digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

ABC: The Ron Paul Effect

abcnews.go.com — They're covering Ron Paul! They're suspicious of the nature of the support, but they did run a story, and it's on the Politics section front page. Keep it up, everyone! ABC isn't the only one participating in the blackout. Hit magazines and newspapers as well. Write letters to editors en masse. We can get their attention. We can get results!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • interpaul, on 10/12/2007, -43/+30Sweet. Vote RonPaul2008.notlong.com
    • RossTizma, on 10/12/2007, -143/+27I'm pretty sure Ron Paul only exists on Digg, sorry but only you meaningless 3000 pot smokers on the internet know about him.

      I should go down fast, considering I insulted Ron Paul cultists and potheads in the same comment.
    • RyeBrye, on 10/12/2007, -110/+16A long time ago it was obvious Libertarians were gaming digg, it should be no surprise they are gaming digg to support Ron Paul.
    • mille716, on 10/12/2007, -50/+17"Today, his name ranks in the Top 10 among blog search terms at Technorati.com, behind Paris Hilton but ahead of Mario Lopez."

      Wow, he's already more popular than A.C. Slater!
    • MichaelStanton, on 10/12/2007, -79/+10I find the very nature of Ron Paul's popularity a bit puzzling. Why do people support a candidate who thinks the best way of doing something is by shifting the responsibility to someone else?
    • Lowry, on 10/12/2007, -15/+115RyeBrye, it's not gaming, it's what the masses want and all the votes just happen to show the reality of it.

      I'm not a libertarian either, I just want a leader with constitutional values for my country. Ron Paul happens to be that person who seperates himself from the pack, the other candidates don't get it.
    • mille716, on 10/12/2007, -42/+15I will never, ever vote for anyone stupid enough to believe we are fighting a "War on Christmas". He's just another dumb social conservative who happens to be libertarian. Anyone who appreciates the seperation between church and state will not give this man their vote.

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
    • MichaelStanton, on 10/12/2007, -47/+10I have a lot of trouble jumping on this bandwagon, Lowry; I fully admit I am no historian, or anything resembling the sort, but if I remember correctly FDR first expanded the Executive branch to new levels through the New Deal and WWII. In retrospect, that went pretty darn well for us. Obviously FDR did not take it to the levels that Mr. Bush did, and certainly the next president should limit the executive branch somewhat, but is the necessary response to this a candidate who wants to take us back to pre-FDR politics? One can have a large executive branch and respect the Constitution at the same time.

      Just not the current one, mind you.
    • sollycardy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+80Well your right michaelstanton, individuals taking responsibility for their own actions is scary for some. To others it's called individual liberty, or freedom.
    • GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -7/+56Most economists agree that the new deal extended the great depression. He took that short term fuzzy feeling of helping people in exchange for exacerbating the economic crisis.

      //edit - on the personal responsibility front. It's worth noting that it is also about choice. When someone takes your responsibility they also take your choice.//
    • KlayBorg, on 10/12/2007, -40/+5Please don't tell me you Americans are going to vote another Republican into power.
      It's the same party regardless if George Bush or Ron Paul are running it, and they will continue to fail at running what used to be both the greatest economic and military nation.
    • Jeffmr1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+58Get on there and comment on that story! Just because ABC writes an actual story doesn't cover up the fact that they blacked him out and then tried to make it look like we spammed the poll. Uh ABC, ever heard of IP logging? Yah, that MSNBC poll wasn't rigged.
    • mdhauke, on 10/12/2007, -25/+3So Ron Paul is the current Presidential candidate flavor of the month here at Digg. Who is it going to be next month?
    • roguenine2000, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23@michaelstandon
      Most of the economic programs of the New Deal were rescinded after a few years. And it was World War II that ended the Depression. The difference was that at that time we had little outstanding national debt because of our isolationism. Now, however, the national debt accounts for 60% of the GDP. In other words, each person would have to pay $30,000 to eliminate the debt. At this rate, if the government isn't cleaned up, our economy will have no sustainability.
    • skribble, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18@michaelst...

      It's not about shifting responsibility on someone else, quite the opposite, it's about giving people responsibility, and choice to manage themselves. The constitution was set up giving states quite a bit of power to self govern themselves. People who live in California may have different ideas about how they choose to live then people in Kansas. Currently, (especially under the current administration) the federal government is attempting to legislate all sorts of things on a federal level, even things that the states should have control over. Of course based on you comment you are probably a neo-con who feels strongly that you are right about everything and everyone who disagrees with you is against freedom (note the hypocrisy there just like most of the things they are right about) and what-not, which is fine, most of the other Republican candidates would agree you, so just vote for one of them.
    • 9Digits, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4Blackout? Please.

      Just because you like him doesn't mean he's got a snowball's chance in hell, and the networks are only going to cover ones that do. You can argue that that is the reason why he doesn't have a snowball's chance, but to suggest that there's some sort of orchestrated campaign to keep this guy down is to lend him too much credence.

      The guy is decent, but not worthy of a full-scale conspiracy.
    • mavere, on 10/12/2007, -14/+9Digg is filled with teenaged to early twenties middle-class'ish males (who I stereotype as nerdy and antisocial).

      America (reality) is several orders of magnitude more diverse. And even if it's not, the voting demographics is a poor representation of digg's age group.

      And even if that's not true, digg's comments are usually vapid echo-chambers with a certain viewpoint being dugg-up and the rest being dugg-down. The dominant viewpoint varies, depending on the story; there have been, for example, anti-libetarian slanted comment threads. Point is, no matter what you may feel from reading the comments above and below this, digg (reality) is largely made up of people who don't give a damn about Ron Paul.

      He has no chance.
    • gjwatersjr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7It's not hopeless! The best thing to at this point, besides posting and polling, is to donate money and register as a Republican for voting in the primary. The money will be critical in the coming war of attrition. In most states, you'll have to be a Republican to vote in the Republican primary. Switch back to "undeclared" after you've voted.

      One other thing to do, after registering as an "R", is answer unknown callers. Pollers will call registered voters as their respective primaries near.

    • manamizer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@GMorgan
      Since when do most economists think the New Deal extended the depression? Maybe you're thinking of the Fed's behavior during the depression. Even hardcore libertarians like Milton Friedman agreed that the New Deal helped end the depression, but ended up screwing us in the long run.
    • mpeg2tom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/int_miltonfriedman.html#7

      INTERVIEWER: Now at the time of the Depression, did you personally support New Deal policies?

