What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- ManOfVirtues, on 02/07/2008, -23/+189Bom Bom Bom ... Another one bites the dust.
- 00Wang, on 02/07/2008, -34/+71Now Ron Paul really has a chance! I kid, I kid
- mandagrrl, on 02/07/2008, -43/+29Actually he has more of one now than before.. and I DON"T kid...
- nblsavage, on 02/07/2008, -35/+25twice nothing is still nothing
- rlahiff, on 02/07/2008, -11/+7rofl how true
- Unclekoolaid, on 02/07/2008, -12/+3/0
- DigitalOmnivore, on 02/07/2008, -10/+43Actually, this really hurts Ron Paul. I wouldn't be surprised if 'The Paul Strategy' was part of the reason Romney was pressured to bow out by the Republican party.
If you haven't been following it, it became pretty well known right before Super Tuesday that Ron Paul was shooting for a brokered convention. That is, he wanted to see a split between the Huckabee, Romney and McCain voters that ensured nobody was the winner.
The strategy after that was to win a brokered convention, Paul would use his supporters, who have disproportionally applied to be delegates to vote for him if a brokered convention came up. He'd also have a chance to trade his delegates for a more influential role in the party, or at least a chance to speak at the RNC and be heard. Remember, a brokered convention would make for high ratings television, and most people still haven't heard Paul's message. A loss would still be a 'win' if he won people over in losing, like Goldwater did.
So, this is a bad thing for Paul. Romney will endorse McCain, and the state party heads will just give Romney's delegates to McCain.- airwalkery2k, on 02/07/2008, -2/+18Thank you for spelling it out.
My initial reaction was "Yay, good news because Romney scares me." But I do remember Ron Paul himself describing this situation as part of his plan. A clear frontrunner, like McCain, is bad news for a fringe candidate trying to make a mark on the convention. - Humptydank, on 02/07/2008, -9/+9Ron Paul needs more than 16 delegates, or at most 42 even by their own estimate, to have any role whatsoever in a brokered convention.
Any scenario in which Ron Paul holds up anything over 42 delegates is pure fantasy. - Frnnkdlxx, on 02/07/2008, -2/+12Are you telling me that you expect McCain to continue his momentum even with Ron Paul able to spell out exactly why he's bad for your children, let alone the country? NO WAY!
- exoendo, on 02/07/2008, -30/+9Dear DIgg Morons:
Ron Paul has a snowball chance in hell of getting the GOP nomination. He has FOUR. delegates. John Mccain has 720+.
He does not have significant backing to ever win the nomination, nor does he have the backing to win the general election.
S.T.F.U about Ron Paul. He's NOT GOING ANYWHERE you stupid IDIOTS! - skeeterbug84, on 02/07/2008, -2/+7I think you meant to type "Digg". You idiot.
- dmh11686, on 02/07/2008, -5/+7I highly doubt, Romney suspending his campaign has any thing to do with Ron Paul. According to most estimates, not the campaign, he has 16 delegates and has not won one primary or caucus, he would have little effect on the convention. Romney was simply looking at the math, he would have to win 85% of all the delegates to win the nomination, it was nearly impossible. Ron Paul's chances are impossible.
- airwalkery2k, on 02/07/2008, -2/+18Thank you for spelling it out.
- Lukesed, on 02/07/2008, -3/+9Yeah.... it used to be that for Ron Paul to win Mccain, Huckabee, AND Romney would all have to suddenly disappear. Now just Mcain and Huckabee would.
- mike17032, on 02/07/2008, -14/+4Who are you kidding Luksesed?
Mickey Mouse write ins would still beat old paul. The guy is the very definition of a walking joke. - asspants, on 02/07/2008, -0/+4No, a walking joke is someone who uses a macintosh to play world of warcraft through an AOL account.
- nblsavage, on 02/07/2008, -35/+25twice nothing is still nothing
- Frnnkdlxx, on 02/07/2008, -4/+14Screw you Wang!
- PhillAholic, on 02/07/2008, -5/+21If it's Paul vs. McCain on the economy and the economy only...then yea, he has a great chance.
- catfish182, on 02/07/2008, -11/+3i think paul stays around just to steal your money
- mandagrrl, on 02/07/2008, -43/+29Actually he has more of one now than before.. and I DON"T kid...
- suzywang3000, on 02/07/2008, -53/+8thank God. the thought of a mormon prez gives me the chills.
- 2trkpony, on 02/07/2008, -17/+28Mormonism teaches that trillions of planets scattered throughout the cosmos are ruled by countless gods who once were human like us.
They say that long ago, on one of these planets, to an unidentified god and one of his goddess wives, a spirit child named Elohim was conceived. This spirit child was later born to human parents who gave him a physical body.
Mormons believe that Elohim is their Heavenly Father and that he lives with his many wives on a planet near a mysterious star called Kolob.
There the god of Mormonism and his wives, through endless Celestial sex, produced billions of spirit children. To decide their destiny, the head of the Mormon gods called a great heavenly council meeting. Both of Elohim’s eldest sons were there, Lucifer and his brother Jesus.
LMAO...christ...!
"The vote that followed approved the proposal of the Mormon Jesus who would become savior of the planet Earth. Enraged, Lucifer cunningly convinced one-third of the spirits destined for earth to fight with him and revolt. Thus Lucifer became the devil and his followers the demons. Sent to this world, they would forever be denied bodies of flesh and bone.
Those who remained neutral in the battle were cursed to be born with black skin. This is the Mormon explanation for the Negro race.'
Talk about ***** cRaZy. This is the "faith based" belief system of a 'front runner' presidential candidate MSM was promoting like the second coming. And the pro war neocon shills say Ron Paul is 'crazy' and 'racist' right...LOL..Like their neocon candidate doesn't have a few warped issues of his own? Ron Paul doesn't believe Lucifer became the devil and his followers the demons. He doesn't believe the 'god of Mormonism and his wives, through endless Celestial sex, produced billions of spirit children." Paul is the only sane, clear thinking, intelligent candidate running who doesn't hide behind psychotic religious fantasies, the bible, and "for the children" sound bytes. Put a real clear headed, logical leader in the White House who truly cares about America, not some myth-entrenched, AIPAC serf, war mongering CFR sellout who believes in invisible deities & silly myths of epic proportion.
George Carlin - Religion is *****:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o- suzywang3000, on 02/07/2008, -12/+15whoever buried you should get kicked out the country.
- 2trkpony, on 02/07/2008, -8/+9probably the Mormons! lol..
/prepares to get dugg down by Romney-bots & related shills for listing facts about their hero's non-reality based belief system...
War mongering politicoids LOVE love to hide behind their religious myths as justification for their wars, military invasions & killing. Where would we be without a mythical 'god' to cower behind? They advertise their pet religions to make themselves appear more level-headed, credible and worthy of the job. And people buy into it, unquestionably.
O for the day when humankind grows up and realizes that there is no ‘god’ and all this fighting over who has the best imaginary friend has been nothing but a pathetic WASTE.
A religious war is like children fighting over who has the strongest imaginary friend. - Frnnkdlxx, on 02/07/2008, -11/+7So in closing
Mormonism = Scientology.
AND I HATE THE SCIENTOLOGY SPAM, BTW. But their are similarities.. All of which are crazy - OralCavity, on 02/07/2008, -3/+14Mormonism != Scientology. do your homework
- brstilson, on 02/07/2008, -7/+19Christianity teaches that everything we know, the entire universe, was created by a supernatural being...who's invisible. He has no beginning and has just "always existed." After creating the universe, he decided to create a planet with life. So after 6 days (or 1 day, depending on where in the account you're reading), the earth was ready for human life.
God created the first man by piling up a man-sized pile of dust and blowing on it. He made a woman shortly thereafter with one of his ribs. He created them naked and unaware of it. One day, a talking snake told the woman to eat some fruit off of a tree that God told them not to eat from, so instead of being freaked out by a talking snake (apparently this was once a common occurrence) the woman ate the tree and got the man to do the same. A stiff breeze blew through their garden paradise home and for the first time in their lives they felt a little draft down there. God punished the couple by forcing them to leave the garden and blocking the entrance with a spinning, flaming sword (even though swords hadn't been invented yet).
The man had sex with his wife and they made babies. The children grew up and commenced having incestuous sex with each other to create the human race, but that was okay because the human lifespan back then was like 900 years. Some years later invisible angels having no gender or hormones somehow got sexually excited by human females, and created male bodies for themselves so they could indulge in their human fetish. Their babies grew up to be giants. God had had enough at this point and decided to flood the earth and drown everyone except for 8 people he happened to like, and that's what he did. He instructed one of the eight people to build a 400-foot-long rectangular barge out of nothing but wood and tar. He also apparently instructed this person in advanced wooden barge-building techniques seeing that the technology of the time this supposedly happened was not up to par with building a vessel that size that wouldn't shear itself apart as soon as it hit a cross-current. Also, he had these 8 people load up representatives of every single one of the millions upon millions of animal species on earth (except for fish, god would somehow modify them to survive in the brackish sea water they'd all encounter and then take that ability away after the waters died down). Undoubtedly animals were stackable and required no food, water, or fecal removal back then.
