What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
467 Comments
- HenvY, on 01/10/2008, -24/+411On a trip to Great Britain while he was President of the United States , Bill Clinton had a meeting with Queen Elizabeth. During that meeting he asked her, "How does one manage to run a country so smoothly?"
"That's easy," the Queen replied, "You surround yourself with intelligent ministers and advisors."
"But how can I tell whether they are intelligent or not?", asked Bill.
You ask them a riddle," she replied, and with that she pressed a button and said, "Would you please send Tony Blair in." When Blair arrived, the Queen said, "I have a riddle for you to answer for me.
Your parents had a child and it was not your sister and it was not your brother. Who was this child?"
Blair replied, "That's easy. The child was me."
"Very good," said the Queen. "You may go now."
Sizing up his wife's chances in her presidential bid, and thinking back on that meeting, Bill Clinton spoke to Hillary. He said to her, "I have a riddle for you, and the answer is very important. Your parents had a child and it was not your sister and it was not your brother. Who was that child ?"
Hillary replied, "Yes, it is clearly very important that we determine the answer. Can I deliberate on this for awhile?"
"Yes," said Bill, "I'll give you four hours to come up with the answer."
So Hillary called a meeting of her campaign team, from top to bottom, and asked them the riddle. But after much discussion and many suggestions, none of them had a satisfactory answer. She was quite upset, not knowing what she would tell her husband, the former President. As Hillary was leaving her meeting she ran into her most formidable challenger to her presidential nomination, Barack Obama.
So she said, "Mr. Obama, can you answer this riddle for me? Your parents had a child and it was not your sister and it was not your brother. Who was the child?"
"That's seems pretty easy," said Obama, "I think the child would be me."
"Oh thank you," said Hillary. "You may just have ensured my nomination for the democratic candidate for the Presidency of the United States !" So Hillary went back to Bill and said, "I think I know the answer to your riddle.
The child was Barack Obama.!"
"No, you Dummy !" shouted Bill. "The child was Tony Blair" - comat0se, on 01/10/2008, -6/+186Primaries have very little effect anyways... The Democratic National Committee has 20% superdelegates at their convention that will decide the next nominee. A 20% swing is huge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate
- pbs1914, on 01/10/2008, -19/+175How can Hillary have more delegates than Obama, if they got the same in NH, and Obama definitely had more in Iowa?
- mal1964, on 01/10/2008, -21/+133This story is out of most diggers league
- trotskyist, on 01/10/2008, -2/+109Hillary has significantly more "Superdelegates" (elected officeholders & party officials who are not bound to any sort of popular vote) than Obama does.
Here's a list of who the currently declared superdelegates have endorsed (a link to a list of undeclared superdelegates can be found at the beginning of the article) http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdeleg ... - steveoco, on 01/10/2008, -11/+103The thing that sucks about democracy, is even if one person wins by a narrow margin, thats still half a country that is pissed off with the outcome.
- sobe86, on 01/10/2008, -8/+83Considering its called the democratic party, thats not a very democratic way of doing things.
- Minarchian, on 01/10/2008, -29/+100Exactly.
The Primaries, like the general elections, are a ruse to make people think we have fair elections. When, in reality, they are decided by Party insiders. - mrweasel, on 01/10/2008, -7/+62Someone really need to write an easy to follow guide on how the US elections is suppose to work. I never understood why the US choose to implement the most complicated election system in the world.
I understand that not all countries want a system with primeministers, but at least the avarge person get that he's appointed by the party who got the most votes.
At least answer this "What the ***** is delegate" and "Why do candidates from the same party talk ***** about each other, aren't they on the same side?". - bsmang, on 01/10/2008, -5/+56Excellent joke. Inspires me to tell another I heard a few years back... I'm not a good joke teller, and my memory is bad, but here goes.
So George Bush dies, and as you can imagine, he goes straight to Hell... When he gets there, the devil tells him that Hell is simply too full to be able to accommodate the likes of him. But not wanting to let such a catch go, the devil decides that he'll let out another biggie to make some room. And because he's feeling generous today, he tells George that he'll let him choose for himself which of 3 different rooms he'd like the best. So he leads George down a hallway with 3 doors.