      MILTON FRIEDMAN: You're now talking not about the Depression, but the post-Depression. At least the bottom of the Depression was in 1933. You have to distinguish between two classes of New Deal policies. One class of New Deal policies was reform: wage and price control, the Blue Eagle, the national industrial recovery movement. I did not support those.

      The other part of the new deal policy was relief and recovery... providing relief for the unemployed, providing jobs for the unemployed, and motivating the economy to expand... an expansive monetary policy. Those parts of the New Deal I did support.
  • steppingrazor, on 10/12/2007, -15/+87This is definitely going to be a very internet driven race. If you fail on the internet you fail.
    • TroubleInMind, on 10/12/2007, -14/+85Meh. Memories are so short. Howard Dean was unstoppable on the internet. One YEAARRRGGGGHHHH uploaded to YouTube and he became a nobody overnight. Also because of the internet.
    • InsultComedy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+43The media waited for the HD "scream," then pounced on him. I hope Paul doesn't give them any ammo.
    • RyeBrye, on 10/12/2007, -9/+33Howard Dean was an ass - he really screwed over Vermont when he was Governor and never would have withstood the kind of scrutiny people would have put on his past record had he become more than a fringe candidate and won the nomination.

      He's lucky his support died out before he was publicly exposed as one of the worst politicians ever. (I lived in Vermont while he was a Governor, and I've met him, and know what an ass he is)
    • Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4@TroubleInMind (#6563089)
      Exactly. That scream failed him on the internet. DURRRRR.
    • harksaw, on 10/12/2007, -2/+32TroubleinMind,

      It wasn't just YouTube, that clip was played on broadcast and cable news 633 times in the four days after the scream. Which CNN, CBS, and Fox admitted was overkill.
    • kingkilr, on 10/12/2007, -31/+17Overkill... kinda like 10 Ron Paul stories a day.
    • Infowarmachine, on 10/12/2007, -9/+17@steppingrazor
      that assumes the elections arent rigged
      if they are, you can win on the internet (like ron paul) and be ignored and lose in the 'polls'
    • TheSchwa, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23 True, this could be just an Internet phenomenon, with just some very energetic online people, but in the end that can be more important than your everyday layman. Considering that most Americans don't even vote, what really matters is how those energetic and involved people will decide to vote.
    • dbstovall, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6If I remember correctly, Dean had placed no better than third in 2 primaries before the scream clip. Wasn't it during his speech in Iowa after having horrible results that he had the melt down? I think that basically his campaign was already on the downward slide to oblivion. The scream just quickened the descent. Not that Paul couldn't have a similar melt down, or poor showing. I think what Dean really showed was that a fringe candidate can mobilize a large, active base easily using the web. That mobilization will get them into the show, so to speak, but won't win them anything.
    • ISIfunded911, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Talking about technology and this election, let us not forget the voting machines, and how republicans stole previous elections:
      http://michaelparenti.org/elections.html
      This may be the most telling datum of all: In New Mexico in 2004 Kerry lost all precincts equipped with touchscreen machines, irrespective of income levels, ethnicity, and past voting patterns. The only thing that consistently correlated with his defeat in those precincts was the presence of the touchscreen machine itself.
      In 1996, the chairman of ES&S (named AIS at the time) surprisingly won the republican primary and the senate election in Nebraska against the democratic incumbent. It was the first time he was candidate. He had sold the voting machines of his company to 80% of the counties. This man is Chuck Hagel.
      Ron Paul is up against a very well organized mafia. Gravel and Kucinich face a very hard fight too. The corporate media (they want corporations-friendly candidates to prevail) + the voting machines = mighty conspiracy.
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13You're kidding me.

      You think Digg (and the internet) matters?

      It might matter if young people voted. Young people don't even REGISTER to vote, let alone vote.

      Old people vote in droves. And they don't read Digg.

      Young people - register to vote and get out and vote. And maybe, just maybe your chosen candidate can win the nomination next time. But this time the heads of the parties will likely ignore the youth vote, assuming (likely correctly) that they won't turn out on voting day.
    • Buckiller, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Im registering to vote when i get my license renewed. I promise.
    • aukxsona, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Registered years ago. I'm only 27.
    • solarsavior, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7That's Internet with a capital "I". Mainstream media is dead. You can find out FAR MORE information about a candidate on the Internet than by any other new source.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3The internet is over-rated.

      Dean was taken down by the TV-News. They played his "Yeaarrghh!" heard round the world 2000 times in one week.
      Does anyone think it might have something to do with his pronouncement two weeks earlier that; "media consolidation is troubling, and threatens our democracy" ?
      Ron Paul is not going to become an issue unless he becomes a front-runner. Thompson might become a front runner before Ron Paul... because he "plays ball." The media tries to foist our "chosen" candidates on us.
      For the Democrats, it is Hillary or Obama. Whatever is acceptible to the media translates to me as "safe for corporate thieves."

      Since the media was against Dean, or Ron Paul -- that tells me they might be good choices.
    • chriso1281, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@TroubleinMind
      @harksaw

      YouTube didn't exist at the time of the Dean scream. The Dean scream happened in January, 2004. YouTube wasn't even founded until 2005.
    • Sealab2021, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I am 16 and one of the first things on my to do list when I turn 18 is register. Most of my friends cant tell you who is running let alone what thier stance is on(insert issue here). I will just be able to vote for president and I am very hope full that one of the two men running will be Ron Paul. Many are saying that he has a snows ball chance in hell of making the Rep. ticket but most people dont realize that he is aginst the Iraq war. That alone should help him get the ticket. No one currently cares about any thing else that he is talking about and the main topic is Iraq. Most people in this country are aginst the war, even Rep.s So he will most like win the ticket because of that.
    • CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"I am 16 and one of the first things on my to do list when I turn 18 is register."

      The way my age turned out, I wasn't able to vote until the 1984 elections.

      Remember 1984? The US and the USSR were standing like two huge ugly things with nuclear tipped war hammers aimed directly at each other's heads. Reagan was talking up war big-time. It was a very scary time.

      The Libertarian party platform that election had a plank I had never heard of before: No First Use Of Nuclear Weapons. Period.

      This was radical! This was astounding! This was eye-opening, because the Libertarians were the only people actively talking about nuclear weapons as a real issue to be dealt with.

      I was disgusted to know that no other politicians would make that kind of commitment. Not weakness, not unpreparedness, not cowardice, just a commitment on principle never to use those weapons _first_.

      That was my introduction to the ethical and moral basis of liberty, of "rules without rulers".

