What is Digg?139 Comments
- masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+54Now if only the people on the internet would VOTE this coming election...
- PBronstein, on 10/12/2007, -7/+55Wouldn't it be something if this is the beginning of the new age of politics, like how we were taught in school that Nixon won the debate on radio and Kennedy won the debate on TV. The internet is the new medium and we all know who is the candidate that will keep it free forum for ideas.
- MoragArkadia, on 10/12/2007, -12/+30Ron Paul at this point represents the only alternative to more of the same. His points regarding fiscal responsibility and individual liberty resonate well. If nothing else it was refreshing to realize there are actually Republicans still out there. Long live the Republic!
- Jesse, on 10/12/2007, -13/+29Online polls are MEANINGLESS, and if you think different you've already drunk the Kool-Aid.
- BassCadet, on 10/12/2007, -31/+44@bigdavediode
"You guys fixed the online polls just like you fix digg. In actual polls Paul's within the margin of error of ZERO."
In the fantasy world of Digg and the "blogosphere", it would appear that Ron Paul and Mike Gravel will be the two candidates we get to choose from.
In the world of reality, neither of these two candidates are more than a blip on the radar. Neither espouse ideas that mature, educated, voting Americans support.
Digg me down if you want, but this is the reality of the situation. If you want Digg to become even further out of touch with the real world, so be it. Me, I'd rather have Digg reflect real solutions and not the daydreams of isolationist quacks. - popothebright, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15@basscadet
Well if you don't think Digg constitutes the "real world", consider that Ron Paul also won the MSNBC televised opinion poll.
Is that also "not the real world"? What's the "real world" to you? Fox News? - number5, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15i may be a Democrat, but i would vote for him if it meant there would be a flat tax,and no more IRS
- HerrEisenheim, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14No kidding. At least the offline "scientific" polls make an attempt at getting a random sample.
When your sample consists of people who all go to the same website...well, you've got a problem. - leftfoot, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14Ron Paul is only running as a republican for exposure, he's really a libertarian at heart.
- danconia, on 10/12/2007, -15/+22For those of you on Facebook, join the largest Ron Paul group here:
http://usc.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2229718737
Invite friends and in general just spread the word. - wvannus, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Lincoln also declared an unconstitutional war, jailed his political opponents, and his little war is on eof the reasons why America has an income tax.
- brokekneck, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11 Much like with any political affiliation. Its very rare when you see a person that fallows a strict guideline of the political compass. When I say this I mean someone is left, right, authoritarian or libertarian. In my opinion Ron Paul is a much needed entity in today's world. I personally see the federal government becoming to authoritarian. And to counter act that. I will be voting for a libertarian. In some regard your right. Free Trade might not work. But that's only right now. This caused mainly by companies that have lobbied there way to where they are now. A perfect example of this is medication. Why is the price so high? Well its cheaper we know this for fact in Canada. The FDA will not allow for importation of medication which drives the price's up here.I'm a libertarian in my social beliefs. And that's where allot of people stand. Even you probably stand there. We can discuss how socialism is a monopoly if you'd like.
- inurb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9I hope to fox news includes Ron Paul in the Carolina debate. It would be such a shame for the only true republican candidate with a different viewpoint than the other republicans to be excluded from the debate.
- SultanTravi, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13Governmental intervention causes as much damage to our lives and what we ingest, use, and pay, if not more, than free trade and corporate greed would.
Anyway, it's not like becoming president means he will completely change everything. Sure, he will change a lot, but Congress won't let him go too far. It would be a great balance and a way for Americans to see what freedom is truly like.
@crimsoneer
He's not pro-life any more than John Kerry or Hillary Clinton, both of whom think abortion is wrong. He simply understands that the Constitution gives everything not enumerated in it to the states, and abortion is definitely not in the Constitution (unless you buy the tripe about privacy being implied which implies privacy with regards to the womb).
Ron Paul is by no means anti-violent games, at least not in the sense that it would affect us. First and foremost he realizes the federal government should have no say in what games I play.
In conclusion, grow a brain. - becomethesea, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8I would weep for joy if he actually got the GOP nod.
- Jeffmr1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Ok cmon, if you look at the poll Ron Paul had 9% at the beginning, at this time, with votes just slightly over the original number cast, Ron Paul has advanced well beyond any candidate. If we were bombing that poll, there would either be a) way more votes than originally cast or b) a higher starting position for Ron Paul. Face it, an outspoken candidate does well and you guys just hate it. (Note: The MSNBC poll only allows one vote and apparently clearing cookies doesn't allow extra voting, something that i have to do at work quite often, so there's no way that we 'voted 100 times'.)
- aknappjr, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13Ron Paul doesn't have a PR team. His PR team is people like me who like his ideas. And we like the internet (the free internet). And freedom.
