What is Digg?104 Comments
- jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24I don't care if you're Democrat or Republican, Green Party or Libertarian, but the media wield incredible power over which candidate is selected. Remember when Howard Dean was the front-runner in the Democratic primaries by a long shot? He was the dark horse candidate whom the public liked, until the media blacklisted him that is. Remember that? Then all the liberals were left to vote for was Kerry. Remember the free ride the media gave Bush in 2000? They almost never even called him on blatant lies, but as soon as Gore even made a misstep when speaking it was a national scandal.
The reason these candidates have no chance is precisely because they are excluded by the media. - lilyrdape, on 10/12/2007, -9/+29Make sure you email ABC and let them know whats up.
www.RonPaul2008.com
They will do anything to shut Paul up because he is the only one honest about what the rest don't want
you to know... - UrbanOne, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18AND, at the bottom of the page, it says :
* ABC News/Washington Post Poll: January 19, 2007
So, four and a half month old news? Were Ron Paul or Make Gravel candidates at that point?
Why has no other MSM org picked this up? Removing candidates from news and polls is a bigger story than the first debate... - inrain, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17Yahoo is screwing the public too. All of the major "news" outlets are (Yahoo, MSNBC, ABC News, CBS News, etc.). These outlets put America to shame. No actual candidate should be silenced, especially in something as serious as a presidential race. It's a disgrace to everything we supposedly "fight for" as a country.
*********
Please Digg to Stop Yahoo:
*********
NOTE: This was originally posted just for Mike Gravel but please apply it to all who might be missing (Ron Paul, etc.)
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Yahoo_Where_s_Mike_Gravel - JWav3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Bass:
Your Crazy if you think the US Politicians can continue to spend money without caring that it inflates the money supply.
In 2005 The government spent 1.2 trillion on a war, and 600 billion on a hurricane. (on top of everything else)
The dollar is at an all time low.
10 years ago gold was around $340 an ounce. Today its at $686.
Is gas going up or is the dollar going down?
This is why we support Ron Paul.. but on to the points you listed..
Ron Paul has mentioned he is PRO stem cell research. He said "I don't see why you cant use the fetus taken from a tubal pregnancy for research."
Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (good, choice in school is a good thing.)
Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (good, the Kyoto Protocol is unfair to the US)
I for one don't care WHAT China does, so long as they aren't shooting at us.
Voted YES on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released. (hmm.. no opinion)
Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Why can't you use your own money as you like?)
Voted YES on continuing military recruitment on college campuses. (good, if the school wants them there then this is ok. make a case by case basis.)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (good, Paul delivering 4,000 babies himself may have put him close to this issue) - sollycardy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15email ABC here
http://abcnews.go.com/Site/page?id=3052660 - thepompano, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@bigdavediode
You say that they don't cover Ron Paul simply because he doesn't have a chance, but you're looking at a .pdf without a date on it, which includes statistics which predate his announcement of candidacy. There aren't any guidelines that tell you what makes a candidate eligable for appearing on the .pdf, either. That's why I think it's either a simple mistake and that anyone who says this is "intentional corporate censorship" is looking too far into it. ABC News wouldn't include Ron Paul in internet polls if they were trying to "hide" him from the mainstream. By the way, this guy has been spamming his own submission on every single Ron Paul page and it's probably inaccurate. - Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10"But if you ask his followers, he's got excuses!"
It's not a question of excuses, it's a question of principles. If a bill is unconstitutional, it should be voted against at ALL times, even if you personnally support some of its provisions. Those bills are usually full of pork too. - PBronstein, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Well what do you expect from ABC? They have a thousand names of Washington elites tied to the DC Madam and they are keeping mum for 998 of them. They are cowering hacks for the corrupt status quo. With the madam story we have significant national security issues since people from the Pentagon have been implicated, but ABC apparently doesn't find that important. You shouldn't have a clearance if you are running around with prostitutes, that is a basic spying technique.
Back to Ron Paul. Just like the DC Madam story, they will provide aid and comfort to the Washington Aristocracy and the Multinational interest. When Media Consolidation was being discussed, how much news coverage did that get in the 90s? What about the current actions of the SPP and their attempt to erode our sovereignty? Do you see a pattern. The MSM doesn't represent us. We need to show the American People just how irrelevant they are by pushing for Ron Paul and eventually more Americans will wake from their Big 5 slumber and pick up on the foul scent that is coming from the Washington power structure with the MSM as a big part. - inrain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@eicos
They're not major candidates because they have not yet been able to get fair coverage. Gravel was entirely unknown. Then the first democratic debate happened, 8 Democrats. And Gravel stole the show! Prior to this the main candidate I was considering was Obama. Mike Gravel, however, after learning more about him, was amazing. He was the type of person so many liberals have been waiting for to come along and bring greatness.