      Ron Paul isn't the only person who puts principle first, and votes consistant with those principles even when he personally disagrees. (for instance, both he and I do not like abortion. but it is _not_ a _government_ issue, so we both come out looking like we support abortion politically)

      There are a lot of people who believe in individual liberty and individual responsibility. I recommend reading some of the daily articles on http://www.mises.org/ the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

    • 9Digits, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yeah. Just ask President Dean.

      Wait...
    • Absinthminded64, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@Sealab2021, @CurtHowland You two represent what I believe to be Digg's diversity. Sealab's approaching voting age and Curt's having encountered it in 84'.
  • kandilynn, on 10/12/2007, -13/+51I'm very excited about that. I think the only reason they made the article is because of so many people calling and writing them about not having Ron Paul on their poll. They wanted to keep us from getting mad again.
    • texdc, on 10/12/2007, -12/+58Right. Keep up the pressure. Write to your local newspaper columnists who are covering the election. Call your local TV stations. Write to national magazines and papers and talking-heads. If we don't get our hands dirty in the slime of the MSM, they'll never pay attention. What happened this weekend shows just how much of an impact we can have. We may not be uber-rich mega-corporations, but we can certainly turn some heads and exert influence. The more exposure Ron Paul gets, the more people support the campaign. He needs money, but money isn't everything. I'd love for Ron Paul to get just as much attention as the "favorites" on only a fraction of the budget. That would be another message to send to the political machine and media.
  • bplv, on 10/12/2007, -7/+33Contributions to the campaign will make mass media take notice more than emails; although the email is important as well. It's all about the money. And money can reach the general people better than digg.
    • AdrianBisson, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26That's absolutely right, and I contributed $50 today right after reading the ABC news article. I really feel that this campaign is our best hope for getting our country back on the path to liberty.

      Until the debate, I had sort of written Ron Paul off as hopeless, like all my Libertarian candidates in the past, but all the support I'm seeing has me excited. And no matter what ABC's poorly researched and bitterly biased stories claim, I know that this is the real deal and we really can make a difference.

      Nothing says it like throwing some cash at the campaign, and if the next debate goes similarly well and the support continues to build, you better believe I've got another $50 ready to send.
    • strOphe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23I just sent in my $25 this morning. That's a first for me btw. And think about it, if everyone who knows about this guy can tell five of their friends, who then tell five of their friends, etc., etc. We can't lose through action, only sloth and cynicism.
    • ISIfunded911, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9It is not only about money. It is also about the efforts of every one of you in your neighbourhood.
      To win you will have to leave your room regularly: print leaflets explaining why Ron Paul (or Kucinich or Gravel) is a better candidate, fill the mailboxes, give them to people at a street's corner and talk to people!
      And fight to get rid of the voting machines in the primaries!
    • Chandon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Hmm... actually donating money is an interesting strategy. I guess I'll go do that then, because it sounds like a good idea.
  • Sendss, on 10/12/2007, -11/+61Hopefully the internet can restore our Democracy. Things like this give me hope.
    Hopefully in a few years our elections won't be decided by our corporate media like they are now.
    • lordmetroid, on 10/12/2007, -8/+34Euhm... Constitutional republic. Don't eat the dirt propaganda the ignorrant politicians keeps repeating.
    • polistud, on 10/12/2007, -39/+8What? We already do live in a democracy. A democracy where the majority of voters will not vote for a nutter like Ron Paul.
    • Nudar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8And a constitutionalist republic is based on what exactly? In the case of the US, a representative democracy.
    • storm8956, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I'm right there with you, friend. I have been greatly encouraged by the path the internet has been taking. The internet has what television lacks: social interaction. Sites like Digg and fact checking blogs give me great hope. Just look how powerful these tools are: a few thousand people got one of the biggest news providers to put out a story on a candidate they previously would have nothing to do with! We don't have to stand for the coruptions of mainstream media. The internet will be the tool for change.
    • rephil513, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Restore our Republic...(sorry to be picky).
    • lordmetroid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The differense is that in a republic politicians can't do anything they want but are in fact severly limited in how much they can meddle and control people's lives.
    • AmericaProper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Help force our National Public Radio into covering this outrage... this story is HOT but we have to act fast and now to make it known to all.

      EVERYONE should go to this link and submit "suggestion" to NPR.org to follow Ron Paul and this blantant omission of his presence at the debate.

      http://www.npr.org/about/pitch/story.html

      Even if you dont support Dr. Paul, you must have the cherry picking media EXPOSED!!!!
  • Sendss, on 10/12/2007, -9/+17"contributions to the campaign will make MSM take notice more than pestering emails. It's all about the money."

    The irony here is that the contributions go to the MSM.
    • bplv, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10that is why it makes them take interest
  • manogamez, on 10/12/2007, -12/+44Keep at it folks! THIS is democracy in action!
    • lordmetroid, on 10/12/2007, -6/+31No it is market anarchism in action... And that is not bad, it means that everyone represents themselves in free-market without elected leaders restricting anyone what to do with their property.
    • johnnyb3, on 10/12/2007, -42/+7This is a bunch of diggers supporting a no-name candidate. While I won't judge Ron Paul, I can say that this isn't some elaborate conspiracy to exclude him from elections, and it feels like some group of people is using Digg to support him.
    • Cutkomp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23@johnnyb

      Ron Paul got 3rd for President in '88, garnering nearly a half-million votes.
      Ron Paul is the gold-bug candidate.
      Ron Paul is the anti-Drug War candidate.
      Ron Paul is the small gov't candidate.
      Ron Paul has delivered over 4,000 human beings into this world.
      Ron Paul is in his tenth term in Congress, usually getting easily re-elected despite the Republican establishment supporting his Democratic opposition.
      Ron Paul has been appointed to some lofty cabinet positions because his peers respect him despite differences in opinion.
      Ron Paul is the militia candidate - you know, those hicks in the sticks who save our asses from overly oppressive gov't if that time ever comes
      Point being, he is not a no-name. Those facts could easily lead to thousands of votes in an internet poll on the site of the very station which held the debates that Ron Paul fans have been waiting for since 1988.
    • tech42er, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@lord
      Market anarchism would be great.
  • Eilarais, on 10/12/2007, -9/+45To ABC News:

    Curiously absent from the story was any explanation of WHY the poll generated the attention that it did from Ron Paul supporters. This made it very difficult to downplay the results, since ABC knew that it had to choose it's words very carefully.

    Seriously, I applaud the effort, but there is a generation coming of age now that instinctively understands the concept of lip service and PR spin. I want a full explanation and a written commitment to fairness in the future, not just a skeptical acknowledgement of a story's existence. You still have a credibility problem.
    • RyeBrye, on 10/12/2007, -38/+6You should be happy you have this Ron Paul article to masturbate to tonight - and stop asking for more. Sheesh.