When they get to the first door, the devil swings it open to reveal Ronald Reagan in prison garb and in a prison yard setting. He's swinging a large sledgehammer and breaking rocks. He has a never ending pile of rocks to work through, swinging the hammer over and over again. George sees this and says "Oh, I kinda have a bad back. I'm not sure if I could handle that much physical labor. I think I'll pass on this one." So the devil closes the first door and leads George down the hall to the 2nd door. Inside, George sees an olympic sized swimming pool with a diving board. Richard Nixon is swimming to the edge of the pool. He climbs up out of the water, climbs the ladder to the diving board, and dives into the pool. Again he swims over to the edge. He keeps repeating this over and over again. George shutters, "I can't swim very well, I don't think I could handle this fate."
So they walk down the hall to the 3rd door. Behind it, George sees Bill Clinton lying belly up on a bed, naked, with his hands and feet tied to the corners. Kneeling over him is Monica Lewinsky, doing exactly what we all know her for. She never lets up. Poor Bill is writhing around the bed, unable to affect what's going on, or catch a break or anything. George watches for a little while and then thinks for a moment, and finally says "Yeah, I suppose I could probably handle this for an eternity." Satisfied, the devil smiles and says, "Very well then." And with that, he turns and speaks loudly into the room, "Ok Monica, you're free to go." - inactive, on 01/10/2008, -21/+71Hillary did win NH. Winning NH has nothing to do with delegates, it's such a small state. It's only important because of the snowball effect which leads to subsequent wins. It's why people complain about Iowa and NH getting to decide the president, and it's especially irritating since those idiots in NH were swayed by Hillary's crying stunt.
- inactive, on 01/10/2008, -4/+51Its similar trying to explain why Gore lost the election in Florida, voter "fraud' or not. The popular vote can, and has, elected Presidents in the past while the Electoral College has swayed differently. At the end of the day, our Laws state very clearly who wins elections. Now, a few things to note: The President was never created to represent the people. People on Digg will disagree with me, but anyone with a half a brain and a civics class will know that I'm telling the truth. The President was designed to represent the interests of the United States (as a legal term), its people are represented by Congress, and the law that governs our land is represented by the Supreme Court. Because the Supreme Court is nominated by the President and chosen by Congress, the Founding Fathers most certainly didn't want all three branches inadvertently elected by the citizens of this country. This is wherein people seem to miss the point of what the President is here to do. Ron Paul supporters, for example, are all talk about what he would do if he were elected. News Flash: He still has to get his crazy ideas through Congress, he can't just walk in and make changes. He doesn't and wouldn't represent the people - and for all of you here on Digg that talk about the "Constitution", seems that some of you have no f'ing clue how it works, or more importantly, why it was designed the way it was.
- SickMonkey, on 01/10/2008, -2/+49The problem I see is that we have had 20 years of "leadership" from the Bushes and Clintons. If Hillary gets elected, the trend will be extended at least to 24 years. Come on America, this is a democracy, not a monarchy ruled by two dysfunctional families. Get some fresh blood in there!
- mal1964, on 01/10/2008, -4/+46Not having a democracy makes the whole country pissed off.
- ramilehti, on 01/10/2008, -14/+55Here's how I would summarize the US elections.
The uneducated and the misinformed voting for the fraudulent, lying, unreliable, bought and paid for politicians in a process that is rife with misconduct, rigging, fraud and outright theft to place one of them in a position of power that will be abused.
Did I miss any?
What a democracy needs is an informed public.
And that starts by calling the US a republic because that's what it is. Not a democracy.
There aren't _any_ democratic nations on earth.
All the nations that come close have some sort of representational system in place. Be it a republic or a parliamentary system.
I for one think that a parliamentary system is less prone to corruption.
And I'm not saying that it is perfect. Far from it. - Elliuotatar, on 01/10/2008, -5/+45You know the more I learn about how the election process works, the more I just want to give up on the whole thing, call it a day, and move to another country.
We need to get rid of the primaries and just have a general election where istead of giving each person one vote, each person gets to put all the candidates in the order in which they would like them to be elected president. Then you simply calculate what average position each candidate ended up at on those lists, and whoever's at the top becomes the president. That would ensure that no candidate wins simply because some other candidate was popular but had someone running against them who was equally as popular, and it would remove the need for the primaries atogether. We would likely NEVER have another election where half the country absolutley hated the guy that got chosen, because Bush would have been at the bottom of 50% of the list of half the people that voted. Kerry might still not have won, but whoever did we could all have likely lived with.