- simardown, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10OK - seriously - are you people ***** retarded? this means absolutely nothing. Ron Paul leads in online polls, among republican candidates, because people who would never vote in republican primaries or vote republican are voting for him due to his anti-war stance. if you have ONLY republicans voting, he wouldn't be winning. and if you had a leading democrat in there (hillary or obama), he wouldn't be winning. as he is the only republican debating who is against the war, every liberal (and some anti-war republicans) votes for him, swamping the competition that splits the remainder of the vote.
common ***** sense.
this is only my second post...my first being an expression of shock over the fellating of mike gravel, even though the guy can barely put together a cogent, actual policy. - painted82, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Am I wrong or does everyone that opposes Ron Paul seem like an idiotic sheep or a government infowar operative?
Seriously... you gotta be a ***** idiot to choose an NWO puppet over, as someone aptly put, "founding father material" like Ron Paul... - painted82, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4If you had a brain, you would know that Ron Paul is not the flip flopping NWO puppet that Kerry is... Kerry and Bush are cousins and they vacation together. If you're going to draw comparisons, don't compare apples with oranges... dumb ass.
- geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I find it shocking how Fox News makes up excuses for not including Ron Paul. In reality, they find his ideas dangerous and enticing, so they don't want you to know about him.
- NSResponder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4" he keeps saying that the Constitution doesn't allow the federal government to do anything."
He's never said anything of the kind. What he has said is that a lot of what the federal government does isn't constitutional, and he's right about that.
If you want to know what the federal government is allowed to do constitutionally, read the constitution. It's not written in greek or chinese, it's easy enough to understand.
-jcr - mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Sorry to be the one to point this out to you, but Digg is user-run. The users vote it to the front page, else it would be buried before it got there.
- edebolt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Natmaster. yes Lincoln was indeed a visionary but lets not forget a few things.
1) lincoln won with only 40% of the vote. 3 way race.
2) was incredibly unpopular president
3) by modern impatient and short sighted standards would have been impeached and lynched by now - byelobog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@dagamer34
Please read the constitiution - endrid, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Everyone!!! WE ARE LIKE THE ANTS AGAINST THE GRASSHOPPERS! We can win because we have the numbers, and we have the power... They try to convince us that we don't have the power... but finally we have the means to be united through the internet. As Ron Paul said, "FREEDOM UNITES US!" We can set aside our political differences between left and right politics if we can all agree that freedom is the most important political issue in our country. And no other issue should be more emphasized than that of personal freedom!! That is what Ron Paul stands for, and that is why we are behind him!! The mainstream media is obviously trying to limit his coverage and we are all aware of that!! DISREGARD THEIR LIES!!! VOTE FOR RON PAUL! It will NOT be a wasted vote!!!!!!!!
- jeanette3654, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Like I keep saying, look at the guy's voting record!! What in the hell is so difficult to understand about that? It's based on my research into Dr. Paul's voting record that I'm voting for him. There is a lot of material to read through granted, but the record speaks for itself. Is it so tough to get your ass in gear, get off the blogs and do some substantive work on the Internet?
We REALLY are dealing with Founding Father material here in our lifetimes. We have an unprecedented opportunity to undo some of the evil that has be done in our names, and if we piss this precious chance away, well then on our heads be it. We will deserve the curses that our descendants heap on us, that is if we have any! - painted82, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@endrid
Right on... I don't plan going going down or giving up without putting up a good fight against the establishments, mainstream media, and mindless, brainwashed sheep who follow it! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+12All of this spam is giving me a reason to dislike Ron Paul. Be reasonable people.
- Phendrana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2All I hope is that somebody who's god damn reasonable gets elected, be they democrat or republican. I'm not sure how much more of this polarized horse-***** puppet candidacy I can take. I'm just about sick of being a back-flipping ape in this self-serving ego-centric driven world we've fallen in to. It's turning into nothing more than a popularity contest. Whether Ron Paul is the answer or not, we need a candidate who serves the PEOPLE rather than themselves.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"To clarify: He will lose the Republican primaries if he favors gun control or abortion and probably if he doesn't come out against gay marriage."
He'll lose every decent American's vote if he favors gun control or abortion... probably not the case with gay marriage, though. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Nevada's a "wild card" this year.. but I don't think the Internet's conspiracy theorizing Libertarians have the numbers to get Ron Paul many (if any) delegates... even there
- lopla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Now all he has to do it state abortion should be illegal & gays are evil. Then he'll win. Seriously that is what the presidency is based on every 4yrs now and if he doesn't say it, he'll lose, simple as that.
- firepig, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5There's an interesting comment above that says Ron Paul says the Constitution doesn't allow the government to do anything. This is misleading. He may have said it doesn't allow the government to do anything other than the enumerated powers specified in the Constitution.
The government is becoming ever larger and more intrusive. The founding fathers had it right. The only question now is will the people ever come to their senses and elect someone like Ron Paul who will allow the rubber band of government to shrink back down to a size consistent with liberty, or will be allow the rubber band to break.
Ron Paul is not mainstream, as someone above has said. That's because he is a Diogenes running around shining a light on the Constitution. That's out of fashion these days, as we've almost come to the point of worshiping government and expecting it to solve every problem.