I like to know what candidates actually exist. I try to be open minded and check out who's "the best." Gravel, without a doubt, is the real deal.
So please, don't be against people who want all the main candidates to be *shown* by our news organizations. Just a week ago, the HD DVD ordeal brought Digg to its knees. The matters of censorship across the board by our US media is a problem infinitely larger. - BlakeEM, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@basscadet
I digg you down because you have no idea what you’re talking about. He voted against these things because they are things the government should not regulate, he wants to leave it at a state level. Also he thinks women should be able to do whatever they want with there body. He may not like abortion but he’s strongly for people to make up there own minds and he wouldn’t try to stop them. Maybe if you watched some ***** videos of him speaking/explaining his views instead of trying to miss-represent his views people wouldn’t digg you down.
He is for free unregulated internet. Would stop drug war. Stop the federal reserve system. Stop the governments abuse of power and maybe actually follow this great thing we have called the constitution.
If you haven’t noticed these issues are very popular on digg, as are stories on these issues. This is why he is so popular. By not realizing why he votes that way you completely miss the point.
His foreign policy is that of a strong self defense, this worked very well in the cold war, and there is no reason it can’t still work. We don’t need to be policing the world. Let them do what they want, if we don’t get involved with ***** in other countries so much we’d have a lot less enemies and would be a hell of al lot safer. Trade with countries, much like we trade with Vietnam now. This is how you make changes in the world. You put sanctions on a country and the people turn to there government and next thing you know you have another North Korea.
This is someone who obviously isn’t in it for money or power but in it for the people and this is why he’s so popular.
As for voting against partial birth abortion (unless the mothers life is at risk, as that bill he voted for stated). I'm atheist and I agree with that vote. At that point the child feels and could potentially survive outside the womb. - thepompano, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Ron Paul formed an exploratory committee on January 11th, and formally announced his presidency on March 12th. Mike Gravel formally announced his presidency as late as April 17. Perhaps the site hasn't been updated since January.
- nixfu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Well, at one time the French and American Revolutionaries all sounded alike, and even fought together for our freedoms.
- Eicos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I'll tell you why it is. It's because, at most, a few tens of thousands of committed Diggers and libertarians are behind any recognition that Ron Paul has. While Paul has breakaway momentum in the Digg echo chamber, practically nobody else has heard of him. I cite figures from the www.intrade.com prediction market, an online futures market that has historically been the most accurate way to predict the results of elections. While it's too early to call, at 0.5%, Paul is still behind Condoleeza Rice and Michael Bloomberg, two people who are not even running.
If it seems like the mainstream media is ignoring you, it's because they are. There simply aren't enough of you to matter unless you can find some wider appeal. One thing that won't work is trying to influence already-unscientific snap polls on MSM websites, which is about the same as stuffing the ballot box. If you really believe that Paul's rhetoric is the wave of the future, why don't you start a PAC for Ron Paul or join his campaign? You'll need to, because it's clear at this moment that the ball is in the Democrats' court, and they don't like cutting government programs. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12Just to let you know - Digg has been burying Ron Paul articles all yesterday and today. Fair speech my ass! haha
- thepompano, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8You sound like a French Revolutionary.
- gmason08, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@eicos-"despite my B.S. in economics"
eicos did your studies teach you that economics is a static discipline with one school of thought? Do you believe the book is closed, unanimous opinion, no further research, no competing theories. Is there a "Grand Unification Theory" in the field of Economics that has repeatedly stood experimental testing and peer review without fail but is known only to you and a select few? Please enlighten the rest of us on such a development so we may start sending out pink slips to all the practicing Economists.
Your trotting out a B.S. in Economics with your other statements only serves to demonstrate:
a) The sad state of education in America/World
b) The level of politicization of science
c) You need to do further study re: the discipline of Economics/the current state of activity in same - JLyles, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12
Take action. Contact info:
Senior VP of Media Relations Jeffrey Snyder: 646-210-9367
ABCNews.com: 212-456-4396
Media Relations: 212-456-3587
Media Relations Executive Director: 212-456-6190
News Coordinator: 212-456-3742
ED News Media Relations: 202-222-6896 - gmason08, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4eicos-"We here are all really, REALLY tired of you."
Could you provide evidence that you have been given authority to speak for ALL of Digg?
I am here, I have not ever, nor will I ever give you nor anyone else the authority to speak for me.
I am not least tired of what interpaul has to say or anyone else even you eicos. Let people speak, let all decide for themselves. Stop trying to be a tyrannical censor.