      I'd hate to see Digg if Kevin Rose ever decided to run for President.
    • solarsavior, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Oh snap!

      So true. The Internet is teaching people to easily ignore static and lip service (pop-up ads, flash ads, and all other sorts of distractions) and to quickly sort through information (given hundreds of hours spent on Google) to quickly find the meat of any position, argument, or story. We simply don't trust you until we can verify. (read Snopes) The truth is almost immediately at our fingertips and the Internet never forgets. (politician lies and false promises are always exposed)

      Politicians and the media had better get a clue that especially people that frequent the Internet can cut through their crap so quickly as to be laughable.
    • Eilarais, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ryebrye

      It used to be that I could masterbate to a simple article, but with the advent of the internet, much more information is available, and one bland article just doesn't excite me anymore. I demand more content these days.
  • jeanette3654, on 10/12/2007, -11/+12Let's keep it up and we just may win. We need to turn our attention to the GOP Convention because we have to force enough delegates to nominate Dr. Paul to pull this off! Start putting the screws to the Republican national committee
  • afeitarse, on 10/12/2007, -54/+17Argh! Stop turning Digg into Ron Paul headquarters!
    • campusten, on 10/12/2007, -44/+13Agreed, buried as spam. I'm alright with a certain amount of favoritism here on Digg, regardless of whether I agree with the point of view or not. However, this has gone too far. This Ron Paul business is reaching the point where it's basically advertising and spamming.
    • Neiby, on 10/12/2007, -12/+34Do you understand how Digg works?
    • InsultComedy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+41If people didn't like this article they wouldn't Digg it.
    • Cutkomp, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3Oh be quiet
    • nexus420, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12It cracks me up that you people go to digg, see the article about Ron Paul, hate it for being spam, and then click on it and leave a comment. If you dont like it, just bury it and move on. No one wants to read you whine. This is a great story. Digg may be 'a bunch of kids' but it is having an effect. Anytime you can influence national media, you are making a difference. This is two major stories in the last month that digg has been responsible for. Keep it up people! And those of us that aren't 'kids', make sure you get out and vote!
  • Phr00t, on 10/12/2007, -33/+12I'm glad to see Ron Paul getting the coverage he should be... all contenders should get proper coverage (like American Idol! hehe)... personally, I am heavily leaning towards Obama, but we will see how the race goes. May the best man win.
    • fuzzmeister, on 10/12/2007, -7/+21You mentioned American Idol. You fail.
    • Phr00t, on 10/12/2007, -15/+11I'm glad to see Ron Paul getting the coverage he should be... all contenders should get proper coverage... personally, I am heavily leaning towards Obama, but we will see how the race goes. May the best man win.

      Can I win now? :)
    • TheAkolyte, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14The best man does NOT win.
    • Phr00t, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5@theakolyte

      You're right.. but we can dream, can't we?

      I mentioned American Idol, because it represents all the candidates on an equal playing field... people like Ron Paul fights for publicity, while high profile candidates like Clinton have all the spotlight. People who have more money and publicity tend to get more votes, regardless of how good they are. I understand how "American Idol" isn't a "digg winning" mention, but it gets my point across. :)
    • manixrock, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@phr00t

      I'm not sure why you god dugg down, since you expressed a sincere (and good) opinion about media coverage, and your current support for Obama. Also you... you... AMERICAN IDOL??!?!!?! *presses 'digg down' button repeatedly*
  • fuzzmeister, on 10/12/2007, -32/+12Ok, we get that you all love Ron Paul, can you move onto another site? I definitely can appreciate the guy, and appreciate the amount of support he has on the internet, but when I see 2+ stories (sometimes many more) on him every day, I begin to tire of it.
    • Pssdoff, on 10/12/2007, -6/+29Damn you Digg for making the reading of EVERY article submitted mandatory!!!!
  • halik, on 10/12/2007, -29/+6Ron Paul spam... tagged accordingly. Next up:How to leverage user-contribution sites as an election marketing tool
  • Pilot85, on 10/12/2007, -18/+5lol, the guys who wrote that article don't know, or don't care about digg, based on their speculation of where the votes came from. Shhhh... digg is a secret.
  • codegator, on 10/12/2007, -29/+14Ron who?
  • spacebetween, on 10/12/2007, -5/+41I have been scouring the internet for something negative of Ron Paul. In all seriousness, I want to see both sides of the man. Can anyone provide me with a source, as objective as it can possibly be, with criticism of Dr. Paul?

    It just all seems too good to be true. I understand he has a few quirks, but his hardline stance is that the President of the USA is not the "be all, end all." Even if he were in support of the gold standard (an issue that hasn't been mainstream since... probably America wasn't the world's superpower), our Constitution provides for a Congress and Supreme Court to balance everything. That sounds like a "duh," statement, but unfortunately, I think many people have come to expect our President to be the chief "decider" of everything.
    • Laorir, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20In addition to that, does anyone have any links to a "scientific" poll that actually indicates that Ron Paul's support is actually anywhere near that level? Or that the debate had any significant impact on his support?

      Also, why was the parent post dugg down? It seems like a valid request to me.
    • Cutkomp, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18@laorir

      Scientific polls? Are the polls that the mainstream media uses as basis for public opinion scientific? Absolutely not. This is politics, not science.

      Personally, I would love to see a scientific poll with Ron Paul included. In a blind study, I think a lot more people would find they support the values portrayed by Dr. Paul than may know. There is literally only 1 reason to be afraid of Ron Paul and that is if you mooch from the government when you shouldn't be mooching from the government.
    • Laorir, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5cutkomp: Yea, there's a reason I had scientific in quotes. I realize that its hard to get a good sampling of the population in any poll. What I'm looking for is a poll that has a sampling of Americans likely to vote in an election. A phone poll with a random samplings of Americans would suit me, but I haven't seen any that have come out since the debate. I've only seen internet polls which include the votes of minors, non-Americans and any number of people who wouldn't actually vote in a real election.

      I like Ron Paul as a candidate, but if the election were held tomorrow, he would not get near the 35% of the vote that he is getting on most internet polls. I expect its still hovering about 1% he had before the debate, although I hope it has risen to 2-5%.
    • Lowry, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17@ laorir

      MSNBC had a poll with 80,000 votes, they included all of the candidates from the start. It is probably the most active and reliable poll out there.