After the rains died down and everybody was dead, the three wives of the three husbands started having babies, who once again had incestuous sex and repopulated the human race, even though God apparently put the kiebosh on the whole 900-year life span thing after the flood and gave humans the standard 120 or so years we have today.
After there were a decent amount of people in the earth, God decided to pick his most favorite person of them all. After doing so, he promised to show favor to every single one of his descendants and use them to commit random acts of genocide, rape, and pillage against unsuspecting people who have to GALL not to worship him. After several centuries of this, God's favorite people stopped worshiping him in favor of the cooler, more popular Gods and each time God punished them severely.
Eventually, God decided to send his son (who is somehow also God himself) down to earth to get killed by his favorite people so he could save everyone from the realm of the talking snake dude (apparently God can't just save everyone just because he feels like it).
I know you're not supporting Christianity either, I just have fun breaking it down like I just did.- jollins, on 02/07/2008, -9/+2Oh come on. I have my issues with the Bible but Genesis isn't meant to be taken literally. A condescending atheist is just as bad as a Jesus freak.
- capiCrimm, on 02/07/2008, -1/+6@jollins
Maybe the entire bible isn't meant to be taken literally? - spacecoyote1966, on 02/07/2008, -1/+2Agreed but unfortunately a lot of people do take genesis literally.
- 11oops, on 02/07/2008, -1/+7According to many, the bible is to be taken literally. Think about all the silly creationists, and follow this link http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client ...
brstilson... you forgot that Noah managed to accumulate two of each of the 900,000 species of insects, all the animals got along and didn't eat each other, and since there is no evolution he would have also had to accumulate at least one of each of the 276,000+ species of plant life including those near-microscopic fungi.
And don't forget about God creating buried fossils...
- StealthMonkey, on 02/07/2008, -12/+16Bigots like you give me the chills.
- 2trkpony, on 02/07/2008, -6/+10Pointing out that a person is insane for believing a science fiction book is reality, and letting it guide their life... that makes someone a "bigot'?
- knouri, on 02/07/2008, -4/+5Some would argue that the old testament was science fiction as well. Just because it doesn't fit with YOUR belief system, doesn't mean that it's automatically any more crazy than any other belief.
- 2trkpony, on 02/07/2008, -4/+6Old testament, new testament, king james version, etc. how many times has that thing been re-written, re-edited & revised? What religion doesn't fall under the category of science fiction. True spirituality is not an organized religion, IMO.
- MacEnvy, on 02/07/2008, -0/+4@2trkpony
No, it's suzy's comment history that implies that the reason for the comment is bigotry. Check it out.- 2trkpony, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2oh oki..the 'bigotry' reply showed up under one of my comments so thought it was directed @ me..oh well..lol..another day on the internet..I don't usually read comment history but will try & see what it's like..
- 2trkpony, on 02/07/2008, -6/+10Pointing out that a person is insane for believing a science fiction book is reality, and letting it guide their life... that makes someone a "bigot'?
- capiCrimm, on 02/07/2008, -2/+10@2trkpony
You realize the basis for most of that is also the basis for the majority of western religion. Islam, Christianity, Methodists, Mormons, and all of western religions. Let me point out something about the Mormon god 'Elohim'. From wikipedia:
"Elohim is a Hebrew word which expresses concepts of divinity. [...] Elohim is the third word in the *Hebrew text* of Genesis and occurs frequently throughout the *Hebrew Bible.*" ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim )
... and where does the cursed black skin come from? Cain in the *Hebrew Bible* is marked(the mark is ambiguous but some believe it means black skin) after he kills his brother. All religions, (except Pastafarianism and Discordianism), if you look hard enough are seriously ***** up.- oldhick, on 02/07/2008, -5/+4You're really stretching. The insinuation you're making about Cain being black is only believed by biggoted groups like the KKK who don't practice Christianity in the sense that anyone else does.
Second, the rest of your comments are flat at false.
Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are all explicitly and undeniably monotheistic. Mormonism however is not. They chose to use the name for God that is used in biblical texts, but they chose to make him "a god". One of many in-fact.
A little mis-place knowledge is really a bad thing. Simply because the name they use for God is similar doesn't mean the religions and the precepts of their faith are similar.
Now before I'm condemned, I could careless what Mormons believe. They have every right to worship the tooth fairy if they want to.- Azuroth, on 02/07/2008, -2/+2http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Teachings-Jesus-Gnost ...
Except according to John, yes that John, before he died, Jesus taught him the truth about the universe. You see, there isn't one god, there are many, and each of them have a mate and they are all ruled over by the divine light. Now one day, Jehovah decided that he wanted to create a world without his partner and so went off and created this planet called Earth. Since Jehovah did this without his partner, it wasn't sanctified by the divine light. This meant it was full of sin and damnation, and consequently that Jehovah was utterly corrupt and evil. Eventually his partner found out, and she tried to help the people of Earth, (read the Bible carefully, there are definitely two "aspects" of god, one very mean and vengeful, one much nicer. The mean vengeful one disappears just after the book of Job). However, since her partner was corrupted she didn't have much luck anymore, so the divine light created her a new partner named Jesus. He came physically to Earth in order to absorb the sin and corruption of Earth's birth and take it away with him when he died.
So, according to Jesus' most trusted disciple, there are lots and lots of gods, only three of which have ever had anything to do with Earth.
For some reason, church leaders at the time only wanted to include John's first gospel. Go Figure.
- Azuroth, on 02/07/2008, -2/+2http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Teachings-Jesus-Gnost ...
- 2trkpony, on 02/07/2008, -2/+5no doubt..I'm not for any one, really. I say believe in yourself, believe in each other during this limited, precious time we all have here on this planet, believe in you not some invisible pie in the sky ghost, find peace on earth NOW don't wait for some invisible man in a robe to come 'restore' it. But that's just me..
Religion is the most brilliant population control device ever fabricated. What an amazing plan if there ever was to control, divide & conquer the populace, separate the serfs. The ultimate distraction. Keep 'em fighting amongst each other over false paradigms and non-issues such as who has the better imaginary friend while the ruling elite take over the country and dominate the world. Couldn't have planned it any better. Fanatical belief in religious fantasies only sets the stage for easily-conditioned belief in much larger myths..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o
- oldhick, on 02/07/2008, -5/+4You're really stretching. The insinuation you're making about Cain being black is only believed by biggoted groups like the KKK who don't practice Christianity in the sense that anyone else does.
- trigun1, on 02/07/2008, -3/+1Your worried about his religion? I'm worried about being screwed by the damage him and any of the other front runners will do to this country when elected, Rep. or Dem.! The hell with their religion!
- brstilson, on 02/07/2008, -2/+2Mormonism is to Christianity what Reflexology is to Modern Medicine.
- grinchdec23, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2???
- Magnus150, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1wait...what?
- grinchdec23, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2???
- 2trkpony, on 02/07/2008, -17/+28Mormonism teaches that trillions of planets scattered throughout the cosmos are ruled by countless gods who once were human like us.
- mattrmcg, on 02/07/2008, -3/+13If only Christopher Walken ran this go around...then he would definately have a chance
- moush, on 02/07/2008, -3/+2Why would a horrible actor that can't get any lead roles be a good candidate?
- MrTulip, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1shut up and learn:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=sMZwZiU0kKs - ostracize, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1'Cause he's ***** of the walk baby!
- MrTulip, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1shut up and learn:
- moush, on 02/07/2008, -3/+2Why would a horrible actor that can't get any lead roles be a good candidate?
- lawngnomes4pres, on 02/07/2008, -8/+3Does anybody else immediately think of American Gladiators when this song is played now?
- gandhii, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1not yet.. but after watching a few more of those episodes I probably will.. ;]
- bmovers, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1No, I think of Queen.
- Jennefah, on 02/07/2008, -0/+0No, I think of Gladiators, the UK show from the 90s.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AyozpaYasY
- shadash, on 02/07/2008, -3/+48Huckabee is next
- diggeddugg, on 02/07/2008, -1/+5No *****
- Hedegaard, on 02/07/2008, -0/+3That's exactly what I was thinking! :)
- Vodka2389, on 02/07/2008, -1/+6He's running for vice president and he knows it.
- diggeddugg, on 02/07/2008, -1/+5No *****
- SeannyRotten, on 02/07/2008, -6/+5If you check ebay you can buy those stupid Mitt mitts for $0.10 apiece.
- moush, on 02/07/2008, -1/+1whut
- smartass007, on 02/07/2008, -5/+27yay for america! now we can look forward to the possibility of 4 more years of mindless war-mongering and corporate exploitation under mein fuhrer mccain.
- GeneralFailure0, on 02/07/2008, -1/+5If McCain actually wins the election.
- 2trkpony, on 02/07/2008, -1/+1If he does we're all *****! But that's not gonna happen..
- Inquisition, on 02/07/2008, -0/+6No *****! Even that bitch Ann Coulter (who I think used to be a man) said that McCain runs she would vote for Hilary! Talk about Hell freezing over!
