo! I just shipped $500 to Ron Paul.. Can anyone else do better?
    • banmaster, on 12/17/2007, -0/+14How bout the casino?
    • Ajajadude, on 12/17/2007, -9/+3The guy who posted above you? Because you're such a cheap ass, a second blimp won't be launched. Ron Paul is ashamed of you.
  • ngnboone, on 12/17/2007, -5/+16Unfortunately, we aren't even making that projection anymore. I know there are some people planning a big push in the last hour, and that might account for some of the slowdown
  • NGliam, on 12/17/2007, -50/+42Major media: Ignores Ron Paul.
    Digg: Ignores everyone else.

    I respect the users of Diggs opinion, but why would the major news networks and papers ignore ron paul if he really is the god that you guys portray him as? I'm not saying he isn't great, but you're all supporting this guy as if he was your best friend and the only facts I've heard about him have been negative.

    Either way I'm British and don't give a flying *****, anyone is better than Bush right? If America wasn't so ***** up then you'd have a proper president right now rather than one chosen by god-knows-who (who decides who wins a fixed election?).
    • Adrian540, on 12/17/2007, -8/+40Because unlike almost all the other candidates, Ron Paul doesn't appeal to the "special interest" groups.
      • Ajajadude, on 12/17/2007, -9/+5Except for the corporations. You know, that sounds vaguely familiar....
    • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 12/17/2007, -34/+8You forgot that Digg was all the rage in slandering Giuliani last month and now the rage this month is against Huckabee. I'm not implying anything.
      • n00854180t, on 12/17/2007, -1/+10Considering Guiliani knowingly aided terrorists responsible for attacks against the US, and Huckabee is a nutter religious fanatic, I see every reason to oppose them.
        • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 12/17/2007, -8/+3Yeah, I said I'm not implying anything.
      • pictureDIGGER, on 12/17/2007, -0/+9Your not really saying anything either.
    • mooseontheloose, on 12/17/2007, -6/+30"but why would the major news networks and papers ignore ron paul if he really is the god that you guys portray him as?"

      Well since the major news networks are so great, they should just elect the next president for us! Hell, why bother voting, the MEDIA is apparently all knowing in such matters! Screw the people!
      • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 12/17/2007, -20/+7It's a decent question, *****. He isn't suggesting anything.
      • NGliam, on 12/17/2007, -5/+5Major news media makes money from advertising yes? So people need to view their media yes? If people disagree with the way a certain news company does things then they shouldn't view that show/newspaper/whatever. If a news outlet does bad things then noone will watch them, so they will lose out.

        I know the whole "news media controls us" thing, but to a major extent that is not the case..
        • SpykerSpeed, on 12/17/2007, -0/+3Tsk, tsk. Liam, just go back to watching BBC and leave us Americans alone. We can support whoever we want.
      • Filmore, on 12/17/2007, -0/+0nvmnd
    • NGliam, on 12/17/2007, -10/+4Before I go to sleep:
      Pro ron paul guys answer my questions rather than digging me down, jeez.
      • TotalHalibut, on 12/17/2007, -3/+11As a Brit, I'm digging you down for the 'I'm British and don't give a flying *****' comment. Your apathy is embarrasing.
    • Cole2026, on 12/17/2007, -2/+15Ron Paul does not appeal to major media conglomerates and corporations, and therefore the mainstream media does not want anything to do with him.

      And what I mean by "not appealing" is that they cannot control him as they can most other corrupt politicians.
      • polymyxin, on 12/17/2007, -3/+2Yeah, the MSM will hate it when Ron Paul shuts down the FCC and removes regulations on media consolidation.
        • SiNN4R, on 12/17/2007, -1/+8If the FCC was shut down it would create an influx of new media companies that would compete with many forms of the old media. Government regulation reduces competition and creates monopolies.
          • diggduggjoe, on 12/17/2007, -1/+4Exactly, without the FCC, there would not be an artificial scarcity of radio and over the air TV. There would be more media ptions than would make sense to corner the media market in a city. With lower fees due to the lack of a federal license, many independent stations would exist.
      • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 12/17/2007, -4/+5How the hell does laissez-faire not appeal to corporations?
        • voisine, on 12/17/2007, -4/+6laissez-faire would mean that they actually have to produce and compete. they don't like that. they'd much rather have heavy regulation that makes in onerous for small competitors, giving them a monopoly. Then they pass the cost of the regulation, plus some, on to the consumer. Why do you think they lobby for legislation on their own industry?
    • voisine, on 12/17/2007, -0/+9The only facts you've heard about him have been negative? So you're for the war and against liberty and following the constitution? I don't understand.
      • diggduggjoe, on 12/17/2007, -1/+1Everyone is for the Constitution up to the point they want to empty their neighbors wallet for their pet project.
    • DonKarnage25, on 12/17/2007, -0/+8"Either way I'm British and don't give a flying *****, anyone is better than Bush right?"