BTW, your trying to make people think that your having a B.S. in Economics makes you a final word, end of discussion arbiter in that area is consistent with your censor/stifle discussion attitude here. - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6That's right, the torpid, befuddled middle is too busy watching American Idol to bother with politics on- or off-line.
- hagbard72, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7If you want to know WHY Ron Paul takes the stands he does on particular issues (he doesn't opposed steam cell research, btw), check this archive:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html
Ron Paul has been writing position papers for Lew Rockwell for years. Sometimes you scratch your head trying to figure out how a libertarian like Paul would take a position that isn't always libertarian, but after you read what he says, you see why and often agree. - SultanTravi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4ABC is ***** in general. That PDF has Hillary's last name spelled "Clintonn."
- PoeticExplosion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5They were both in the first national debates, unlike some people on that list. As to your second comment, I have supported Ron Paul for a lot longer than he's been running for president. Some of us pay attention to national politics outside the election season. (Gravel I hadn't heard of until a few months ago, but surely the national debate should be enough to get him at least a cursory mention...)
- DrStrabismus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6This story is also on Reddit: http://reddit.com/info/1nzd1/comments
Give it a point, people need to know about this! - h00ligan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5lol, the only hope the dems have of beating either mccain or the ny faker is Dean. Obama and Hillary don't stand a chance, and Edwards is a pompous pretty boy slickster with limited appeal and credibility.
If people would actually listen to what Paul is saying, you'd be surprised how the partisan ***** could vanish. - sollycardy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7This was my message to ABC:
After going to http://abcnews.go.com/politics, going to '08 Campaign and clicking on "See who's running for 2008" I was outraged to see how this pdf document does not contain all the presidential runners. It contains a list of 12 republicans and 9 democrats, none of which are Ron Paul or Mike Gravel. Ron Paul and Mike Gravel have filed everything they need to run as presidential candidates AND they were in the NSMBC debates last week. If ABC is not biased it should not exclude them from ANY lists of who's running for president. Ron Paul is running as a republican and Mike Gravel is running as a democrat. - mrgreen4242, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Oh god, I hope they nominate Guilliani. ANYONE would crush him. No Democrat will vote for him. No "real" Republican will - I mean, how can you be a member of a party who make "family values" a major platform item and then vote for an adulterer? Throw in his recent support for a President with an approval rating of ~20%... it's like he doesn't want to win.
Man, if the Dems give Hillary a go, and she goes up against Guilliani, we could see a 3rd party with a real chance next year. Wouldn't that be something. - JWav3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I don't get it.. I don't believe in the giant conspiracy theorys but.. They couldn't have all gotten together and decided to remove info about Dr. Paul?? right? I mean it's clear though they *are* trying to keep him out for some reason.. What are they afraid of?
I'm confused by this.. does anyone know why this is? - Craig42, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@basscadet
You're missing the point. You can give me all the facts you have. Are you trying to justify the media's approach at making certain candidates invisible? You're getting dugg down because you're not really addressing what the article is about, instead trying to attack Ron Paul.
This is about equality in the coverage of EVERY candidate, no matter what they voted on. Spew you're facts in a digg article about facts on Ron Paul. This is about the rights of a candidate in an election to become your president. - inrain, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Yeah, I can't believe some of these comments. How could someone not feel outraged at the major media conglomerates not including all major candidates on the list? Gravel, for instance, had the most buzz after the debate. He stole the show, deservedly. Prior to that he was nearly completely unknown. Think about that for a second. Then once the "news" outlets/elite realize, "oh *****, this guy will have a chance if more people see him" they -- literally -- don't include him. Seriously think about that. This should give you a little clue into how dangerous and easy it is for people in power to control what you know.
And I'm not talking about all the geeks here who already support Gravel. They already know. What I'm worried about are the 99% of regular people who will never come across these real, serious candidates, unless the media offers fair coverage.
US Citizens: YOU SHOULD BE OUTRAGED. Or do your feel the American people deserve less? - dmjarrington, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@bigdavediode
you're a nut. - gmason08, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@eicos-Nice of you to finally, clearly state your motivation for working to suppress Ron Paul instead of hiding behind false pretenses like defending the integrity of Digg or that you care about a rational political/electoral process. Fair enough, you have now done better than most that purport to be neutral but are only doing partisan service. Partisanship is fine if you identify/declare your partisanship and stay away from meaningless, distracting, red herring arguments, as well as, debate from a position of honesty like not deliberately distorting the views of your candidates opponents.