- 2trkpony, on 02/07/2008, -2/+2lol.. Ann Coulter.. still is a he isn't she..or is the he really a she? Now he just has improved makeup cosmetics, a better wig, with hair extensions & stuff. All those Fox News appearances really 'paid off'. He sure is aggressive for a lady! lol.. McCain, Hillary=no difference aside from gender, both the same 'mindset' underneath all the pseudo intellectualizing & faux double-speak empty political rhetoric. Same agenda, same fascism either way. Any one of them gets elected (excuse me, 'installed' rather..) it will be business as usual, no difference. More war, more selling out the economy & country, and us along with it. McCain & Clinton are one in the same appearing under different labels. It doesn't matter which one of them becomes president. They both serve the same masters..
- 2trkpony, on 02/07/2008, -1/+1If he does we're all *****! But that's not gonna happen..
- mGARANDEUR1, on 02/08/2008, -1/+3I would prefer Huckabee over McCain. God, they are both terrible.... Way to let us down republican party.
- GeneralFailure0, on 02/07/2008, -1/+5If McCain actually wins the election.
- sHockz, on 02/07/2008, -16/+10Romney Romney Romney, hah! Cya! Guess who is still hanging in there...my boy Ron! Funny how the big candidates are falling out, yet, Ron Paul, (that tin foil hat wearing fool right?) still trudges along unaffected. I guess having REAL support from the people really helps out a campaign.
- ZPWeeks, on 02/07/2008, -9/+17Candidates with real support from the people get large amounts of votes.
- etandrib, on 02/07/2008, -8/+6While I respect Ron Paul for continuing to "share his message" it is obvious he isn't in the race to win. Romney was in the race to win. They have different motives and ways of bringing about change. Unfortunately there isn't any one in the republican party I can vote for. If Obama doesn't win I think I may be looking for real estate elsewhere. Hmm. I guess it may be time to revisit the EU.
- diggduggDOOM, on 02/07/2008, -3/+8Your enthusiasm is good, but often people with no hope of winning stay in the race to continue spreading their message and pushing other candidates towards their own views.
I am not a Ron Paul supporter, but I hope that his supporters recognize that Ron Paul's message is what's important, not the man himself. When Ron Paul loses, I hope his MESSAGE continues to inspire others to take up the cause.- sHockz, on 02/07/2008, -2/+13Exactly, I think of RP as a kind of 'Martin Luther King' of our time in terms of politics. As long as you really listen to what he says, you will see he isn't as crazy as the media portrays him to be...and actually makes entirely too much sense.
- jollins, on 02/07/2008, -8/+2"I hope his MESSAGE continues to inspire others to take up the cause."
You mean his message pushing for regressing our economy back to how it was in the 1920s?- nitramlliw, on 02/07/2008, -0/+3hey fool, if you haven't noticed, we were an up and coming in the world in the 20s and now "the hat" has a better dollar than us. please shut the ***** up and go troll somewhere else.
- sHockz, on 02/07/2008, -0/+6@ jollins
Read what you wrote....'his message for regressing our economy'
Obviously you havent listened at all to what he said. He wants to reduce govt. spending, not regress our economy. He wants to get rid of the IRS, and give people all their money (no income tax), and tax goods that people buy...like cars, and other crap that people dont necessarily need. if they want to spend the money for those items, then they can pay the taxes on them, and they will have the money to do it with. regression? i think you are a little mistaken, do research first before you speak.
- GeneralFailure0, on 02/07/2008, -2/+3Romney has been performing better than Ron Paul in polls and in primaries. Ron Paul is still in the race because Ron Paul still wants to be in the race and still feels like spending money on his campaign.
- mike17032, on 02/07/2008, -9/+3Ya well those who have dropped out had the dignity to see they had lost.
Old paul doesnt have any of that, so he has no problem shaming himself by carrying on this charade. Maybe he is also waiting for another money bomb, so he can buy a bigger house after he drops out. Morons.- rarson, on 02/07/2008, -0/+5You're the moron if you think Ron Paul would use campaign money to buy a new house. Why wouldn't he just use his congressional pension? Oh, that's right, he returns it to the treasury every year.
- ZPWeeks, on 02/07/2008, -9/+17Candidates with real support from the people get large amounts of votes.
- ggacid, on 02/07/2008, -3/+20Atleast now Huckabee and Paul can get a chance to talk at the debates! (I hope)
- Azlen, on 02/07/2008, -7/+7Why would there be any more debates? McCain has no reason to agree to one.
- DigitalOmnivore, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1You're right, there is one scheduled for Feb 28th IIRC, but McCain has no reason to show up unless something strange happens.
- DigitalOmnivore, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1You're right, there is one scheduled for Feb 28th IIRC, but McCain has no reason to show up unless something strange happens.
- mGARANDEUR1, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1McCain might have an advantage over Huckabee but I think he would still need to debate.
- Azlen, on 02/07/2008, -7/+7Why would there be any more debates? McCain has no reason to agree to one.
- garryw, on 02/07/2008, -9/+5Romney 2012 'nuff said.
- projectstartrek, on 02/08/2008, -1/+2fail
- Rodman930, on 02/07/2008, -3/+9Romney is smart enough to know that no Rep. is going to win this year. He didn't actually want the nomination, because after he lost the GE (and he would loose badly) he would never get another chance. People don't like to nominate losers. Now, after McCain loses, Mitt has the name recognition to run again next time saying it was a mistake to nominate McCain in the first place.
Mitt's playing chess while the rest of the republicans are playing checkers. He knows that it will take at least another 8 years for America to get stupid enough to vote another war monger into office. - poopz, on 02/07/2008, -1/+2I was kinda curious to see what diggers would make of this. Obviously the first reaction would be "lololol republikans suck yay!!!!" Then again, McCain might be even worse than Romney in the long run. And no, Ron Paul won't win
- scimitar91, on 02/08/2008, -0/+23rd place.
1/3 chances right?
RP08 - MacSuxWindozSux, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1I love it how old political news keeps hitting the front page.
- 00Wang, on 02/07/2008, -34/+71Now Ron Paul really has a chance! I kid, I kid
- popnwave, on 02/07/2008, -32/+6Another one bites the dust...I guess he'd rather be Veep!
- Skitzzo, on 02/07/2008, -3/+22Dude, pay attention. None of the candidates left would ever pick Mitt for their VP. McCain and Huckabee pretty much hate him (along with most of the rest of the party).
- DigitalOmnivore, on 02/07/2008, -0/+8The party can force a VP on a candidate sometimes, they forced HW Bush on Reagan after Ford turned Reagan down.
The two disliked each other, HW Bush made up the term 'voodoo economics' to describe Reaganomics during the '80 primary season.
McCain's likely VP is his friend Fred Thompson. Rudy could be another option. Electorally, Huckabee would make the most sense for McCain who sometimes has a problem picking up religious types.- seand, on 02/07/2008, -0/+4All of the above would be cause for concern. Huckabee scares the living ***** out of me...how about we leave the constitution alone and put religion on the back burner for a bit, mmmkay?
What is even more alarming with Huckabee still in the running has to be the power mega-churches have on influencing the election for their own agendas... *shudders* - rz8472, on 02/07/2008, -2/+3How about Joe Lieberman as VP? The prospect of a faux-"Unity" ticket would be a serious concern for Democrats.
- DigitalOmnivore, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1Interesting thought! The only problem is, that might further alienate conservative voters from McCain, and McCain is already strong with independents.
- gandhii, on 02/07/2008, -1/+1@rz: yea.. that one seems the most likely choice to me. The MSM seems pretty interested in spinning things that way these days. For no known reasons they keep talking about Bloomberg running independently as if he wasn't your typical partisan super rich guy politician.
- HxChris91, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1Agreed, if the party DID in fact force a candidate on McCain it would most likely be Huckabee to balance the ticket between moderates and conservatives.
- seand, on 02/07/2008, -0/+4All of the above would be cause for concern. Huckabee scares the living ***** out of me...how about we leave the constitution alone and put religion on the back burner for a bit, mmmkay?
- DigitalOmnivore, on 02/07/2008, -0/+8The party can force a VP on a candidate sometimes, they forced HW Bush on Reagan after Ford turned Reagan down.
- dinot, on 02/07/2008, -1/+20I hear there's an opening for Secretary of Lookin' Good in Obama's cabinet http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/25/obama-del ...
- Skitzzo, on 02/07/2008, -3/+22Dude, pay attention. None of the candidates left would ever pick Mitt for their VP. McCain and Huckabee pretty much hate him (along with most of the rest of the party).
- thefirelane, on 02/07/2008, -0/+140For those who are curious about "suspend" here's the relevant part:
Candidates who officially drop out must forfeit statewide delegates.- disruptor108, on 02/07/2008, -1/+41What will happen to his delegates?
- weside, on 02/07/2008, -24/+3My guess is a good many of them will go to Huckabee.
- swrostmore, on 02/07/2008, -6/+34He'll barter them for favors; maybe a VP spot but probably not.
- Qtip42, on 02/07/2008, -2/+32Ya i'm thinking he's dropping because he cut one of those "backroom" deals he hates so much.
- geekee, on 02/07/2008, -4/+8Romney has no leverage with those delegates since McCain is clearly going to win, with or without them. On the other hand Obama and Clinton are selling their souls for Democratic super delegates.