      Unfortunately for us, this isn't true. Some of the republicans running this year would make Bush's terms seem Reagen-esque in comparison.
    • shoeman22, on 12/17/2007, -0/+3Someone like Paul is dangerous to the media and it's corporate ownership because he is not so easily bought and sold like most politicians. He could be a potential problem for them since they can't just throw money or Jack Abramhoff 2.0 at him to get whatever they want.
    • Filmore, on 12/17/2007, -1/+0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5mjN32G1iI
      I think that sums it up pretty well
  • shadygrove, on 12/17/2007, -10/+58i gave $5. first time i've contributed to a campaign ever before. i've been registered green for over a decade. ron paul's campaign makes me curious even though i'm wary of republitarians, i think ron paul has more validity than any other major party candidate and his strong anti-war stance alone gives me reason to endorse his campaign.
    • jcm267, on 12/17/2007, -25/+4$5? LOL.
      • chan0429, on 12/17/2007, -3/+10Better than nothing. Also first time contributor. Any amount makes a difference.
      • yosempai, on 12/17/2007, -2/+9You are an *****. How much have you donated?
        • jcm267, on 12/17/2007, -9/+4To Ron Paul???? $0. I do not support this man.
    • briandeloach, on 12/17/2007, -1/+25Hell, if 1 million people gave $5 (seriously, $5 won't break the bank, folks), that's 5 million bucks! Even a $5 contribution is awesome!
    • agimat, on 12/17/2007, -1/+3Took a while but they finally suckered you out a few bucks.
  • tehstyles, on 12/17/2007, -5/+21The current projection may be 5.8 mil, but the current projected offline is 500K! The offline doesn't show on these graphs, thats why the old one showed 4 million when the actual was 4.3 million. Beating 6.2 million seems very feasible with just a small extra push. Even though Hillary's record is fake, they MSM will keep mentioning that this 'falls short of Hillary's 6.2 million' if we don't beat 6.2 million.
  • Comatose51, on 12/17/2007, -34/+27I just gave $1 billion dollars to RP, can anyone else do better?
    • ahoyhoy, on 12/17/2007, -1/+22God bless you sir, I could only afford $221 Million being a poor college student.
    • moocow1452, on 12/17/2007, -4/+1One. Kajillion. Dollars.
      • mpn401, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1Make it two kajillion.

        We'll lose the first kajillion to taxes!
    • Christerray, on 12/17/2007, -1/+5OVER 9000?!?!
    • mrosetti, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1Your Dad is going to be so mad when he finds that you took all the Monopoly money again...
  • throop77, on 12/17/2007, -9/+38I dropped another $50 down, but that's it. I still need to buy Christmas presents :)
    • voisine, on 12/17/2007, -2/+11I hear there's a fire sale on liberty and the constitution. It's going to the lowest special interest bidder.
    • corranhorn85, on 12/17/2007, -0/+4I ordered all of my christmas presents off of the Ron Paul store. Shirts and Sweaters for everyone!
      • throop77, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1lol... I should have done that.
      • keviniskool, on 12/17/2007, -0/+6Seriously, you ordered Ron Paul stuff for your family and friends? You are going to be getting some weird looks this season.
  • jrtalon, on 12/17/2007, -5/+15we are almost at 5million with 3hour left (6hrs left if the tally ends at midnight Pacific time) but I'm assuming the tally ends at 12midnight eastern time since it started at 12am eastern this morning. So that means if you want your donation to count for todays totals get your donations in by Central Time: 11pm, Mountain Time: 10pm, Pacific Time: 9pm. I think we can do 1.5 million in 3hours!!
    • uziko, on 12/17/2007, -10/+1there is only 1 hour and 40 minutes left, not 3 hours
      and the current trend has been 1 million every 4 hours
      it's not going to happen
      • jskistud7, on 12/17/2007, -0/+2As of writing this comment, there are 2 hours and 40 minutes left, with an extra push at the end that should be just enough time.
      • briandeloach, on 12/17/2007, -0/+2Correction, we have until 12:00 EST (GMT-5) to donate. As of this posting, we have 2 hours 27 minutes left. If you add up offline and online donations, we should beat 6.2
      • uziko, on 12/17/2007, -0/+5my bad i had my time zone set wrong, glad i fixed that
  • searob1, on 12/17/2007, -28/+10Boo! Ron Paul crazy & desperate spamming!
    • ki85squared, on 12/17/2007, -1/+1At this point, the anti-spamming trolls are just as bad.
  • kenvsryu, on 12/17/2007, -24/+13I'd give $5 if I never see a Ron Paul article again.
    • Daedalos, on 12/17/2007, -4/+12How much would you give if you never had to click on the ones you see?
  • casek, on 12/17/2007, -17/+8jesus, you schillary supporters want the same ***** for our country? want illegals to be legalized, want to give them our social security, want government telling you what doctor you can see...yeah, this is going to be ***** up.