- Taciturn, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7I don't think "Digg" has been burying anything. Digg users, on the other hand, tend not to want a dozen duplicate articles on the front page.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4amen
- Eicos, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Even if we had been burying your articles all today or yesterday, what of it? Digg is a one-of-a-kind social aggregator. It is not a billboard for your propaganda. "Fair speech" (or did you mean "free"?) only means that the government doesn't interfere with your ability to express yourself. It has nothing to do with Diggers getting tired of your aggressive partisanship and deciding to turn you off.
- Eicos, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Take your campaign somewhere it will actually reach people who care. We here are all really, REALLY tired of you.
- masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@basscadet:
The Kyoto protocol is damn near impossible for the U.S. to implement without ~massive~ money dedicated to implementing it, abortion isn't necessarily what a woman does with her body, but what a woman does to something in her body (and many people would argue it's outright murder), and standing up to China would be economic suicide. - jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Doesn't matter who it is. If they aren't covering them, they are influencing election results. It's not your call or theirs who gets how many votes. According to your logic the election is over and we can all go home now. The point is that with media exposure for ALL candidates, the public can make a better choice. You can't make an informed decision if you aren't informed.
- jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4That's where you get tickets to TV show tapings dude ... in Burbank.
- hagbard72, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Like I pointed out in the other thread regarding Fox News not reporting on Ron Paul, its because he doesn't play ball with the most powerful interest group in America, the one who uses any means to prevent those who don't owe total allegiance political defeat. I'm sure Gravel won't play ball either.
ABC News is the worst of the lot. Try asking this factual question in their forum and see how long it is before you're booted out: "which country in the middle east has nukes and other WMD, has a history of invading its neighbors, represses minorities and has carried out political assassinations of foreign enemies?" I didn't get though the statement before they banned me permanently from their forums. You cannot criticize this particular country in any way, shape or forum in the US and expect to be heard. No matter what they do, no matter how guilty they are, the US government ALWAYS supports them and does their bidding. Your government is bought (so is mine, btw).
(sarcasm mode on)No wonder the US is so loved outside the US (sarcasm mode off). - BobSutan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Go here:
http://abcnews.go.com/Site/page?id=3052660
This is what I just sent them:
"Were is the coverage of Ron Paul or Mike Gravel? Your site doesn't even list them as presidential candidates. Considering they're the most popular independents out there its a bit odd that there is no mention of them. Moreso it makes me question ABC's objectivity as a journalistic source given the perception of favoritism in omitting such political luminaries." - FunkBuddha, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Here's a link to contact information at MSNBC. It got buried for some reason so I'm posting it to all Ron Paul articles i can find.
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Manic_Monday_at_MSNBC_Courtesy_of_Ron_Paul_Supporters#c6539831 - mrgreen4242, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2">Doesn't matter who it is. If they aren't covering them, they are influencing election results.
So they need to put the communist candidate, the green party candidate, the socialist candidate, the Marxist-Lenninist candidate, the Natural Law Party candidate, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
There'll be 300 candidates on their list if they do that. There's no point."
Yes, they should. They don't have to give equal space to them all, but they should have to at least say who, what party, a brief statement from the candidate, and a link to their homepage. They should also be required to give equal space in any questionnaire based voters guide to all candidates who are officially running. - Eicos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3If you didn't exclude people at 1%, the list would be 300 candidates long.
- nixfu, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5
Hahahaha....Digg TOTALLY SHOWS itself for just how OUT OF the mainstream of America its views are with these articles. People here think they are the "norm" but for the most part are nothing but the KOOK fringes of both the left and right. - johnkahoun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1My own letter to ABC news. Was sent to http://abcnews.go.com/Site/page?id=3052660
To whom it may concern:
I find it shameful and unconscionable your treatment of
Ron Paul and his candidacy. As you know, each of us
individually have little power over your editorial decisions
regarding the 2008 election. Be that as it may, the story of
policies regarding Congressman Paul has legs. And as a
result of your disdain for fair play, I will make it a point to
avoid your programming, Walt Disney or anything else
related to your corporation going forward. In addition I
plan on voicing my concerns about your policies with
friends and relatives.
Sincerely,
John Kahoun MD
Do write the MF's - FLUX, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3WOW yours was the first intelligent response I have seen on here in quite a while
THANK YOU - eatmorgnome, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3The funny thing is that most of the people here frothing at the mouth aren't even going to bother to vote in their primaries anyway.
- Eicos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Dude, keeping an old page on the server is something that everybody does at some time. If they really wanted to conspire to fix the election, they would do it much more effectively, c.f. the Howard Dean "scream."
- randge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2In a word , yes.
This is war. -
Show 51 - 100 of 103 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is