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18421356

      Click the blue and orange before and after buttons in the lower right hand corner of the poll.
    • 4Prophecy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13I'm still concerned about his religious views and how he sees the separation between church and state. Once somebody can dissuade me of those fears I'll happily support him.
    • Lowry, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19I haven't looked into his seperation of church and state issues, but I will.

      The thing is it's going to be nearly impossible for a candidate to agree with you on everything. I'm voting for the one who I agree with the most on the most important issues.

      Not sure who said it, but "The man who agrees with me 80% of the time is not my enemy, he is my friend."
    • 4Prophecy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3So no follow-up for this? :
    • spacebetween, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I assume most people just skipped over it.

      If someone ever finds anything, please let me know.
    • tech42er, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@4prophecy
      He's a libertarian, right? He has to agree with the separation of Church and State, then, right?
    • roentgen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Here's something negative. No doubt the Ron Paul apologists will digg it down, as they have every mention of it in their other spam - I guess they are embarassed by their candidate.

      Ron Paul says that he would support the reversal of Roe v. Wade, because such matters are not covered by the Constitution and should be left to the states.

      That's with one breath. With the next, he votes for the federal law that criminalizes the medical abortion procedure of Intact dilation and extraction (aka "partial birth abortion" by religious fanatics), which surely consitutionally should be left to the states if abortion should be.

      Don't buy the hype. He's only a constitutionalist when it's convenient to his real agenda.
    • nosecohn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Oddly, I thought Bill Maher did a pretty good job of painting Ron Paul as a "fringe" candidate. I say oddly because Maher is a self-professed libertarian. Just shows that he's an equal-opportunity bully, which I have to say I respect. Anyway, he successfully made the point that SOME things really should be the federal government's responsibility, and not left to the private sector or the states, whereas Paul was caught arguing that an agency like the FAA might be better under private control. I think a lot of Americans would be frightened by that prospect, rightfully or not.

      Paul also says that he would actively seek to overturn Roe v. Wade, whereas the majority of Americans support a woman's right to choose. Again, it's for voters to decide whether that's a positive or a negative, but I can see it affecting his electability.

      Whether or not these things affect his ability to win, they don't change the fact that candidates like Ron Paul and Mike Gravel are running on platforms designed to return the country to the people. The system is broken on a fundamental level, and these two guys are the only ones who seem to understand that, and have a plan to do something about it. If either of them could accomplish some measure of returning the power to the people based on constitutional principles, I'd put up with one term's worth of some attempts at specific policy changes that I don't agree with. The checks and balances are in place.
    • Kafka0622, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Sorry but no thanks. Paul is wrong on church ans state and, if this article is any indication, is grossly ignorant about the US Constitution. Give me some on who doesn't use out and out mistruths about the framers intent to push his religious views into public policy.

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

      K
    • bustaballs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@roentgen

      Do you have any clue what partial birth abortion is? It's literally murdering a (almost) newborn child. Murder is not protected by the constitution. If you can't understand the other side of the issues then you can't even fully know your own.
      http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html

      Besides, the man is a OBGYN that has delivered enough babies to know enough about the subject. He's an expert on it and you are not.

      =)
    • kylebrothert, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5nosecohn,

      I agree with some of your points. But Dr. Paul is correct that most things are better without federal control. The FAA is a good example. They've kept aviation from advancing because their computer systems are from the stone age. Current technology would allow each airplane to plot it's own course and use satellites, gps, and other communications technology to avoid other aircraft. There's plenty of space in the sky if the FAA would stop "routing" planes. When the feds control stuff, it often stifles innovation.
    • roentgen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@bustaballs

      Who cares? Even if I accept your hyperbolic assertion (which I don't), under a literal reading of the Constitution murder is a state crime, not a federal crime. This is not a controversial claim for strict constructionists - something being really really bad doesn't make it a federal matter.

      You really don't understand the Constitution, and what the claim of being a Constitutionalist means, if you don't understand the difference between what can be construed as a federal crime and what must be left to the states.

      Ron Paul claims that since the US Constitution has no literal protection of the right of women to abort a foetus, it must be a state matter. It's intellectually dishonest for him to then turn around and claim that protecting a foetus is a federal manner. It shows that his true interest is in banning abortion, not in keeping the decision at the state level - he would want a federal ban on abortion, not just a repeal of Roe v. Wade (a repeal would leave it to the states unless the Congress passed new legislation).
  • Harpakhrad11, on 10/12/2007, -9/+21They are willing to come up with any excuse they can to explain away his success.
  • fadeout, on 10/12/2007, -26/+7Save the Ron Paul spam for 2 AM when you can manage to keep it on the front page for more than 30 seconds.
  • PrometheuZ, on 10/12/2007, -20/+6Yet another Libertarian running = yet another 'snowball's chance in hell'
  • caplist, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17Unless Ron Paul is covered on the Drudge Report he will only continue to exist in Digg. Every day on Drudge, Fred Thompson this Fred Thompson that.
    • InsultComedy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+28The Drudge polls had Ron in third, b'fore they took it down. They got scared.
    • absolutroot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4thats actually good advice! Lets all petition to Matt Drudge to get him to run a story on Ron Paul!
    • PrettyBoyFloyd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Has Fred Thompson even formally announced he's running? Has he filed papers with the FEC?
    • nosecohn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Fred Thompson is one of the scariest politicians EVER. I hope people post all sorts of video and text of things he said during the Clinton administration. I honestly don't think he understands what democracy is about.
    • nosecohn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I have to correct my own comment here. I was thinking of a different Senator. Mea culpa. Sorry Fred.
  • hdtvdust, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4Patricipating in the blackout! Classic delusions!

    ABC is going to devote the bulk to their coverage to candidates who will not be out of the race by the end of Super Tuesday.

    Harpakhrad...His success? Wow. You are not prepared for life in the real world.
    • ScionAltera, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21Who is ABC to decide who is going to be out of the race after Super Tuesday? Are they psychic? Can they tell the future? Whatever happened to journalistic integrity and reporting the news objectively?

      I wouldn't vote for him, but the guy is in the race. He was in the debate. He should get as much coverage as any other candidate until he withdraws from the race. It's not ABC's job to decide who is a viable candidate and who isn't.
  • joaob, on 10/12/2007, -27/+6spam spam spam
  • kirtap, on 10/12/2007, -8/+26The article has a very negative tone towards Paul. They must be bitter.
    • InsultComedy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14I used to read the New Yorker. They would have anti-establishment cover stories, but when you read them they totally spin it the other way. That's the same thing they're doing here.
  • Ramble, on 10/12/2007, -24/+6It says he's republican..
    Jesus, doesn't America realise yet that you vote for the party not the candidate.
    • kolanos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Are you ***** retarded?