- irightthebook, on 02/07/2008, -1/+5Really? Selling their souls? Doubtful. Here in Maryland there are some pretty serious grassroots efforts by Obama supporters to bring over people like Sarbanes. Not really what I'd call Obama selling his soul.
- avengingturnip, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2If he bails out on the balloting, those delegates are probably mostly free to vote whichever way they want in the convention.
- undergrace, on 02/07/2008, -9/+32"On the Republican side, decisions on how to allocate delegates is left to the state parties."
I doubt every state will allow Romney go keep his delegates - hopefully most of them will re-allocate them accordingly. This means in a state like Nevada, Ron Paul could get a *huge* boost!- patpl22391, on 02/07/2008, -38/+35Just shut up already. Ron Paul has lost every primary.
- Todash19, on 02/07/2008, -10/+22he has come in 2nd in 5 states. and all those delegates are up for grabs.
- GeekSwag, on 02/07/2008, -9/+9I don't know why you're being dugg down. Ron Paul has 16 delegates compared to McCain's 714. I'm sorry guys, but the fight is over.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results ... - grinchdec23, on 02/07/2008, -1/+2Because you are wrong and we already had this discussion further on down ?
- Todash19, on 02/07/2008, -10/+22he has come in 2nd in 5 states. and all those delegates are up for grabs.
- gandhii, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1I'd like to know who in "the state parties" gets to make these decisions. I'm sure that in some it may be left up to the individual delegates, but I expect that others may just be decided by a few in a small committee. Either way there isn't much chance that a delegate who thought Romney was a good idea is going to suddenly take Ron Paul as a second option. Those kind of people, more so than all the other candidate's supporters probably, base their decision on gloss and perceived popularity.
- patpl22391, on 02/07/2008, -38/+35Just shut up already. Ron Paul has lost every primary.
- MacEnvy, on 02/07/2008, -1/+6Most likely, he'll barter them to get a prime speaking spot at the convention. He'll run again in 4 years, and he wants to be sure he's got solid footing next time around. Romney may be a lot of things, but a bad businessman he's not - he'll save some cash by dropping out now and have it to spent next cycle, when he'll have a better shot at the nomination.
- wishninja, on 02/07/2008, -1/+3A VP nod looks like a good bet to run again 8 years from now also.
- SheilaNoya, on 02/07/2008, -1/+6He'll sell them to the highest bidder, count up all of his profits, then wave the money at everyone and say:
"I told you I was a great businessman."
- SouthsideIrish, on 02/07/2008, -0/+7They vote the first ballot for Romney then they are free to vote as they please. But if someone has enough delegates than it is over and they have no leverage.
- mlirblur, on 02/07/2008, -11/+32Touche! Damn, leave it to Romney to be a dick and stop campaigning while keeping the 25% of the delegacy he currently has.
Hey Romney, since you claim to be a true conservative, why not give your delegates to Ron Paul? That would shut up the naysayers.- lebruf, on 02/07/2008, -16/+11blah blah blah... romney is a dick
blah blah blah... ron paul is my hero
okay. dig me up. - kete00, on 02/07/2008, -3/+13Um....maybe because he couldn't give them to Paul even if he wanted to. It's not up to him.
- nitramlliw, on 02/07/2008, -0/+3he can pull a guliani though. and swing his candidates toward paul.
- lebruf, on 02/07/2008, -16/+11blah blah blah... romney is a dick
- Todash19, on 02/07/2008, -12/+49When true conservatives look at the remaining candidates, they know a few things: McCain is not a conservative. He's not even close. Huckabee is not a conservative. He is a preacher and has many Christians voting for him out of loyalty to a half-hearted and unrealistic attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade. And then there is Ron Paul. Ron Paul is a true conservative. He is the only candidate that has a solvent campaign. He is the only candidate that understands that in order to change our course in this country, we need a president who will address the very real problems of economic woes, failing dollar, and wars run amok.
Yes, Ron Paul is still in the running. In Washington State, we have the chance to tell the liberal neo-con establishment that we will not support a liberal RINO, John McCain. (Republican in name only.) That means that the vote for Ron Paul just got stronger! If we show up, we win. It is that simple. We are Republicans because we believe in less tax, no amnesty, less government. McCain is none of these. We stand for non-intervention, something that McCain has flip-flopped on.- kaelyiesta, on 02/07/2008, -2/+24I'll be sooo embarrassed if Seattle doesn't put Ron Paul above McCain. For those of you in WA voting in the primary by mail, make sure you sign that little oath on the outside flap of the envelope they send you. You're vote wont count if you don't. Yes its ***** and it weeds out first time voters who don't know better, so dont ***** up and make your vote invalid by missing that part.
And go to your caucus location on saturday!- Todash19, on 02/07/2008, -1/+7I will be at the Clark County caucus Saturday. Dr. Paul will win Washington.
- mrjhmm, on 02/07/2008, -0/+9Washington State caucuses start at 1pm, be there early, if you are late they won't let you vote.
Find your caucus location here: (it is usually NOT the same place as your polling location)
http://ronpaulwa.com/locations/
You don't need to be a registered Republican, there is no such thing in Washington state. Just sign a paper that says that you won't be participating in the Democrat's caucuses this year.
- mike17032, on 02/07/2008, -13/+5LOL, you paultards cant even buy a clue can you?
He isnt going to win a single state, not a single one. No one with half a brain wants this nutjob to be president. Keep deluding yourself if you wish, but there is a good reason he has crashed and burned in every single state so far. How is that 5% treating you?- Todash19, on 02/07/2008, -1/+62nd in 5 states doesn't = crash and burn. And your insults at intelligence will not effect anything.
- 2trkpony, on 02/07/2008, -0/+8"paultards"
Would that make you a disgruntled Romneybot? A McCain-insane? How about an equally-ridiculous Hilaryheathen? Or you gonna pull wildcard on us now that your man suspended his campaign and vote Huckabee..
Just because the dumbed down apathetic, easily duped "majority' has let the controlled TV media decide their candidate for them doesn't mean we have to too.
Only a nutjob would proclaim "100 years in Iraq" or advertise ridiculous science fiction=reality religious beliefs in effort to appear 'credible'. The USA does not need sell-out, weak puppet-leaders like that any more. We're tired of the lies, 2-faced bull ***** & deceit. We're tired of our Constitution being sold out from under us. It's time for a change. Any well-grounded human being knows Ron Paul is the only one to lead the country in a positive direction. For a change. The rest of the AIPAC funded, CFR sell-outs will only give us more of the same B.S. More war mongering. Sellout more jobs overseas. More illegal immigration. Economy in the toilet bankrupt from war fraud. Who in their right mind wants any of that absolute *****? Who in their right mind wants to be at war in Iraq for another 100 years? under direction of some bought out military industrial complex meglomanaic war monger? You believe he is "tuff" right. You gotta be a TRUE nutjob to buy into that garbage. Which is exactly what the other crime syndicate candidates will give you. Who in their right mind would vote for a hutjob candidate who believes in fairytale myths that 'Elohim is their Heavenly Father and that he lives with his many wives on a planet near a mysterious star called Kolob' as part of their 'Mormon faith that guides them" and 'helps them with important decision making". This person is being considered to lead us & the country??
Ron Paul is the only sane candidate running who doesn't play ball with the criminals. He doesn't hide behind religious science fiction myths, invisible gods & spirits that have nothing to do with reality. He isn't a shill for the bankers or MIC. He hasn't been bought, sold & paid for like the rest. He isn't part of unconstitutional shadow government cabal like CFR, AIPAC, or Bilderburg meetings. He will stop billions of dollars in so-called "foreign aid" blank checks to Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia - some of the most wealthy, prosperous nations on the planet. WTF do they need it for, bribes?? Keep the money here at home in OUR country. Restore the republic which has since been eviscerated by neo-con fascists & their agenda. Paul will be a president of the **USA**, here at home, not a president of Iraq and the middle east. Any truly awake and aware U.S. citizen with half a brain can realize that. Go back to sleep.. - rentmitchum, on 02/07/2008, -1/+3Well said, I dugg it, but hutjob is a funny typo. Had to be said. Makes me think of something Princess Lea might have had to do in between getting captured and escaping.
- 2trkpony, on 02/07/2008, -1/+1LOL! *ding*.. yeah..I wouldn't mind seeing C-3PO as president.. It was a conscious error to see if the more sharper-eyed readers who actually read for comprehension beyond the first sentence of an opening paragraph would catch it ;-)
Jabba FTW '08!
- 2trkpony, on 02/07/2008, -1/+1LOL! *ding*.. yeah..I wouldn't mind seeing C-3PO as president.. It was a conscious error to see if the more sharper-eyed readers who actually read for comprehension beyond the first sentence of an opening paragraph would catch it ;-)
- Todash19, on 02/07/2008, -1/+62nd in 5 states doesn't = crash and burn. And your insults at intelligence will not effect anything.
- gandhii, on 02/08/2008, -2/+1Even though I'm a Ron Paul supporter, I know well enough that anyone who was gullible enough to think that Mitt is a "true conservative" will easily be able to convince themselves that either McCain or Huckabee is regardless of the evidence. Especially since to most of these people that phrase means something different than what it did 10 years ago.