And we definitely need to get rid of these "superdelgates". Hillary and Bill are both on there! So hillary automatically gets two delegates! Wtf! - jasqwerty, on 01/10/2008, -15/+50>>The Primaries, like the general elections
Wrong diptick
Primaries and caucuses are private events. A party can decide however they want who they're running as a candidate. They could hold no voting at all, just have party leaders pick a candidate, as most 3rd parties do. - MyNameIsFred, on 01/10/2008, -0/+35Many people forget that the US was started when a federation of independent nations was created. Hence the name United STATES of America, where state is a synonym for nation. Under the Constitution, the individual states gave some power to the federal government but retained many of their powers. Among the powers kept to the states were the running of the elections. (Also there is the legacy of the Senate which originally represented the states and the House of Representative which represented the people.) To this day, the division of power between the states and the federal government is a major issue in American politics.
There is some similarity to the current creation of the European Union. In the same way the election rules and procedures vary between the US states, the election rules and procedures vary in each country in Europe. - wettap, on 01/10/2008, -4/+36It's all about Party purity. True democracy can't be left to the unwashed masses.
- gallyjh, on 01/10/2008, -1/+31That was well worth reading that long comment/joke. haha
- BassCadet, on 01/10/2008, -26/+54Here we go again.
Yet another conspiracy theorist on Digg. Why is it impossible for Diggers to simply *read* about how politics work in this country rather than imply that there is some EVIL conglomerate controlling the media, spinning the NH results as a Hillary win.
First it's this whole Ron Paul debacle, then it's voter fraud by electronic booths, now it's a false victory for Hillary. STOP DIGGING and GO TAKE A CIVICS CLASS. - bsmang, on 01/10/2008, -4/+31Superdelegates suck ass. Makes me not want to even vote in the primaries.
- tanside, on 01/10/2008, -3/+29i'm pretty ***** stupid.
- ReturnToFreedom, on 01/10/2008, -15/+41I'm just becoming old enough that I am starting to get into politics. The more I find out about what the system is liked, the more disturbed I get. Now with this "superdelegates" thing all I can think to ask is, 'what kind of ***** up system am I inheriting?
- theuniversal, on 01/10/2008, -2/+28I would think that if a candidate won the majority of delegates in the primaries yet lost the nomination because of superdelegates, there would be a huge outcry. Does anyone know if this has every happened?
BTW, here's a link to the complete current list of pledged superdelegates:
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdeleg ... - whiledo, on 03/25/2009, -2/+26How is what you're saying disproving what he's saying? He says the primaries are a ruse so that people think they're choosing the candidate. He didn't say the party COULDN'T decide however they want. He's saying the way they're doing it is intentionally deceptive.
- secrity, on 01/10/2008, -0/+23Add to that the fact that all of these rules were created before electronic communication and motorized transportation.
- bomb288, on 01/10/2008, -9/+30I agree, at first she was trying to go for this image of a "powerful" woman who was just as good as any male candidate if not better, but that wasn't working for her so she used sexism to her advantage and faked tears in order to win. Honestly, so much for being powerful, not only crying over such a little thing, but instead of disproving the "women are weak" stereotype she just played into it and now everyone feels bad for her.
- bschonec, on 01/10/2008, -3/+22The US is not a democracy. It's a democratic republic. And no, if one person wins by a narrow margin in a democracy, you could have a whole bunch more than 1/2 the people pissed off. Remember the Clinton years? More people voted AGAINST him in 92 than voted for him. (Three major candidates in the election)
- drgreenberg, on 01/10/2008, -0/+19Some of the confusion here stems from confusing primaries with elections. They are not. The US Constitution provides for an election for President but does not specify how the candidates are chosen, other than providing certain basic criteria such as US citizenship and 35 or older. Just as in other countries, parties arose here as power bases to consolidate similar points of view and agenda and select candidates accordingly and a combination of party rules and state laws determines how this is done. The primary system, used by most states, seems like an election. However, its really in the realm of party rules and state law in the name of a party selecting a candidate. Primaries are not elections themselves. The way delegates are assigned and so forth may seem odd and are subject to change because they are internal to a parties mechanism for utlimately putting forth a candidate to run in the national election.
The electoral college system of managing the national election has been a point of contention for years. A lot of mathematical analysis has gone into studying this and other alternatives and the EC isn't necessarily the best system. However, its origins come from the fact that, at the birth of the nation, a delicate balance between state and national power had to be reached to convince states to sign on to the constitution and enter the union. Small states wanted to be counted as equals to larger states in some ways despite their smaller populations. Hence a Congress that has two houses, one with representation proportional to population and one with a fixed 2 seats per state. The electoral college extends this compromise to the election system, with the winning candidate in each state getting to send a number of delegates to the electoral college equal to the total number of Congressional reps (and thus reflecting both the sovereignty of the state itself as well as the size of the population). The idea is that this forces candidates to pay attention to all states during an election, even smaller ones like Rhode Island and Delaware. - DephexTwin, on 01/10/2008, -3/+22Dude, don't be a caucus blocker.