    when the polls don't work anymore, vote from your rooftops!

  • jjacksonRIAB, on 12/17/2007, -12/+34Man I just love seeing XXXXXXXXXXXXXX get repeatedly hammered. He's starting to get angry now. In fact, he's really part of a political war framing his argument as something about spam. Everyone on that bury brigade has Kucinich and/or Obama associated with them. I'll quietly bury him when he spams and trolls repeatedly, but I honestly wouldn't mind seeing his candidates run up against Ron Paul. To me that outcome is preferable to Hilary vs. Giuliani - in my mind the worst possible outcome.
    • jjacksonRIAB, on 12/17/2007, -4/+9Hahahaha! Hit a nerve, did I?
    • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 12/17/2007, -31/+7what the hell are you talking about?
      • jjacksonRIAB, on 12/17/2007, -3/+9I'm talking about you. Instead of wasting your time burying everything, why don't you just go get a script to filter out content you don't like? Is it maybe because the idea that RP is popular really pisses you off and you want nothing more than to see this candidate fail because his ideas are not your own?

        Do you even sleep? Seriously dude, go get some rest and take a load off. It was a nice attempt, but you failed. I appreciate your zeal though. For your effort I'll give you a digg up, and if you're good, maybe a cookie.
        • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 12/17/2007, -17/+5what?
        • moraldebate, on 12/17/2007, -2/+8I'm gonna agree with this dude here. Digging down every article and comment about a candidate you don't like is exactly the same as digging the up.

          And also, you barely make sense.
    • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 12/17/2007, -26/+8your comment made me realize I've developed a cult of followers who hate me. this is awesome.
      • jjacksonRIAB, on 12/17/2007, -5/+5Nah we like you. I found Don Quixote a rather lovable character as well, even though he was misguided.
      • pictureDIGGER, on 12/17/2007, -2/+3I digg everything you shout.
  • burkay, on 12/17/2007, -5/+13May somebody please explain to me why you are donating money to your candidate? I mean, I am not American, and I have pretty much no idea what this campaigning business is. In my country, politicians tell (lie) us what they will do if they are selected, and then we have an election and somebody is elected and that's it. They cover their own campaign expenses and some of it is provided by the state. Of course, there are also big firms sometimes sponsoring candidates for future returns. However, voters paying candidates for being a candidate is something beyond my comprehension level. I would really like to learn why this is happening.
    • MalumProhibitum, on 12/17/2007, -5/+13because, for once, wed like a politician who isnt going to lie to us. Its worth paying for.
      • whatchokesbegin, on 12/17/2007, -4/+9Please tell me I'm not the only one who sees the irony in that statement.
        • burkay, on 12/17/2007, -0/+4:) donating to somebody so that they won't later steal from you. at least now you know where your money is :)
        • AdamGeld, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1Yeah, now you're getting the idea of how America works burkay.
    • topace3000, on 12/17/2007, -2/+17The candidate doesn't "get" the money, their campaign does. The money goes to running advertisements and such. Basically, to be a strong candidate in the presidential race you have to have tons of monetary backing, though supposedly the internet is supposed to start to change that.
    • xornor, on 12/17/2007, -9/+2is it really that hard to understand?
      • burkay, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1yes it is. If in my country my candidate wanted me to donate to him so that he can advertise more, I would tell him to ***** off. I just don't get it why you are so willing to give away your money to him. If he has good ideas and he is honest and worthy of being elected, he will be elected, right? wrong? what is the advertising for?
        • warsql, on 12/17/2007, -1/+4In this country, the majority of voters don't pay enough attention to politics to know the candidates unless an advertisement is run during their favorite tv shows.
          "there are also big firms sometimes sponsoring candidates for future returns"
          Change sometimes to always, and that is the situation. However, in Ron Paul's case, no big firms are going to donate because he won't play favorites. That is why we the people need to step up and provide the sponsorship.
        • AdamGeld, on 12/17/2007, -1/+2In America you are generally considered wierd if you bring up politics in a discussion. People just don't like to talk about it, it's not polite. We have such a corrupt political system here that people are tired of even talking about it.