      Check Paul's voting record. He sure as hell doesn't agree with you.

      Who am I kidding? You don't even have a clue what a Congressional voting record is, let alone where to find one.
    • dmgordon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Kolanos: dugg down for not recognizing sarcasm.
  • PrometheuZ, on 10/12/2007, -8/+22@ramble

    He's running under the Republican ticket, but he's clearly a Libertarian if you know anything about anything ya goofball.
    • FlaG8r, on 10/12/2007, -15/+2Apparently he wasn't Libertarian enough to keep running under that ticket instead of switching to Republican.
  • Billiam627, on 10/12/2007, -11/+10I don't understand why this is getting dugg. ABC essentially wrote off Ron Paul and his supporters with one article. Sort of a "here we wrote this, now we wont even cover him again". I am not a Ron Paul supporter, but if I was this article would piss me off more than if there wasn't an article at all.
    • spacebetween, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25The point is that he got coverage.
  • Magnolit, on 10/12/2007, -7/+36I don't know why people should vote for the other candidates. Ron is such an intellectual capacity like no other politician except maybe Gravel. He is actually THINKING about the problems the country faces in this moment and he's got plans. The other candidates are just telling people things what they want to hear. You decide who's running your country. Make pressure on the corporate media and bring back the US in 08!
  • inurb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22If all the people on the internet would get out and vote in the 2008 election you would see a massive shift in our political landscape! Go Ron Paul!
  • CrackaPleeze, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2I'm still voting Democratic. Go Kucinich!!
  • mdhauke, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4So Ron Paul is the current Presidential candidate flavor of the month here at Digg. Who is it going to be next month?/
  • kanimara, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19I'm just going to say a couple things.

    Ron Paul desperately needs two things, in addition to supporters hammering the media:

    1 - People need to know more than "Ron Paul is super cool!". If they associate him with a good policy he has, they will much better remember him. "Ron Paul's policy on X is awesome because it Y!"

    2 - He does not have the money that the other campaigners do, so even if you have a dollar or two to spare he could use that

    It would be cool to see the world change in a positive way for once.
    • picaro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I just gave $50. This is the first time I've ever given to a campaign. I wish I could give more!
    • absolutroot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4i donated what I could. I wish I could have donated the $2300 maximum, but i just dont have it.
  • DigitalDud, on 10/12/2007, -23/+8"Ron Paul stated that as President, he would seek the immediate abolition of the IRS and the abolition of the income tax"

    Hah this guy is nuts, does he even understand what this entails? He's not getting any media support cause he's a whackjob. No one would support him but the most extreme libertarians.
    • Stochio, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Is it any more absurd that the Iraq war? Is it any more absurd than (more) socialized health care? Is it any more absurd than FEMA? The FDA? Is it any more absurd than the absurd programs instituted in the name of Keynes? Sugar/cotton/corn subsidies? Steel tariffs? No, these things are all absurd. Since you started the debate, it would be helpful if you said *why* phasing out the IRS is ridiculous.
    • rezist, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9"This" entails the loss of monies paid to the Federal Reserve as interest payments. That is where one hundred percent of income tax collected goes. Since income tax is actually outlawed by our constitution and not backed by any piece of written legislation it seems that you're the whackjob. Do you support unconstitutional practices by the government elect?
    • DigitalDud, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5People have tried to move toward a flat tax before, it doesn't work. There's no support first of all, but its regressive and it would seriously disrupt the economy. Not the mention all the money you'd have to spend to perform the transformation.

      @rezist, I'm a pragmatist and there's nothing practical about such a rash policy change.
    • DrColossus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@digitaldud
      It's because he wants to pursue different forms (and probably more fair forms) of taxation other than income tax. It may be easier and less confusing to have a national sales tax rather than hundreds of pages of income tax code
    • gabeh73, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Is it absurd that COMPLIANCE costs in the US for the tax filings are estimated to be about 500 billion dollars a year!? and that this almost 5% of GDP!

      Is it absurd that the mainstream guys now make us take our shoes off to get on a airplane and they want a national ID not unlike nazi germany and communist USSR!.

      ...is it absurd to have thousands of US military in bases guarding Germany and Japan?
      think those troops might have helped save lives in New Orleans after Katrina...is it absurd that our country looked like a freaking 3rd world country then?

      Is it absurd that our "War on terror" creates more terrorists than it kills?
  • CMOSLogic, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14Guys all the owners in these media boardrooms: they're filthy rich repugnicans or demonic - rats.

    That's why- they are playing for what THEY want.

    I hope im not lecturing when i remind you all: The country is being run by two big businesses: the radical, far-left far-right political business ( 25 PERCENT OF ALL WORKING ADULTS ARE IN ONE GOVERNMENT UNION (so to speak- it's really BLOC voting)

    and the far left and far rights of the PRIVATE business, who - to be esteemed worthy of managing in the "system" have to have a strength of basics IN the government system.

    THEREFORE They WILL NOT be giving ANY positive feedback for ANY but those THEY WANT to win: and they WANT the ones to win, they have CONTRIBUTED to- as individuals ON those boards, and as business groups.

    WE ARE GOING to CONTINUE to be openly, and shameless manipulated by the MEDIA GROUPS because THEY HAVE RIGHTS to political opinion TOO and since "opinion" means "i took some polls and i don't like them so in my "oPINIOn" it's this guy or that.

    We all over the world: you in europe, PLEASE WATCH - are coming into a new era wherein the people REALIZE what is going on, but we can be OUT SPAMMED by PRO MEDIA.

    We should all make a BIG POINT to tell everybody, that "ABC has been caught SCAMMING" and that MSNBC has been caught SCAMMING: CLAIMING coverage while actually ADVERTIZING for their choice(S) of the candidates.

    It is THEIR GAME TO LOSE. and if you think what's going on is a big conspiracy it's more like a big, "Bloc" style COLLUSION: what's good for my friends is good for me etc.

    Good luck Ron Paulers. Keep up the exposure and when you blog: spread the word far and wide about how media SCAMS elections and their coverage. They ARE scamming elections when they give false coverage.
    • skyfire1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Please USE less caps in YOUR paragraphs. IT makes it HARD TO read.
  • rezist, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3There won't be a republican president after this election. This is a waste of effort. I think it is very interesting to see the media doing this to Mr. Paul, it's what many citizens fight against daily. I actually appreciate some of what this guy stands for, and am happy to see him under the republican ticket. Good luck with your uphill battle, but the Dems are a lock.
    • mdhauke, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17"There won't be a republican president after this election."