- sodade, on 01/10/2008, -5/+23The problem is, as you start to learn how our system of government works, you realize that the beautiful thing created by our founding fathers has not evolved (in a positive way) in a long time. The system is now failing us because we failed to evolve it into the modern world...
- bfdhud, on 01/10/2008, -0/+18You should read the wikipedia article, Republicans may not have Superdelegate's but they have 123 unpledged delegates that are part of the Republican National Committee.
So they have something similar they just don't use the same name. - Arbinshire, on 01/10/2008, -2/+19It's one of the first things they teach in political science, hell, it's one of the first things they teach in grade school. The United States is not, nor was it ever, a true Democracy. It is a representative democracy; It is a republic. The founders of our country did not believe in a true democracy as they didn't trust the general public. And by the looks of some of the comments on Digg, I can clearly see why.
So now, what's your point? - animalwheeler, on 01/10/2008, -8/+25It's funny that only the Dems use superdelegates.
And I find it extremely ironic that superdelegate's vote counts more important than others. And they are elected officilas, party leaders, etc. So what the "party for the people" is telling you, is the common persons vote is not as important as a "big fish" vote.
The "important people" hold more clout than the people they fight so hard to say they support. - cruzlee, on 01/10/2008, -2/+18"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting what's for lunch." --Noam Chomsky
- NaziHatinChimp, on 01/10/2008, -0/+16Wasn't Iowa a caucus and wasn't this a primary?
- thejokker, on 01/10/2008, -2/+16where is the fraud?
- PHiZ187, on 01/10/2008, -0/+13What will be interesting is if we end up not having a clear winner by the time the convention rolls around. Usually the delegates are only a formality, because one candidate takes an overwhelming lead and the other candidates drop out, either to save face or to avoid a contentious convention fight. But with such craziness in the primary (starting early, super tuesday, not seating FL and MI delegates) we could see an actual nominating convention. Now, what I think will be interesting is if the superdelegates are the deciding factor in the nominating process. I wonder if there will be a public backlash once the media starts educating people (hope springs eternal) about the superdelegates and their undemocratic influence...
- divrekku, on 01/10/2008, -0/+13Its like in American Gladiators... all the events other then the final even are ultimately meaningless. The winner is determined by who wins the final bout.
.... I'm trying to compare everything to American Gladiators this week. Digg me down, I don't care. - ohiomama, on 01/10/2008, -2/+15if you think hillary will pull through at the end due to honest to goodness "hard work" then you just might be DELUSIONAL. the only thing hillary's working hard at is pandering to big companies and neo-cons. oh, and practicing crying.
- Arbinshire, on 01/10/2008, -9/+22Here's a tip: People who disagree with your opinions are not "idiots" contrary to the running views on Digg, one's individual thoughts are not always EVERYONES thoughts. People have differing views, maybe in time you'll learn this.
- spider418, on 01/10/2008, -6/+18Don't you read the Internet!? Ron Paul should be at least at 86.7%
- inactive, on 01/10/2008, -1/+13it isn't a bush joke. we have a similar version in India with other people in it. i guess, its one of the very old jokes that change the principle characters with change in time.
- Y2JCrisis, on 01/10/2008, -4/+15I don't know if "women" the group don't deserve to be president because of this, but a woman who does do it shouldn't be president. A woman who doesn't do it, sure.
- deadmoo, on 01/10/2008, -1/+12And the DNC stripped a few states of all their delegates as a form of punishment for holding their primaries earlier than they wanted them to.
- nedaf7, on 01/10/2008, -1/+12Perhaps he thinks (as I would) that if someone were swayed to his preferred candidate by such a stunt, he would also consider them idiots.
- radstopper, on 01/10/2008, -6/+17Wait, is Hillary Clinton or General Zod running for president here? Because if voting is irrelevant...
- MindStalker, on 01/10/2008, -0/+11No they aren't split between all candidates. Superdelegates are all democratic congressmen plus other important democrats. They vote however they feel like.
- Arbinshire, on 01/10/2008, -4/+14Wow. Link to a blog that doesn't cite its sources or show any real data to back up its allegations.
Yes, Fraud indeed. -
Show 51 - 100 of 469 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