- kaelyiesta, on 02/07/2008, -2/+24I'll be sooo embarrassed if Seattle doesn't put Ron Paul above McCain. For those of you in WA voting in the primary by mail, make sure you sign that little oath on the outside flap of the envelope they send you. You're vote wont count if you don't. Yes its ***** and it weeds out first time voters who don't know better, so dont ***** up and make your vote invalid by missing that part.
- rmxz, on 02/07/2008, -0/+6My guess - Bloomberg enters the campaign, picks Mitt as VP, and they use keep the delegates as bragging rights.
- disruptor108, on 02/07/2008, -1/+41What will happen to his delegates?
- mandagrrl, on 02/07/2008, -68/+207please oh please let McCain be next.. then Huckabee... please oh please...
- bolotinjbl, on 02/07/2008, -12/+117What are you talking about?
there is no way McCain will drop if he is winning
if anything itll be Huckabee- mandagrrl, on 02/07/2008, -24/+71Call it hopeful thinking from a RP supporter. :)
- Skitzzo, on 02/07/2008, -30/+13How bout I call it delusional? Of course you have to be to be a RP supporter but hey...whatever works.
- dshPls, on 02/07/2008, -13/+24Even if it was McCain and Paul, not many would vote for Paul... National security is a top issue and Paul's viewed as weak, whether you believe that or not, most of the GOP does.
- DigitalOmnivore, on 02/07/2008, -3/+18Yes, but some can be won over, if they actually take time to listen to someone other than the propaganda machine.
- receev, on 02/07/2008, -1/+11I don't understand why anyone would think of Paul's national security as weak. He's the one who wants to pull our troops out of foreign countries so we can spend money protecting our own country.
- bolognium, on 02/07/2008, -0/+7Yeah, most of the GOP are retards who fall for the fear-mongering and oversimplification of global security issues. Their "fight or flight" mechanism is constantly triggered so they don't think logically about the best way to defeat Islamic fundamentalists.
- DigitalOmnivore, on 02/07/2008, -3/+18Yes, but some can be won over, if they actually take time to listen to someone other than the propaganda machine.
- didiman, on 02/07/2008, -19/+13Why do you delusional fools still think paul still has a chance? He doesn't, never has, and never will.
- round427, on 02/07/2008, -1/+8No one called me delusional when I told them that Huckabee didn't stand a chance and he was nothing to worry about, yet that bitch is still in the race and even won states on Tuesday.
- Gerz1219, on 02/07/2008, -5/+5Huckabee is nothing to worry about for McCain at this stage. He was something to worry about for Romney, since his growing momentum split the anti-McCain vote among conservatives. But Huckabee has yet to expand his appeal beyond his very narrow evangelical base. He did a great job focusing his efforts on the south, where he could win a few primaries and appear to make a strong showing on Super Tuesday. He's campaigning for Vice President.
Ron Paul, on the other hand, is campaigning for irrelevance. He's only still in the race because he's still got a lot of money to spend promoting a message that very few people want to hear. It might be mathematically possible for him the win the nomination at this point, but it's as unlikely as a football team scoring five touchdowns with a minute left on the clock. Just stop, people.
- dinsy, on 02/07/2008, -3/+44He might drop over.
- jeffiek, on 02/07/2008, -3/+40Good one. I needed that laugh. Imagine - Romney and Huckabee drop out. That leaves Paul and McCain.
McCain keels over, leaving Dr. Paul!
You would hear the loudest WTF you ever heard. - Frnnkdlxx, on 02/07/2008, -1/+12Proof of God, perhaps. I'd have to give the F U to my ahteism.
But then the CIA would have to step in to protect their jobs and snipe the sh(ucks) out of Ron Paul. - Pritchard, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1jeffiek: That's also the WTF I've been expecting to hear for some months now :-)
McCain's gone a bit over the top recently, aye? I worry about his physical and mental health. The guy's a war hero, but in his old age he's been leaning closer and closer towards those WWII vets that go on about being surrounded by Nazis if you wake them up too suddenly.
- jeffiek, on 02/07/2008, -3/+40Good one. I needed that laugh. Imagine - Romney and Huckabee drop out. That leaves Paul and McCain.
- overtoke, on 02/07/2008, -7/+64If McCain wanted this country to succeed he would quit.
- rarson, on 02/07/2008, -0/+5Well, he's always saying how he "knows what is best for the country," so maybe one of these days he will.
- skeeterbug84, on 02/07/2008, -2/+5I hope you are being sarcastic, like mandagrrl was.....
- mandagrrl, on 02/07/2008, -2/+2I actually wasn't being sarcastic... this time..
- moush, on 02/07/2008, -0/+4wishful thinking =/= sarcasm, i wish Mccain would drop out too, he's horrible
- mandagrrl, on 02/07/2008, -24/+71Call it hopeful thinking from a RP supporter. :)
- esantipapa, on 02/07/2008, -6/+6yes... please is right, :-( unfortunately...
- BrandonMills, on 02/07/2008, -68/+92Sorry, but your Ron Paul dream is going to be nothing more than a dream.
- Firehed, on 02/07/2008, -10/+20I've been saying that since day one, as a supporter. The truth hurts :/
- PunkRampant, on 02/07/2008, -17/+1There was a time when Ron Paul could have risen to a higher status, but that time has long since passed. He's gonna drop out soon.
- pianomahnn, on 02/07/2008, -0/+24He's in it for different reasons than the other candidates. I find it unlikely for him to drop out...he's going to the nominating convention.
- orxor, on 02/07/2008, -3/+15What if Huckabee drops out next and McCain has a heart attack?
- mike17032, on 02/07/2008, -6/+7Then Mickey Mouse wins from write ins.
- doronster195, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2Divine intervention?
- renegadeafk, on 02/07/2008, -5/+19If paul wins the nomination i'll eat my own arm
- rarson, on 02/07/2008, -0/+12I doubt it'll happen, but if it does, I want to see pictures.
- renegadeafk, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1You're on.
- funkyjunk3, on 02/08/2008, -1/+3Would you like salt with that? /sarcasm
- rarson, on 02/07/2008, -0/+12I doubt it'll happen, but if it does, I want to see pictures.
- rentmitchum, on 02/07/2008, -5/+1Anyone else wish these Anon fellows would do something important instead of messing with a bunch of misguided fools? Hack the Ron Paul into the White House.
- dan222555, on 02/07/2008, -12/+4LOL I hope you're joking.
- KyleGoetz, on 02/07/2008, -2/+11Romney suspended, which means if McCain and Huckabee dropped out, Romney would win. If he suspends, he keeps the state delegates he has now. These are more than Paul has. Romney would win.
- d03boy, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1Right... because we've only been through 50% of the states so far...
- xerigen, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1Not necessarily true. There would be a good chance that he wouldn't get the majority of delegates in that situation (1191 I think) and then there would be a brokered convention.
- skyshock1, on 02/07/2008, -1/+9What this means is that McCain will get the nod, then it's him against Hillary or Obama. He could beat Hillary because she would just solidify the republican base against her, but I seriously doubt he could beat Obama since he's so charismatic and would get not only the Democratic base, but most of the swing vote. In the general election, you have to move to the center, but McCain doesn't even have the republican base yet.
Dems? You know what to do.- Jareth86, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1Nominate the candidate that can guarantee us a loss?
- briscuits, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1YES!
- Bamont, on 02/08/2008, -1/+1No offense, bro - but if Republicans won't vote for Hillary, they damn sure won't vote for Obama. Not en masse, anyway.
- Jareth86, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1Nominate the candidate that can guarantee us a loss?
- karaokekidd, on 02/07/2008, -1/+3Let's all support the 'Anybody but McCain Movement'. Stupid stupid media, why do you love Mr. stay in Iraq for 100 years so much?
- cheese06, on 02/08/2008, -1/+2maybe because, besides the war issue, hes fiercely independent? hes not a liberal or a conservative like what political pundits say on tv, hes a moderate when it comes to fiscal policy, domestic and even foreign. digg me down whatever guys, just remember to do your research instead of propagating a left/right paradigm that the media portrays.
- AntonLee, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1the above is the biggest bunch of crap ever stated. He's for torturing more iraqis everyday for another hundred years. Shame on you.
- cheese06, on 02/08/2008, -1/+2maybe because, besides the war issue, hes fiercely independent? hes not a liberal or a conservative like what political pundits say on tv, hes a moderate when it comes to fiscal policy, domestic and even foreign. digg me down whatever guys, just remember to do your research instead of propagating a left/right paradigm that the media portrays.
- stoanhart, on 02/07/2008, -0/+10Ron Paul by default would be absolutely hilarious.
- bolotinjbl, on 02/07/2008, -12/+117What are you talking about?
- Useche, on 02/07/2008, -44/+26Too bad there's already a clear front runner on the GOP side, but thank god it is anybody but Mitt Romney.
- lawngnomes4pres, on 02/07/2008, -6/+29Thank god its McCain?
You must be joking. - Sparkster185, on 02/07/2008, -2/+19Thank god it's anybody but Huckabee
- TicoTico, on 02/07/2008, -4/+2McCain, Romney and Giuliani are the same neocon *****.
- Tebixan, on 02/07/2008, -3/+4McCain would be bad, but Guiliani, Romney, or Huckabee would probably lead to the end of the world, so I'm tenuously happy with this.
