What is Digg?289 Comments
- TheWorm, on 04/05/2008, -18/+227Was the super dramatic music necessary?
- kwazyhulk, on 04/05/2008, -11/+148I honestly wonder why it's taking Edwards so long to endorse Obama. If he believes what he said during that debate, he should have endorsed the moment he dropped out. Who else would he endorse?
- inactive, on 04/05/2008, -4/+92I still don't get how people haven't picked up on the fact that Hillary has taken the most money from lobbyists and corporate interests. Edwards pointed it out perfectly: If we're going to have any -real- change in America, we can't have someone who bends to anyone who gives them money.
Obama/Edwards '08 - kevlarbaboon, on 04/05/2008, -3/+87He's not required to endorse anyone.
- fokov, on 04/05/2008, -6/+66I'm not a socialist, but how the ***** can people vote for Hillary over that guy? The incompetence of the US is amazing.
- TheWorm, on 04/05/2008, -11/+62Ah, so you're one of those Ron Paul supporters who really has no idea what Ron Paul stands for. That's what happens when you get caught up in the hype without reading up on his stances. I think you'll find that Obama and Paul have very contrasting perspectives on how to change America.
- argaen21, on 04/05/2008, -2/+46His wife doesn't agree with Obama on health care and apparently neither candidate did his bidding by making poverty their number one issue. He probably will endorse whoever wins North Carolina. He doesn't really want to endorse either, which is perfectly fine.
- anogenic, on 04/05/2008, -3/+47People have got to stop ruining that amazing track by putting it everywhere.
- brandonchicago, on 04/05/2008, -12/+47You talked the talk Edwards, now walk the walk. Endorse Obama already!
- facelesscoward, on 04/05/2008, -17/+49Yes.
- enigmatics, on 04/05/2008, -2/+32What does being a socialist have to do with anything you just said?
- JEWestbrookJR, on 04/05/2008, -0/+29I like how "Overture" by Clint Mansell has become the music of choice to play on political atrocity videos. From the CO$ to Clinton.
- directedition, on 04/05/2008, -0/+28Just because he doesn't like Hillary doesn't automatically mean he thinks Obama is the man for the job.
- berfmurret, on 04/05/2008, -0/+26wow. he burned her HARD right in front of her. not just rhetoric.
- historyfool24, on 04/05/2008, -4/+29I would be happy if Obama gets the nomination, but I would be ecstatic if edwards gets the nod for VP (from obama of course)
- aburd, on 04/05/2008, -2/+18You can be wealthy and think poverty is a problem. I think his wealth gives Edwards some PR problems, but I think he is being entirely sincere in his stating that poverty is the biggest problem facing the US today. And if you think a guy worth 50 Million can fix that you clearly don't understand the scale of the problem.
- inactive, on 04/05/2008, -10/+26UGH! And it had been weeks since I heard a Ron Paul reference on Digg.
- 0zzy, on 04/05/2008, -5/+21I never understood why people would want such a ticket. If you embrace Paul's positions, you learn to hate Obama's positions. Like, I hate it when Obama says "think about how we could spend the money here at home rather than Iraq. Free healthcare, education, etc." Cause I look at the national debt and deficit and say "We don't even have that money Obama! The point is to /not/ spend it!" But ya.
- delafere, on 04/05/2008, -0/+15Yes, all politicians are corruptible, but your last statement is like 99% of all other nonsensical made-up percentage statements. Most politicians become politicians because they are trying to change the system. Then they fail.
- apollomurga, on 04/05/2008, -3/+18requiem for a dream is a good movie.
- scotticus, on 04/05/2008, -5/+19His point is largely rhetorical, but if you did spend the same amount of money we're spending in Iraq on internal infrastructure, it would drive the economy.