      That's quite a bold statement. How did that work out for you in 2004 for what was supposed to be a "Slam Dunk" election?
    • DigitalDud, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11The people who reelected Bush are still here, they were the majority then, and the Democratic frontrunners are too left-wing (especially Hillary) for any conservatives/moderates to vote for. People are still dreaming of another Reagan. There's a good chance we'll see another Republican president, especially since the Democrats haven't exactly been accomplishing anything.
    • Saccharin, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Yep keep telling yourself Hillary is too liberal, even while she's the most conservative Democratic candidate. Glad to see the Republican smear campaign has worked for the last 20 years even in such bastions of free thinking as Digg. Damn pants suit wearing feminazis.
    • mdhauke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5A "Conservative Democrat" doesn't say things like serving in a Republican controlled congress is like being a slave to the White man to a room full of African Americans!!! Does the "Republican smear campaign" make her say thinks like that or her comment about taking company profits like this is the USSR?
    • MMXII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@ Phr00t
      Sorry Brother, but I would'nt consider a black male and a woman a "lock". I would'nt mind this myself, but I highly doubt that american would vote for either. Please dont confuse me with a sexist or racist, but just because the puppets have a different pigment or sexual organ does not make them a better choice. It's the issues at hand that truly matter.



      @ryebrye
      Why potheads? I guess "normal" and coheirant people think GW is a sane man? I guess we don't know that everything is all right because we don't watch fox news.

      Also Ron Paul is a true conservative and has NEVER taken money from any outside source or lobbyist he truly works for the people.
    • Saccharin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Look at Hillary's record (or hell even Bill's), not what she says. In politics the term triangulation comes from Hillary. She occasionally talks left when she wants to appeal to the base, but she usually acts moderate to appeal to the general public. The only thing conservatives have been able to pin on her as a 'liberal' position is universal health care. Which was a decade ago, and still a position supported by most Americans.

      Seriously, compare her policy to every other Democratic candidate.
      Right of Obama
      Right of Richardson
      Right of Dodd
      Right of Biden
      Way, way right of Kucinich
      Way right of Gore
      Way right of Edwards
      Way right of Gravel

      Just because you think she's a commie pink doesn't make it so. I'm sorry. If you look at all the candidates in the Democratic party it's patently obvious she's the most conservative to anyone with higher than a room temperature IQ.
    • RyeBrye, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@mmxii - what the hell are you talking about? I never mentioned potheads anywhere - nor did I mention GWB

      I just mentioned I hate the Ron Paul spam on Digg. Thanks for putting words in my mouth.
  • minox, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1They're blocking him because he is pro life!
  • KlayBorg, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4Can anyone explain why Digg has suddenly become pro-republican? What happened digg?
    • DigitalDud, on 10/12/2007, -14/+2They're not, it's just a bunch of libertarians who anarchy so they can smoke pot.
    • spacebetween, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10It's not so much "pro-Republican" as it is sensibility and a call for reform.

      Why must voting be about a party? When I vote, I am voting for the individual, not the party.

      Besides, Ron Paul is a self-proclaimed Republican and Libertarian who works alongside Democrats, as well.
    • flygirl62, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18I don't see it as digg becoming pro-republican, it's just that a lot of digg users are pro-RonPaul.

      It's the person, not the party, that most are supporting.

      The fact that he happens to be running on the GOP ticket is irrelevant to who he is.
    • DigitalDud, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3It's a joke guys, jesus.
    • spacebetween, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1@digitaldud

      Jesus? Where?
    • PomegranateTree, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Jesus this, jesus that... Is anyone else sick of this idiom? If you're Christian it's in vain, if you aren't why do you care about him?
    • KlayBorg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1But, the party influences the leader doesn't it? Or is the system different in America?
      Over here, while the leader is the public aspect, the party is the main focus, all members and members of cabinet, not just the Leader of a party.
  • rezist, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1@mdhauke I believe that you assume I'm a democrat? Illegal election practices in 2004 didn't quite cut it for me.
    • mdhauke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5After that statement, just an idiot.
  • snockhockster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10ABC's bias was apparent with their "accidental" omission from the poll.

    This article cements that bias, and highlights their disregard for any semblance of objectively as the article clearly tries to load a preconceived bias in the introduction.

    Wikipedia guidelines appear to be more stringent than ABC's.

    • fuzzynyanko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It seems like most of the networks have "forgot" to include Ron Paul and Mike Gravel from polls.
  • qazyhoods, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14you people digg anything with the words "Ron Paul" in it
    • Lisztman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22Proudly.
    • spacebetween, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16And you digg anything with the words PS3, Nintendo, XBOX, or computer in it.

      Sweet, people have individual preferences and tastes!!
    • Lowry, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Haha, great reply spacebetween. :)
    • Stochio, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16Let's test your theory: "Ron Paul"
  • rezist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Not that I am a democrat but, the current administration have been guiding all of us towards a sudo-facist state. Hindering individual rights as well as scientific advancement isn't really accomplishing much either. That isn't simply the opinion of one Digger either.
    • Lisztman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Your point?
      This administration isn't Republican. Its isn't conservative.
      Its special-interest-groups' cash-flow.

      That being said, Ron Paul is a Constitutional Conservative, with emphasis on the tenth amendment's limitations of federal powers(which is desperately needed at this point), and would directly conflict with the concerns you express.
    • Stochio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"sudo - fascist"

      There's a *NIX joke there somewhere.
    • Tinian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Your point?
      This administration isn't Republican. Its isn't conservative.
      Its special-interest-groups' cash-flow.

      That being said, Ron Paul is a Constitutional Conservative, with emphasis on the tenth amendment's limitations of federal powers(which is desperately needed at this point), and would directly conflict with the concerns you express."

      so true, the bush administration, and people like ann coulter, have done more to hurt the conservative movement than any liberal could ever dream of, and i have to remind people of that everywhere i go. Ron Paul seems to be the only conservative in the race so far, even though hes a self-proclaimed libertarian.
    • tech42er, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm not even a ***** conservative anymore, I'm a libertarian/classical liberal. The New Right is no better than the Left. They both want o increase the government's power, but the neocons also want to legislate morality. It's insane.
  • WilliamDavis, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3The media will DECIMATE Ron Paul as soon as they think he's a real threat.

    Do you guys really think you can outvote the millions of people on personal and corporate welfare type programs? Think about it... anyone and everyone who's job or income depends on goverment funding!!