- MxM111, on 02/07/2008, -2/+4Apart from militaristic foreign policy, McCain is actually very moderate as republicans go. This is actually a danger for democrats if they chose Obama, because McCain is much closer for political center then very liberal Obama, which also means that the centrist and even independent votes may go to McCain. Just based on their political positions, Hillary is much better for democrats from this respect.
- HxChris91, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2Anybody who says Hillary is better for anyone is written down as an idiot in my book.
- lawngnomes4pres, on 02/07/2008, -6/+29Thank god its McCain?
- abran1984, on 02/07/2008, -18/+29Mitt; how'd that "investment" work out for you?
His delegates are now his to control; he can transfer them to any candidate he wishes (I think).
McCain is now the Republican nominee; the only remaining question is who will be his VP? Huck, Romney, or someone who wasn't in the Presidential race?- clownguyx, on 02/07/2008, -3/+56McCain can not stand Romney, I don't see that happening.
- spritom, on 02/07/2008, -1/+7McCain's mom doesn't seem overly taken with Romney either...hehe
- TheRedNewt, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2McCain and Romney have been at each others throats. It's actually been quite childish; I doubt either wants to work together now.
Huckabee and Romney have had their share as well. Huckabee has even taken religious jabs. I don't see that happening.
Obviously, he will do something with them, but it will take some pretty hefty kickbacks.- tripzero, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2huckabee has taken religious jabs? Or was he the one that was giving the jabs? I recall him having to apologize to Romney for some ignorant comment on Romney's mormon religion.
- sonofman1984, on 03/03/2008, -0/+6McCain can't stand anybody. He is going to lead us into a quasi world war 3.
- mOdQuArK, on 02/07/2008, -0/+4McCain couldn't stand Bush either, esp. with the dirty tricks campaign, but he still gave Bush a full-body hug during the convention.
I'm pretty sure McCain will kowtow to Romney if it means a better chance of getting to the Presidency.- JBish828, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2You're right. The most we can expect from McCain and Romney is an ass-out hug.
- swrostmore, on 02/07/2008, -2/+19He'll answer your question about his investment when he finds out what kind of kickbacks he can trade for 294 delegates.
- Skitzzo, on 02/07/2008, -2/+6Huckabee is the only one that needs them and he hates Romney.
- swrostmore, on 02/07/2008, -1/+15Are you really naive enough to think Huckabee (or any politician) is going to sacrifice a shot at the presidency because of personal feelings?
- geekee, on 02/07/2008, -6/+2Romney has no leverage with those delegates since McCain is clearly going to win, with or without them. On the other hand Obama and Clinton are selling their souls for Democratic super delegates.
- Skitzzo, on 02/07/2008, -2/+6Huckabee is the only one that needs them and he hates Romney.
- shadash, on 02/07/2008, -6/+54Ron Paul should buy them from Mitt
- Frnnkdlxx, on 02/07/2008, -4/+4lol. I get it, the whole, Romney was a traitor, selling technology and infrastructure to the chinese who'd sell his own child for a dollar joke. lol. Nice one.
- TypeEE, on 02/07/2008, -1/+3I am sure Romney wants his $7 mil back that he loaned to his campaign.
- d03boy, on 02/07/2008, -1/+2more like $30 mil
- lived666, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1They said a total of $40 mil on CNN
- briscuits, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1Why not $50 mil, do I hear 50 mil?
- d03boy, on 02/07/2008, -1/+2more like $30 mil
- MusicalGenius, on 02/08/2008, -1/+1Do you people not get it... EVERYONE loans a campaign at some point. Hilary just BARELY did it. 5 mil
- Zaius, on 02/07/2008, -1/+16what are the chances that McCain will pick up Giuliani for VP because he dropped out early and endorsed McCain?
I'm not saying this is a good thing, I'm just curious about the back-room deals that have been going on in the Republican Party for so long- TypeEE, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2However, picking a guy that no one vote for may be a drag in the presidential race. He should pick someone more favorable like Mike Huckabee
- TsuruchiBrian, on 02/07/2008, -0/+3As vice president Huckabee can still ride his Jesus horse (dinosaur) to the White House. Also he can still be president of heaven.
- TypeEE, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2However, picking a guy that no one vote for may be a drag in the presidential race. He should pick someone more favorable like Mike Huckabee
- zephyr42, on 02/07/2008, -4/+9McCain and Huckabee cannot stand Romney.
Prepare for McCain/Huck in November 2008
The only chance we have is for Obama, and i'm not tha big of a fan of him.- sindex, on 02/07/2008, -2/+8Big fan or not, you've got to admit Obama is a better choice than a Hotheaded Warmonger/Apocalyptic Preacher ticket.
- lifeisapickle, on 02/07/2008, -3/+1why is he better sir. huck isn't the worst and at least Romney has years of experience running a prosperous state. what does obama have? 2-3 years in senate? oh wow. fantastic. as a JUNIOR senator. not even a full fledged senator.
but i must say i'd much rather have obama than hillary. at least obama's not a lesbian... - bahamutxd, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2You realize Junior is in name only.. He was a senator. It's not like he didn't earn his black belt as a senator yet.
- lifeisapickle, on 02/07/2008, -3/+1why is he better sir. huck isn't the worst and at least Romney has years of experience running a prosperous state. what does obama have? 2-3 years in senate? oh wow. fantastic. as a JUNIOR senator. not even a full fledged senator.
- etandrib, on 02/07/2008, -2/+3And better than another Clinton era. If Hilary wins I'll have to start looking abroad for a place to keep my money.
- trigun1, on 02/07/2008, -0/+4That's like hoping to hit a haystack rather than the ground when your parachute fails, either way your screwed!
- victropolis, on 02/07/2008, -1/+8We??? Who's we? Speak for yourself. Conservative principals are the way to go. Distrust government. Keep it as small as possible. Personal responsibility. Low taxes.
- lifeisapickle, on 02/07/2008, -0/+4right on my friend. obama, hillary, and mcCain will take these rights away from us.
- TsuruchiBrian, on 02/07/2008, -0/+6You can't possibly be talking about the Republican party, those guys rejected the only candidate who still stood for that stuff.
- sindex, on 02/07/2008, -2/+8Big fan or not, you've got to admit Obama is a better choice than a Hotheaded Warmonger/Apocalyptic Preacher ticket.
- beve54, on 02/07/2008, -0/+4Those delegates are bound to Romney for the first round of the national convention. He cannot "control" who they will vote for after the first round (or second, or third, depending on the state they come from). They will be free to vote for who they want. Only if he officially drops out, will those delegates be free to vote for who they want in the first round.
- sigg14, on 02/07/2008, -0/+10None of the republican candidates can possibly get the 1192 delegates required to lock the nomination, it is not possible. This will be a brokered convention so the popular vote primaries and caucases mean nothing.
- avengingturnip, on 02/07/2008, -1/+2It depends. If the Romney vote swings to McCain in the remaining contests he could have enough going into the convention. If it mostly swings to Huckabee he could become a bigger player than he is now and no one will have enough. It seems likely that Huckabee will win Texas now.
- d03boy, on 02/07/2008, -1/+1they won't though
- avengingturnip, on 02/07/2008, -1/+2It depends. If the Romney vote swings to McCain in the remaining contests he could have enough going into the convention. If it mostly swings to Huckabee he could become a bigger player than he is now and no one will have enough. It seems likely that Huckabee will win Texas now.
- CypherXero, on 02/07/2008, -2/+5McCain is not the nominee. That is to be determined with 1,191 delegates and a trip to the Republican National Convention, RNC 2008.
- Treoinmypocket, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2Worked out just fine - he gets all his money back. He's got broader national exposure and a chance at the 2012 Presidency.
- chimcham3000, on 02/07/2008, -3/+1hahahahahahhahahahaha yeah him and the magic pair of underwear for VP. please.
- JBish828, on 02/07/2008, -0/+4What the hell are you talking about?
- TsuruchiBrian, on 02/07/2008, -2/+6Maybe he can run as a pro choice democrat in 2012.
Or maybe the green party.- tripzero, on 02/07/2008, -3/+1unlike mccain, romney has never considered running as a democrat. it was almost funny
- chimcham3000, on 02/07/2008, -3/+1hahahahahahhahahahaha yeah him and the magic pair of underwear for VP. please.
- clownguyx, on 02/07/2008, -3/+56McCain can not stand Romney, I don't see that happening.
- newman1320, on 02/07/2008, -50/+21It's too bad. He's the only candidate on both sides who has any of my support. It's disappointing indeed.
- bolotinjbl, on 02/07/2008, -8/+16he lost all my support when he was a douche to that guy in the wheel chair who needs medical marijuana
- MisterWonderful, on 02/07/2008, -2/+1Reds 1, Giants 0
- oo7b0nds, on 02/07/2008, -9/+4Why is he being dugg down?
Jesus. I don't like Romney either don't digg him down for voicing his opinion.
If he was talking about Ron Paul or Obama he would be dugg up.- bahamutxd, on 02/07/2008, -0/+3That doesn't mean people don't have opinions about his opinion. Welcome to Digg.