          But, it's a big country. And in America, money is everything. So, we give money to candidates so that they can buy airtime on TV, radio, buy advertising space in newspapers, ect. It's unfortunate that we even have to do this, that's how it is for us.
    • mooseontheloose, on 12/17/2007, -3/+9I too can not understand that certain political systems may be different from mine.

      How about you explain to us why your candidates don't get donations from their supporters?
      • burkay, on 12/17/2007, -0/+4Well, you sound offended and that really wasn't my intent. I was just curious.
        There are many reasons why we aren't donating to our candidates. First of all, in my country, all candidates have equal rights to express themselves. All political parties have offices in all cities (well, if they have enough supporters of course), and these offices organize the events and campaigns in those cities. Usually these events are public gatherings and meetings which do not require millions of dollars. The government supports all major political parties financially. I am not sure how much support each party gets but that is probably not equal. Parties with larger bases (more offices etc.) get more support.
        And of course, we also support our parties and candidates financially. But it is not as it is in USA. I mean we don't really make a competition out of it. But you may contribute to their campaign by volunteering for gatherings and organizations. Moreover, every candidate can be heard through the press. And if you like him, you go and vote for him. He doesn't need to collect millions of dollars to be spent for advertising etc.
        • AdamGeld, on 12/17/2007, -0/+2I must say that I am rather envious of your country's political system.
        • jazzmess, on 12/17/2007, -0/+3I'm not. If our political system were run that way, Ron Paul would be getting ***** coverage, because none of the Republican bigwigs like him, so there's no way he'd be getting gov't monies through the Republican party. They'd tell him to go ***** himself. And knowing our media, they might say "equal time", but what they'd really be doing is giving time to who they want to give time to, and call you a conspiracy theorist for daring to mention that certain politicians are excluded. With all it's flaws, I still prefer our system.
      • Nurjle, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1Because the disenfranchised, the people who need most political support, can't afford to donate.

        Because success in politics shouldn't come down to the size of your wallet.

    • Daedalos, on 12/17/2007, -2/+31Well in the United States, we usually have the same thing going on with our elections. However, this year we have discovered what we consider to be an honest man running for President who cannot afford to fund his campaign himself. We believe that this man would help us to rid our government of money grubbing liars and corporate special interests that cause the problems of the world. We believe that this is our last chance. If we succeed, then the rest of the world will be better off.
      In short, we've never seen a politician that gave us the impression that we could trust them, so we are really excited about it.
    • hardwickj, on 12/17/2007, -1/+7burkay, it's basically a show of support for that candidate. Generally, the more popular a candidate is, the more donations they will receive, and the more likely chance they will have of winning their primary/election. Quite simply, money equals advertising along with the ability to pay professionals(not always the case) to work for you.

      Our government tries to restrict corporations from donating (excessive) money to politicians to help avoid a "conflict of interest", ie, so the politician doesn't give big handouts to those corps in the event they are elected, but it doesn't always work too well (our current Vice President being an example). Politicians *DO* have the option of taking essentially a monetary handout from the government for their campaign, but by doing so they are heavily restricted in raising their own funds and generally will not make as much money.

      Hope that helps. It's a quick summary, and there are way more catches and caveats to the process than can be stated here, but it should give you a slight idea.

      What country are you from by the way?
      • burkay, on 12/17/2007, -0/+3Thanks a lot, that was quite helpful. I am Turkish by the way.
    • voisine, on 12/17/2007, -1/+15The problem is that the US is really big. That means that advertising for a political campaign costs tens of millions of dollars to be competitive. Usually this kind of money is raised by going to large corporations that expect to get "access" to the politician once in office. This is a code word for receiving favorable legislation that steals money from the citizenry and gives it to the corporation either by heavily regulating the competition or directly through government contracts. Ron Paul receives no money from such corporate lobbyists. Zero. He has a 30 year record of never once voting against his principles and constitution. He's ignited such passion in the citizens that they're giving him money in exchange for legislation favorable to their liberty.
  • dizilbdog, on 12/17/2007, -14/+4Why Would people give money to Hilary Clinton she Can Buy And Sell Most Any Person in America.
  • stcmoose32, on 12/17/2007, -27/+20(please read before digging down, or else you are just like people who look past your candidate)