    You think the major media outlets can't scare them into a 100% turnout against Ron Paul within a few hours?

    Those people will ***** all over themselves to get out and vote. Hell, the whole country will grind to a halt on election day.

    If you guys seriously want to make a candidate out of Ron Paul, you're going to have to figure out what to tell those people. "Don't worry, the economy will eventually shift and we'll all be better off." is *not* going to cut it.
    • strOphe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5This kind of attitude which presupposes the media's eminence and domination of general public is specifically refuted not only by ABC's capitulation but by the poll turn out for Ron Paul post-debate, which showed that even if you aren't talking about some one ad nauseum (as they've been doing for Romney and Giuliani) the public will stand up and pay attention when someone reaches out of the spin and party line to say something which they believe in.

      Don't victimize us right along with yourself. I for one still believe in the ability for democracy to triumph, even in this day and age.
  • rezist, on 10/12/2007, -12/+3What has the republican party done for you or your family? It's amusing to see middle to upper middle class citizens fervently supporting politicians as they laugh at you all the way to the bank. That statement goes for many politicians, and is not party specific.
    • Lowry, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13It's not about the parties, it's how a person stands on the issues. Repeat that 3x.

      These people are not supporting him because he is Republican, get that through your skull. They support him because of what he says he represents. Ron Paul is not laughing all the way to the bank, please educate yourself.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7yJgqnQ5Rc
    • Lisztman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6So you mean... don't support any politicians? At all? Even if you basically agree with every thing they've said and done?

      Yeah, that will accomplish a lot, running away from the problems and all. Much easier than spreading the word for a man you want in office.
  • prashantpawar, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4@digitaldud: "Hah this guy is nuts, does he even understand what this entails? He's not getting any media support cause he's a whackjob. No one would support him but the most extreme libertarians."

    You are a nutjob dude, he plans to eliminate the whole TAX system from America. Republicans also stand for reduction of any unnecessary taxes, in fact that's the whole conservative economic philosophy.

    Every Republican president wants to boast how much tax they eliminated.

    The whole Reaganomics is on the same principle, cutting down the taxes.

    So who is an ignorant nutjob here?(I am not a libertarian)
    • MarcVilla, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6See the doc. film on You Tube or Google Video Arron Russo's " America from Freedom to Fascism" then you'll understand what Ron Paul is Talking about otherwise you're an unenlightened sheeple.
  • MarcVilla, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Ron Paul is his own man, he doesn't come with special interest strings attached, He hasn't prostituted himself to special interest, he is for real, he's what a real conservative should be. That is why he stood out in the crowded phony-bought and paid for Republican politicians He's not afraid to speak truth to the electorate or power, He is not going to say what people want to hear. Most republican so-called conservatives are so left field they no longer see right. Ron Paul is well respected by the left because he is a man true to his word, he is very predictable because he doesn't flip flop on the issues. After all isn't this what real democracy is having a real American, experienced working physician making sound decisions about the future of America. He is for Protecting the U.S. from globalist interest who are selling us down the river by exporting industry to where ever labor is cheaper , this is detrimental to the interest of our Nation.
  • Elwar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21I donated $100 to Ron Paul's campaign. That's the first time I've donated to any political campaign in my life. He will be our next president. Get ready for freedom.
    • MarcVilla, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13 Yea! baby!.......I'm donating $50.00 to Ron Paul for President campaign, I'm very exited about his run for president
    • flygirl62, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Reading this contribution comments inspired me.

      I also just donated $100.00 and, I too, have never previously contributed to any political campaign.

      Wish us all luck!
    • Stochio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13I donated $100.00 a month ago. And you should too. www.ronpaul2008.com !
    • gjwatersjr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5$300 over 3 months, here.

      No need to dig it, either. It was my pleasure.
    • gjwatersjr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5...and registered as a repulican to vote in the primaries later this year. That was the hard one.
  • nevesis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Where does the Ron Paul effect originate?

    From Internet news websites and content aggregators such as Digg.com, Reddit.com, Slashdot.org, Fark.com.

    It comes from political blogs large and small, Republican and Democrat, such as DailyKos and The Drudge Report.

    It comes from word of mouth, or word of Facebook and Myspace.

    But most importantly, it comes from intelligent (and generally well educated), but disaffected computer nerds who have finally found a candidate with integrity.



    We have pledged our allegiance to this man and what he stands for, and will do all that is possible to raise awareness of his political persuasions.
  • drmobutu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"suspicious of the nature of the support"

    Whatever could give them an idea like that?

  • kmroc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20If we put a tank of gas where our mouths are, he may have a chance... I've never contributed to a campaign in my life. Last night, $50 on Paul. The big boys/girls put on $2000 dinners, let's make the media and the power brokers in D.C. a little nervous. If you like his message, Contribute!
  • Xuvious, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I find it enlightening how the corporate media tries to marginalize presidential candidates the don't want to see win.

    By making arguments that he has no chance to win is just a part of that marginalization.

    Not putting his name in headlines is one of the other ways.
    • MarcVilla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6You are absolutely right...If any major politician doesn't tow the establishment line whether left or right, they become persona -non- grata.
  • mille716, on 10/12/2007, -14/+2Ron Paul doesn't support the seperation of church and state. Ron Paul is anti-gay. Think about this before you give him your vote and money.

    Digg has been gamed.
    • Lowry, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9And who are you supporting for the 2008 election?

      People on digg voting for their interests != gamed

      Gamed = payed for spam.
    • kolanos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7That's nonsense. Thinly veiled nonsense at that.

      When it comes to hot button social issues like gay marriage and abortion, Ron Paul leaves that in the hands of state governments to decide for themselves. He is personally pro-life, and would likely be an outspoken supporter of a pro-life culture, but he is also in opposition to the federallization of social issues. As such he would not sign any federal law banning abortion, but he would also not sign (or support) any federal law legalizing it either (as we currently have with Roe v. Wade). It is a very divisive issues that stands little chance of reaching a consensus nationwide, as is the case with most social issues, so the only real solution is to allow the people to decide for themselves at the state-level. Blue states will likely be predominantly pro-choice, while red states will be predominantly pro-life -- the same would apply to gay marriage.

      So a person who who is pro-choice on the issue of abortion could support Ron Paul on the principle that they are also pro-choice in regards to states' rights to choose whether or not abortion should be legal and what conditions should be applied therein.

      If you want to read more about Ron Paul views on abortion and his opposition to the federalization of social issues, check out his essays on the subject here:
      http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul240.html
      http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul100.html
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 98 of 98 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.