- dcmjzero, on 02/07/2008, -3/+1so, i guess you are a mormon?
- Truzseeker, on 02/07/2008, -28/+52Good ... Vets slam McCain http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/05/ve ...
- geekee, on 02/07/2008, -2/+2Swift Boat
- itchcity, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1"Vote Vets, a group working to end the Iraq war, paid $25,000 to air this anti-McCain ad just one time. It is the latest in a series of ads that Batiste has made for the group. Before quitting the Army in protest, Batiste commanded the First Infantry Division in Iraq. Batiste did not raise his objections while serving in Iraq."
- fotbr, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1Of course he didn't raise his objections while serving in Iraq. Its very bad for morale if the leadership is publicly complaining about things.
- rarson, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1He'd probably get shot like Pat Tillman.
- itchcity, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1"Vote Vets, a group working to end the Iraq war, paid $25,000 to air this anti-McCain ad just one time. It is the latest in a series of ads that Batiste has made for the group. Before quitting the Army in protest, Batiste commanded the First Infantry Division in Iraq. Batiste did not raise his objections while serving in Iraq."
- ChrisViz, on 02/07/2008, -2/+5Funny how the media always represents a few Veterans as the entire Veteran voting population.
- rarson, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1Actually, ABC News' headline said "vets ad," not "vets." Which is perfectly logical, seeing as how vets are behind the ad.
And also, as a vet myself, I'll go on record to say I ***** hate McCain, too.
- rarson, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1Actually, ABC News' headline said "vets ad," not "vets." Which is perfectly logical, seeing as how vets are behind the ad.
- geekee, on 02/07/2008, -2/+2Swift Boat
- orelses, on 02/07/2008, -36/+142He is such a stiff uninspiring awkward robot. good riddance.
- Snowman1978, on 02/07/2008, -16/+4idiot
- ncnavguy, on 02/07/2008, -3/+1This is actually good news for the republicans. As of today begins McCain's national campaign, His campaign can start attacking both Clinton and Obama while reconciling with the conservative base. There are people who claim they will not vote for McCain (Read: a fat drug addict and Nazi Transexual) but the vast majority will come around, while the Democrats will help McCain along by attacking each other. Romney did what he did for his part and they will probably pay him back with either a prestigious appointment (Sec of Treasury maybe) or by backing him in the future. That being said I'm a big Obama booster and wish that he can wrap it up in the next two monthes to take on the growing monster that is McCain.
- rarson, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2I voted for McCain once, back in 2000, when he didn't appear to be completely insane, but I will NEVER vote for him ever again.
- bardo77n, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2Honestly, I can't stand Romney's policies or opinions about the office of President, but I don't think he was a poor speaker. Out of the 3 evil Republicans that were left (Romney, McCain, and Huckabee,) he certainly seemed to be the best communicator.
- TsuruchiBrian, on 02/07/2008, -1/+1Then how come I still don't know where the ***** that guys stands on anything?
At least I know what McCain and Huckabee are about even if I don't agree with them
- TsuruchiBrian, on 02/07/2008, -1/+1Then how come I still don't know where the ***** that guys stands on anything?
- jondo85, on 02/07/2008, -1/+2"Who let the dogs out?"
- Rodman930, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1I was hoping He would get the nomintation so he would have to try to explain that durring the national campaign. Especially if he was running against Barrack.
- TecHeavy, on 02/07/2008, -31/+11Thank God. Now we must pick between the lesser of two evils between McCain and Huckabee. I say get rid of McCain, before he get us deeper into the ***** we are already in.
- danielcmetz, on 02/07/2008, -5/+16yeah. Plus, a vote for Huckabee is a vote for Colbert!
- BuddyDoQ, on 02/07/2008, -2/+11Yeah. Plus a vote for Colbert is a vote for Conan!
- BrandonMills, on 02/07/2008, -4/+6A vote for Huckabee is a vote for Stewart!
- BuddyDoQ, on 02/07/2008, -2/+11Yeah. Plus a vote for Colbert is a vote for Conan!
- sgglynn, on 02/07/2008, -2/+16Agreed "There will be more wars, i'm sorry, but there will be" How can he be getting the anti-war vote? Thank you, retarded americans.
- actionmann50, on 02/07/2008, -8/+2Anyone who says there won't be more wars is a delusional. There will always be wars, some peacetimes are just longer than others.
- DigitalOmnivore, on 02/07/2008, -0/+6Saying there won't be more wars is silly. Nobody was saying that though, McCain made that up. Just because there won't be more wars doesn't mean you should go out LOOKING TO START THEM.
- DigitalOmnivore, on 02/07/2008, -0/+6Saying there won't be more wars is silly. Nobody was saying that though, McCain made that up. Just because there won't be more wars doesn't mean you should go out LOOKING TO START THEM.
- actionmann50, on 02/07/2008, -8/+2Anyone who says there won't be more wars is a delusional. There will always be wars, some peacetimes are just longer than others.
- blorc, on 02/07/2008, -2/+27Don't vote for the lesser of two evils. Vote for what you believe in.
- round427, on 02/07/2008, -5/+2The candidate I believe in has no chance of winning and only serves to pull votes from candidates who stand a chance. Maybe in Europe you can vote that way, but not here. This election is too important.
- blorc, on 02/07/2008, -1/+8Doesn't matter to me. I don't want to feel like I voted the wrong way if I vote for the "lesser of two evils" and that lesser evil still does some pretty evil *****.
I would rather vote for someone who has no chance of winning, or not vote at all, than vote for someone who doesn't stand for what I believe in.- DAaaMan64, on 02/07/2008, -1/+4Considering I thought Bush was the lesser of two evil's in '04, this is a perfect example of the self-imposable guilt of voting politics over principles.
Woops >. - round427, on 02/07/2008, -1/+2I don't think Obama is evil. I think McCain is evil, which is why I'm voting Obama so he can win.
- DAaaMan64, on 02/07/2008, -1/+4Considering I thought Bush was the lesser of two evil's in '04, this is a perfect example of the self-imposable guilt of voting politics over principles.
- rarson, on 02/07/2008, -0/+3No, what you fail to grasp is that voting for a decent candidate is too important to NOT do. The whole reason people don't support lesser-known or third-party candidates is that everyone sees how little support they have and they subscribe to the same idiotic logic you're using.
I just don't get it. How the HELL is anything in America going to change if people don't start voting for decent ***** candidates? Explain it to me please. Everyone left besides Paul is MORE OF THE SAME. We can either continue this downward spiral or stand up and do something about it. But voting for candidates simply because they "stand a chance" won't do *****. - waynetheman, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2@ rarson
Exactly.
What the heck good does voting for the "lesser of two evils" mean anyway? How stupid we Americans have been for the past several decades, and we still can't wake up and do the right thing.
If the ballot reads "Stalin vs. Mao" as your only two options, you need to either write in the candidate you believe in or simply walk out of the polling booth. Because if you think having a few million fewer dead means you did some good (while ignoring the glaring dozens of millions dead which you endorsed) you have no clue what integrity is.
- blorc, on 02/07/2008, -1/+8Doesn't matter to me. I don't want to feel like I voted the wrong way if I vote for the "lesser of two evils" and that lesser evil still does some pretty evil *****.
- oldhick, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2And if there is no candidate that you believe in on election day? What then. I hear that saying all the time, and I've even said it myself...
- rarson, on 02/07/2008, -0/+3Write them in?
- oldhick, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1Will do. Still feels pretty hopeless.
- rarson, on 02/07/2008, -0/+3Write them in?
- round427, on 02/07/2008, -5/+2The candidate I believe in has no chance of winning and only serves to pull votes from candidates who stand a chance. Maybe in Europe you can vote that way, but not here. This election is too important.
- DrxLecter, on 02/07/2008, -3/+17You consider Huckabee the lesser of two evils? seriously? The man who wants to amend the constitution to "God's Standard." People actually go for this *****?
- jeffiek, on 02/07/2008, -1/+1The difference is that Congress wouldn't go for an amendment to the Constitution, so Huckabee can rant all he wants.
Congress has, and will continue to, abdicate the responsibility for declaring war. McCain would get free run. - DigitalOmnivore, on 02/07/2008, -2/+3Yes. Even though you don't share their opinion, some people do 'go for that *****'. You might not have noticed, but that little club called Christianity has been quite popular for the last 2000 years!
- jeffiek, on 02/07/2008, -1/+1The difference is that Congress wouldn't go for an amendment to the Constitution, so Huckabee can rant all he wants.
- cadmiumpaint, on 02/07/2008, -1/+2cheer up....now you guys get to choose between the bigger loser.
- trigun1, on 02/07/2008, -0/+5The lesser of two evils is still evil. I'm not sure why you would "Thank God" about that?
- rarson, on 02/07/2008, -0/+4Or, you could just vote for a decent candidate; Ron Paul is still in it.
- danielcmetz, on 02/07/2008, -5/+16yeah. Plus, a vote for Huckabee is a vote for Colbert!
- tuffgong50, on 02/07/2008, -45/+200Hmmm, I wonder what happens when they have to put Ron Paul on television and people actually like what he has to say.