    Digg != Ron Paul fundraising tool

    I can appreciate that this website it a wonderful tool (I learn a lot here) and that Ron Paul has a growing base, especially among the tech-savvy, but I have issue with the calls to action of "dig deep and call your friends" and "It is very important that this get to the front page ASAP." The front page should be reserved for things that are hot, important news (or lolcats). I do not dispute that this is related to an important news story, and I'm glad to learn about the most recent predictions, but I really take issue with promoting/advertising/calling for partisan fundraising on this site. It's unfortunate that the rest of Digg has ceded control in this issue and the community standards that were so wonderful on this site have been overwhelmed or overcome.

    Again, I am more than happy to read updates about Ron Paul and learn more about him through Digg, but this is not what I logged in for.
    • danandre, on 12/17/2007, -10/+10Then just filter out the US Election 2008 content.
      • stcmoose32, on 12/17/2007, -3/+10I would , except I like to hear news (emphasis on news) about all candidates. I'd like to think of myself as an informed, open-minded voter, and it makes me sad that someone would suggest filtering out all elections content just because of this. It just goes to show how a wonderful informational tool can be ruined.
        • danandre, on 12/17/2007, -2/+5I fully agree with you, it's just that Digg is what it is. The majority decides whats newsworthy, and certain "subcultures" forms within Digg that actively diggs content which interest them.

          All I'm saying is that if it bothers you too much, filter it out and seek other sites that might better inform you.
          • trogdoor, on 12/17/2007, -0/+2So by that logic Ron Paul supporters should just stop complaining and leave the U.S. ?
          • AdamGeld, on 12/17/2007, -1/+1No, he is saying just don't pay attention to what annoys you. He is not asking you to leave the country. You're as welcome here as anyone else.
        • pictureDIGGER, on 12/17/2007, -4/+4Take a look at how many diggs Ron Paul gets in the upcoming section, even when buried. That is why he is popular here. We don't hear about him on the news, so we promote it on our democratic news outlet. Did Oprah and Obama deserve the hours and hours of publicity they got from the media? NO!
          Here is a list of Ron Paul stories that got 'buried by the community': http://digg.com/search?s=ron+paul&submit=Search&se ...
        • AdamGeld, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1Alright, then if you want to hear news on all of the candidates, you will want to hear about Ron Paul's campaign as well. What's the problem?
    • jjacksonRIAB, on 12/17/2007, -6/+3Yes in addition to that there has been a Ron Paul greasemonkey script out for quite a while. The users here choose the content; we all have to put up with stuff we don't like, so for putting up with those articles I find it rewarding to be able to see one every once in a while that interests me.
      • stcmoose32, on 12/17/2007, -2/+7I guess I draw the line at shameless promoting for a political cause. I am not advocating for a re-write of the code or anything. I guess I wish that Ron Paul's supporters who are also Diggers wouldn't have such a double-standard when it comes to what would otherwise be classified as SPAM on this site.
        • MWeather, on 12/17/2007, -3/+3It's no different than iPhone and Ubuntu. More popularity = more stories.
    • raygunn, on 12/17/2007, -5/+5Digg is for whatever Diggers want. That is the beauty of the system.
      • stcmoose32, on 12/17/2007, -2/+5Yeah, you're absolutely right. But I also felt that Diggers often thought beyond themselves and thought about the overall good of the site. It's just upsetting to realize that I must be completely out of step with Digg. In the words of Will Farrell, "I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!"
    • sp0rk, on 12/17/2007, -3/+6My thoughts exactly. Now let's bury all these silly Ron Paul stories so that the important stuff like the Japanese guy doing the trick baseball throw can get back to the front page.
    • hardwickj, on 12/17/2007, -5/+4It really is hopeless here, especially in the context of this particullar "Digg". These people have gone beyond any logic and reasoning and are simply in the herd/group mentality at this point. It's kind of scary really...
      • stcmoose32, on 12/17/2007, -0/+3The thought had crossed my mind that the primary audience for this message would never click on this story, let alone read deep into the comment. Oh well, much like Dennis Kucinich running for President, some things have little hope but have to be done just on principle.
        • shoeman22, on 12/17/2007, -2/+2Kucinich is a great man. I would definitely vote for him if it came down to him and anyone else aside from Paul. I feel like aiding Paul is more important because of the options that the republicans throw up if he doesn't win. It's a choose your evil situation with Rudy, Huck, or Romney and it's not quite so bad on the Dem side. Hillary would be more of the same IMO, but Obama or even Edwards wouldn't really make me cringe.
      • nlevy, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1you're exactly right. But hey, V for Vendetta was cool!
      • AdamGeld, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1You do realize that you are describing yourself in third person, correct?
    • AdamGeld, on 12/17/2007, -2/+1Then don't read it. We are not forcing you to read this.
    • numb, on 12/17/2007, -2/+3There are tons of submissions on Digg that I have absolutely no interest in. But rather than posting several comments complaining about them, I just skip over them. That frees up my time to read and then comment on the submissions that interest me. Simple and effective.
  • Elderon, on 12/17/2007, -8/+3@ NGliam
    Ok, and where have you gotten these facts? The media? If so no wonder. You do realize who owns the media corps here in the USA most of which are international? If you got your facts from places other than this good for you and hey more power to you for sticking to your opinion, but if you just blindly follow what the news and tv talking head are telling you than your not making an informed decision and I'm glad your not a US citizen to vote.
  • KMT06002, on 12/17/2007, -21/+12Not seeing why this is so urgent
    • WaterMedia, on 12/17/2007, -4/+4We're trying to break a record for most money donated to a political candidate in 24 hours. It is going to be very close.
    • nycmac247, on 12/17/2007, -2/+5By breaking the record we will have a better chance at press coverage, thereby attracting more supporters.
  • HanSolo69, on 12/17/2007, -15/+15Everyone keeps saying "we" and I don't get why.
    • AnarkeIncarnate, on 12/17/2007, -5/+6We are not simply supporting Ron Paul, but see him as a messenger for an idea and a purpose. He has shown, through the years of his existing service that he is an admirable and honorable politician, something unfortunately rare in these times. He is the messenger. We support the message.
    • RickScarf, on 12/17/2007, -4/+5"We" as in "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