As for those who are tired of hearing about Ron Paul, what about those of us who, all our lives, have had to endure endless rantings about so-called mainstream politicians?! Sure, some of his supporters have gone overboard. I would argue, however, that is nothing compared to Bush and Clinton sycophants.
Don't we all agree the coming debates should cover the political spectrum? Don't we all believe that the free flow of ideas is a good thing? It's revolutionary these days, but is it really so far out to say government is more a part of the problem rather than the solution? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Freedom of expression, bitch.
If you don't like the topic, then stay off it. No one's holding a gun to your head."
I can't stop laughing at how much of a total ass you are - texdc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://www.savage-productions.com/webpoll_debate.html
Here's another poll. Get on it! - delong, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"We're just trying to gather support for Ron Paul"
Then why point to an online poll with obvious deficiencies as "demolishing" other Republican candidates, when clearly he did not in any scientific polling situation? I think you're the one lacking in gray matter. - nygrissplz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Gravel vs. Ron Paul would be 50x better.
Gravel is like the Democratic Ron Paul in many respects, it seems. - nygrissplz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Not quite sure what you mean by that but I live in Chicago myself. I'm not an Obama fan. Is there something wrong with me? Nope.
- sentime, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4You can't expect the mainstream to get Ron Pauls message out. Make flyers, tape them to lamp posts, drop them on peoples front porch. Expose the MSM bias. It's 9 months to election, enough time to make a baby and plenty of time to get the liberty message out.
- texdc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://www.vote.com/vote/60503543/index.phtml?cat=4075633
Sorry, I found this after the above message timed out. We have work to do! - AngryRepublican, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4You know, I feel like I'm the only one saying this, but online polls are hardly scientific. Look at random phone samplings and Paul and Gravel's numbers evaporate. These user-submitted news sites (Digg, Reddit, etc) have a strong leaning towards libertarianism, and also have a much greater mobilization capacity. I think think the result is highly skewed data, to the point of making these polls even more useless than they usually are.
That said, I like some of the positions of Gravel and Paul, but these online polls greatly inflate their strength. I'd be surprised if either got more than 5% of their primary vote, even after some especially colorful showings in these debates. - NSResponder, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4The flat tax would be a marginal improvement, but that's what we started with. As long as there's an income tax, the congress will continue to sell manipulation of the tax code. That's why it needs to be abolished, and replaced with the Fair Tax.
-jcr - delong, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm not going to "explain you" anything. If you can't manage proper grammar, it is doubtful you'd understand proper statistical sampling and biases. Look it up on google.
- rolf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Masamunecyrus:
"Now if only the people on the internet would VOTE this coming election..."
That's a good thought, but still not good enough. The primaries are very important in party politics and when people complain that they only have a choice between a douche and turd on election day must be informed that they get whittled down to that choice because they consider election day in November 2008 all important and not the primaries and those activities beforehand. May not be fair but it is true. We must stay active to ensure that these candidates will be on the ballot in the first place.
(And I am talking about real-world activity, not just internet.) - PBronstein, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6bigdavediode,
Oh you mean those super accurate pre primary "actual" polls. Yes I remember the '04 Presidential election where George Bush just sqeaked by Howard Dean, even though exit polls showed Kerry with a commanding lead over Bush. Of course I approach the online polls with a grain of salt. The online polls at least show enthusiasm which is important. I think without a doubt, Ron Paul supporters are definitely the most enthusiastic, I wish a few more would be more generous. The fundraising figures were disappointing, but we are doing very well in New Hampshire, and while New Hampshire is definitely not an indicator of the following primaries, I really think Ron can win New Hampshire and who knows where that will take him. Imagine if the press has to mention his name in anything other than a list of debaters. In the end it really doesn't matter to me, I am voting for Ron Paul whether he is the Republican Nominee or write in. I am no longer voting for the lesser of two evils. Why do people vote for people who continually screw them in the name of "pragmatism"? It is like stubbing your toe and then amputating your leg in the name of "pragmatism". - cbfreder, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8Ron Paul. The only person who would ever convince me to vote republican again.
Ron, I trust you, and I understand why you are not running as a libertarian. I've faced it every day of my adult life.
Brandon - kingkilr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Do you also start those annoying chain emails about finding my true love?
- CmdrBob, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1You need to seriously take 'economissed' advice on this one. It is Moi-importente'.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Actually, that's not quite so. The President controls the justice department and can instruct them not to prosecute unconstitutional laws. Also, the pres. can influence the courts and they overturn those same unconstitutional laws. Further, the pres. can use the justice dept to launch investigations. All of this will set PRECEDENT. That's really what I'd see Ron Paul doing if he became president... because congress would not cooperate much with laws and he wouldn't sign any unconstitutional ones anyway. And you can bet your life he would never abuse the office and exert powers the executive is not granted. In a wierd sort of way, such a situation would probably restore the balance of powers in the U.S. government and that at least would be a step in the right direction.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 136 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is