I don't think Ron Paul or his supporters have a very good sense of history and world governments... they really just have a desire to not have the government interfere with their lives. On one level I appreciate that (it pisses me off immensely when I deal with any government agency) but at the same time, that experiment has been done. There are nations with weaker governments (including our own at one time) and nations with stronger governments and those stronger governments tend to be more successful at generating wealth and happiness (to a point). Left to our own devices, the rich would rob the poor and our economy would collapse.... like they did before the great depression and like they are at the moment.
The lack of government involvement in our private lives, however, is something that we should all strive for. - mastahack, on 04/05/2008, -0/+12no it doesn't.
- Kautylia, on 04/05/2008, -0/+12During the debates, all the of the candidates blast each other on different issues. I remember a number of times during the debates that he criticized Obama on his policies as well, so this debate clip is in no way evidence that Edwards must like Obama better.
- incendiarylvr, on 04/05/2008, -1/+12Why did he drop out of the race?
My guess- Americans really are stupid. They don't seem to comprehend the dangers of Corporate greed and ineffectiveness of our current non- democracy.
Otherwise, Edwards would still be in the race. Need further proof that Americans don't have there own best interests at heart? Look at McCains recent Poll numbers. He is more of the same and yet he is neck and neck with Obama. More war, more poverty, more religion, more ignorance. - inactive, on 04/05/2008, -9/+20Clinton = owned... again.
- sgtpppr, on 04/05/2008, -2/+13There was a problem completing your request. Please reload the page and try again.
- mastahack, on 04/05/2008, -12/+23no.
- timf, on 04/05/2008, -1/+12you see the little green thumb button there? yeah...
- FeargusMcDuff, on 04/05/2008, -1/+11No need to mirror a youtube link with a youtube link.
- fletcherrr, on 04/05/2008, -0/+10Correction - There will never be "a new SouljaBoy single" ever again.
- brstilson, on 04/05/2008, -0/+10You realize that the policies of Obama and Paul are diametrically opposed, right?
- forgiste, on 04/05/2008, -1/+11He tells it like it really is. I'm so happy to hear these points expressed on tv. This is the beginning of a new world.
- airwalkery2k, on 04/05/2008, -2/+11I don't see Ron Paul as meshing well with Obama. Now, I do think that if he's not forced to choose Hillary by some DNC backdoor negotiation, he may choose a Republican to cement his cross-party message. But he'd choose a moderate Republican like anti-Iraq war Senator Chuck Hagel.
As for Edwards? It's possible, but after already been a VP on a ticket, I think he may turn it down. I think he'd serve more as Attorney General with some kind of a crusade for the poor and against corporate lobbiests. - MoClippa, on 04/05/2008, -1/+9Edwards doesn't like either of them much, he was running his own populist platform that was closer to the left, then Hilary and Obama which have very similar policy positions and are running on a center-right platform. It really doesn't make sense for him to endorse either of them at all, but I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up endorsing whichever democratic candidate goes into the presidential race.
Your question is a bit silly actually, Ralph Nader endorsed Kucinich, then Edwards when The Kuc dropped out... but when Edwards dropped too, he started running his own platform. Essentially the real left in the country, not the centrist-right which has made up the Democratic parties big pitches recently, is not satisfied with the major Democratic candidates in any way, which is part of the reason why you have such low voter turn outs. This race has made up for that a bit because people are extremely disatisfied with 8 years of Republican rule and the Dems are uniting a bit more to push in any candidate that gets the Republicans out of office... but its a sad sacrifice as most people will openly acknowledge that their choice, be it Obama or Hilary, is the lesser of three evils. I personally wouldn't vote unless there was a candidate out there supporting my interests, which is why I would never vote for Hilary or Obama but only Nader... that doesn't mean that Nader is diluting the democratic race, because people that share my opinions (which seems to be the majority of Nader voters) wouldn't turn out to vote in the first place for people like Obama or Clinton anyways. More of us would have voted for Edwards, but since he's not in the race anymore, the Dems won't have my theoretical vote. - MoClippa, on 04/05/2008, -0/+8No, if you are more of a socialist, you would vote for Kucinich, Nader or Edwards... Obama is center right, and while he has some more socialized policies then McCain, for the most part, all the candidates actually have similar platforms, including in regards to the Iraq war. Where Obama gets closer to socialism is his education policy and health care, but each of those still operate firmly within the free market system, so they are not necessarily socialist, but capitalist with a humane socialist coating.