      $25 donated, first time I've ever given a hoot about an election.
    • nlevy, on 12/17/2007, -1/+1sucks for us, eh?
    • Nudar, on 12/17/2007, -1/+3Because America is supposed to be democratic, in other words the citizens run the country. Maybe in your country it's a dictator so you can't comprehend.
    • dankpants, on 12/17/2007, -0/+4I feel like I'm a part of something big

      I am part of we
    • AdamGeld, on 12/17/2007, -1/+1We, as in comprising of two or more people. Allow me to quote Websters online dictionary.

      "The plural nominative case of the pronoun of the first person; the word with which a person in speaking or writing denotes a number or company of which he is one, as the subject of an action expressed by a verb."
  • Elderon, on 12/17/2007, -3/+18Is there a breakdown for where the donations come from? I'm always reading articles about how celebs, big companies or lobbiests are donating huge amounts of money to clinton, but almost nothinng about how much indiviual people are donating. I look at the MASSIVE amount of money RP has raised and I know all of it was donated by people like me and not from companies or lobbiests.
  • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 12/17/2007, -52/+14It's hilarious how you're not donating gold-backed money to a pro-gold standard candidate. This fiat currency could inflate by 10000% tomorrow and the donations would be worthless!
    • SiNN4R, on 12/17/2007, -2/+3I regret reflexively burying you.
      • vuke69, on 12/17/2007, -1/+3Regret? Why?
      • AdamGeld, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1Yeah, why? I don't regret it at all. I don't blame him though. He had no idea that we already had gold currency, and that the government confiscated it all. They said it was legal, but since it became so popular, they decided they would take all of our gold/silver/platinum bars from us. Do you like your government doing that to it's people?
        • erasedgod, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1"Do you like your government doing that to it's people?"

          Some people are masochists.
    • WaterMedia, on 12/17/2007, -1/+14That is a great point! So you agree that non gold backed money is bad? Let's change that.

      Thanks for your help Mr.X!
    • pictureDIGGER, on 12/17/2007, -0/+4They raided the Liberty Dollar when they made a Ron Paul commemorative coin. Because gold backed currency is getting too popular.
      • AdamGeld, on 12/17/2007, -0/+2You're damn right they did. What do you have to say about that, XXXXXXXX... ? We had gold currency, but they stole it!
    • healthydose, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1I like X ing the XXXXXXXXX er. :)
    • AdamGeld, on 12/17/2007, -0/+3We WOULD, but the government just took our gold backed currency! We also had silver and platinum backed currency too, but