As far as the country progressing towards socialism, it may be from the perspective of opinion polling amongst the population, but the candidates are still a far cry away from the increasingly progressive views of the electorate. - asdfboy, on 04/05/2008, -7/+14Totally necessary
- kevinwiz, on 04/05/2008, -0/+7What a meaningful, well-thought out, and articulate argument! I wish there were more people like you in this world.
- CamperBob, on 04/05/2008, -1/+8That's the whole problem with Digg. The green and red thumbs aren't supposed to mean "I agree / I disagree with this post." That just creates a stupid popularity contest, where people are rewarded for parroting the party line at the moment.
Try to moderate with "This post adds to / detracts from the thread" in mind. It's hard. You'll have to fight cognitive dissonance and question your own ideas. But you can do it. - JuniorVX, on 04/05/2008, -1/+7Jumping on the Ron Paul hating band wagon? If you truly understood what Ron Paul stood for then you'd understand, yes they are completely different but that's 2 different theoretical solutions for the problems at hand, Ron Paul is the more straight forward raw ideas and solutions.
- diggSJaustin, on 04/05/2008, -3/+9If you'd submitted two separate comments, one of them would be at +200 by now. (Hint: it's the second part.)
- zeiben, on 04/05/2008, -0/+6If I were him, and I were planning to endorse Obama, it wouldn't be until a week before the PA primary. The endorsement needs to stay in the news long enough to affect the decision-making of the middle-class, white male voters who would care about it, but would easily forget about it after it left the news. Otherwise, it has no effect.
- emehrkay, on 04/05/2008, -0/+6Geeze, Obama killed Edwards with one line
"You are about four years too late with stepping up with leadership" - ElatusDeus, on 04/05/2008, -0/+6Damn, he ripped to her shreds there.
- Samohtneas, on 04/05/2008, -10/+16As opposed to some awesome eurobeat or a new SouljaBoy single. Yes, I think the Requiem For a Dream music did quite nicely!
- exomni, on 04/05/2008, -0/+5You do realize that an endorsement IS "talk", right?
- sonstone, on 04/05/2008, -5/+10Yes, they have different ideologies; but they have something very important in common. They aren't in the pockets of the status quo. That is what people don't like about what's going on in politics right now. They want people that haven't sold out, so they are willing to stand for people with polar opposite ideological views as long as they are looking out for the people. I think that's great. I think one of the travesties in our system is that you have to see things from either the left or the right. Most people I know believe in a lot of what Ron Paul says and they believe in a lot of what some progressives say. They want the government to be smaller, but within reason. They want the government out of their business, but they still want government regulation of big business. The world is not black and white, and there is room for a real solid debate between some of these ideals. The problem is that we don't debate anything anymore. We listen to quick, dumbed down sound bites because the masses don't want to actually "think". There's nothing wrong with thinking both sides have positive ideals.
- exomni, on 04/05/2008, -0/+5LAWL at the "Requiem for a Dream" music and B&W and gritty filters.
And LAWL at the ending "America is going to be fine" comments from Edwards, which Hillary stole from Edwards minutes after talking about Obama using words given to him by a friend. - RedSaber, on 04/05/2008, -0/+5That's what politics should be about!
Telling the right and true hard stuff. Not about twisting words and situations to your own advantages. - sigg14, on 04/05/2008, -0/+5edwards actually gave a ***** about the american people, that is why he was not allowed to be the democratic nominee
- tolbs, on 04/05/2008, -0/+5Obama and Paul? :: head explodes ::
-
Show 51 - 100 of 282 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is