- Gabberwok, on 02/07/2008, -53/+25I'm sorry, but the mainstream American voters will not go for Ron Paul, even if he gets more airtime. Frankly, he comes across as shrill and at least a little bit nuts, and that's before you look at his positions closely. He's mostly right about Iraq, but aside from that, I think he's a loon.
- mooseontheloose, on 02/07/2008, -17/+39Yeah, civil liberties and following the Constitution are loony. Obama pissing all over the Constitution and wanting more wars - now that's sane!
- Napoleone, on 02/07/2008, -10/+23"Unconstitutional P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act & Real ID! Yes, we can!"
- RoroCo, on 02/07/2008, -24/+19Obama wants more wars? Do you watch the debates and the coverage or do you get all your political news from www.ronpaul.com/forums?
- michael4lsu, on 02/07/2008, -8/+24Obama said himself that he would not rule out going to war with Iran.
- AustinMandi, on 02/07/2008, -2/+16Do you bother to look at his voting record or just go by what is said on the t.v.? The least you could do is be educated about the candidate of your choice.
- oldhick, on 02/07/2008, -2/+9Don't forget his planned invasion of Pakistan...
- fadeout, on 02/07/2008, -17/+9Opposing the 1967 civil rights act is loony. Wanting to amend to constitution to deny citizenship to the children of immigrants is loony. Appearing on Coast to Coast AM is loony. Wanting to let states deny abortion rights is loony. Inserting pork for your district and voting against it, to try to look morally superior, is loony. Wanting to get rid of the CDC, Dept of Education, etc, is loony. Publishing 20 years of crazy racist rants is loony.
Should I go on? Paultards have a lot of emotion invested in him so it may rough to look past what you believe Paul to be, but stop living in a dream world where Paul isn't crazy. He is.- AustinMandi, on 02/07/2008, -4/+11I couldn't even get past your first sentence. You obviously have no idea why Dr. Paul would have opposed this legislation so trying to have a meaningful discourse with you is futile.
How can you oppose someone's position when you don't understand the basis of their argument? - round427, on 02/07/2008, -4/+9Why the hell do children of illegal immigrants - anchor babies - need birthright citizenship NOW when rampant abuse of a once-sensible policy has taken place? If you haven't noticed, we have a crisis to the tune of 12-20 million of them. It hasn't exactly worked out for us; it's old and needs to be thrown out.
- oldhick, on 02/07/2008, -2/+4Your opinion is pretty clear. No need to go on.
- arcticsoft, on 02/07/2008, -2/+5someone in texas keeps voting him in congress. obviously he is doing a great job there as people keep voting him in. You need to look up reasons to why this stuff makes since instead of just spouting garbage. "trying to look morally superior is easy for him vs the crap we have running for office now. birthright citizenship should go away or majorly reformed, way too many people taking advantage of the system.
- AustinMandi, on 02/07/2008, -4/+11I couldn't even get past your first sentence. You obviously have no idea why Dr. Paul would have opposed this legislation so trying to have a meaningful discourse with you is futile.
- dinsy, on 02/07/2008, -8/+33Oh yeah sound currency and sensible foreign policy are just crazy as hell.
- Skitzzo, on 02/07/2008, -28/+4Exactly. It doesn't matter how the media covers him, he's a nut job and people don't agree with his rhetoric.
- rarson, on 02/07/2008, -1/+2It looks digg doesn't agree with YOUR rhetoric.
- Qtip42, on 02/07/2008, -2/+20It's folks like yourself who cannot see two sides of an issue that really hurt this country. You discount a guy by calling him a loon but you can't put any hard facts behind that. Paul may be coming off like he's whining and maybe he doesn't have that powerful voice everyone expects but he does have his head on straight.
- cadmiumpaint, on 02/07/2008, -6/+1i've gone to his website. i've read his stance on the issues. I don't agree with them. Paul promises crazy things that he could never ever ever get any congress to go along with. He is not for real in my opinion and thats why i'd never vote for him. if you call me a loon for making an informed choice then that makes you a fascist.
- DigitalOmnivore, on 02/07/2008, -1/+2If the public elects him, then congress will be more likely to go along with his policies. You've heard of a mandate before, right?
If you don't agree with him, that is fine. You don't have to call his policies crazy (especially since they're policies we followed before in this country!).
- DigitalOmnivore, on 02/07/2008, -1/+2If the public elects him, then congress will be more likely to go along with his policies. You've heard of a mandate before, right?
- Gabberwok, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2I'm fully aware of Paul's policies and I've even put forward arguments against them on Digg before, at least once in response to one of your posts Qtip. I've stopped trying though because the people who support Ron Paul are not about to change their minds no matter what I say, but fortunately there aren't really that many of them. You may outnumber the supporters of other candidates on Digg (or at least are more vocal), but in the end that doesn't count for anything. Not enough people wanted to vote for Ron Paul, and with all the noise made about him on the internet a lot of people had heard about him and checked out his ideas - and rejected them. So please stop.
- cadmiumpaint, on 02/07/2008, -6/+1i've gone to his website. i've read his stance on the issues. I don't agree with them. Paul promises crazy things that he could never ever ever get any congress to go along with. He is not for real in my opinion and thats why i'd never vote for him. if you call me a loon for making an informed choice then that makes you a fascist.
- DigitalOmnivore, on 02/07/2008, -2/+24He's as loony as Thomas Jefferson was. How far have we fallen when people get called a 'loon' for endorsing the same political positions as our founding fathers? Really, I can live with people saying Paul's policies are stuck in the 1800's. I can even live with those who think the government should be able to redistribute income even though I disagree. But the idiotic debate that dominates this election cycle is sickening. Rather than talk policy people call names, and talk about fuzzy abstracts like 'change' . Of course they do this, because they just repeat what the mainstream media talks about. Over and over it's about race, gender, "change" and name calling. Choke me with a spoon.
- HxChris91, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1The only reason that idiots like yourself say that they can't stand Paul is because you follow the media's opinion as the bible. Everybody knows that the media would not stand seeing Ron Paul in office. If it came down to all the GOP nominees dropping out but Paul they would immediatly start the Mickey Mouse '08 campaign.
- mooseontheloose, on 02/07/2008, -17/+39Yeah, civil liberties and following the Constitution are loony. Obama pissing all over the Constitution and wanting more wars - now that's sane!
- troprocker, on 02/07/2008, -45/+20He's been on television. People aren't buying what he's trying to sell.
- AnarkeIncarnate, on 02/07/2008, -2/+24His 3 minutes of time to 11 minutes given to Romney (out) and 10 min to Guiliani (out) seem to be just about even, right?
The last CNN debate was a mockery of a fair forum.- cadmiumpaint, on 02/07/2008, -12/+2he's been on Leno, he's been on political talk shows....he's been given plenty of airtime considering he has a few dozen supporters.
- AnarkeIncarnate, on 02/07/2008, -2/+9So have others, however a few softballs from Leno will not get out his name. When there are polls, he is omitted (why?). When there are primaries, his name is left off the page (This means you, CNN and MSNBC). When they talk about the race, they say "The 3 remaining republicans" but they don't mean Paul. They call him a fringe candidate who has no chance of winning (And people like to pick a winner. They view it as part of their own inadequacy if "their guy" loses, and it reflects poorly on their ability to predict the winner). This is manipulation at the psychological level. It is intentional.
- waynetheman, on 02/07/2008, -1/+1"he has a few dozen supporters"
Do you just enjoy making jokes during such an important election, or are you so deluded as to actually believe this still?
- cadmiumpaint, on 02/07/2008, -12/+2he's been on Leno, he's been on political talk shows....he's been given plenty of airtime considering he has a few dozen supporters.
- AnarkeIncarnate, on 02/07/2008, -2/+24His 3 minutes of time to 11 minutes given to Romney (out) and 10 min to Guiliani (out) seem to be just about even, right?
- Elementix, on 02/07/2008, -24/+130Ron Paul hardly gets any airtime at all. The only reason he's an underdog is that they don't treat him the same as the other candidates when it comes to news converage. You could watch the cnn or msnbc all day and not see or hear his name mentioned once. I also wonder what will happen when/if he gets more airtime due to Romney dropping out. I suppose only time will tell....
- BrandonMills, on 02/07/2008, -8/+22Doubt it. More than likely, Huckabee will start getting even more airtime.
- TypeEE, on 02/07/2008, -0/+3There is a local radio here which sponsored by CBS. You can't even hear RP's name once. At the event that Huckabee tried with RP in WV with 3 delegates, you would assume they would mention RP's name about the tactic that Huckabee had made. No, they can magically skip it and said Huckabee had an arrangement which is pretty normal at presidential primaries.
- MusicalGenius, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1NO NO NO, I have a better one!
So I like Romney(deal with it and keep reading before you sink me) and I wanted to check Romney status on Tuesday right?
WRONG. I went to MSNBC and EVER link that said Romney took me to a Mccain page with a big picture of Mccain. One article didn't even have a mention of Romney.
I usually vote Democrat, though I like Romney...but I can't stand Mccain and to see him get favored on T.V. so much and then to see this happen is ridiculous.
- buildbyflying, on 02/07/2008, -9/+48it'll be tougher for the msm to ignore paul, but let's assume they'll try... they've never lacked gall before.
and anyone who thinks that paul has been given fair coverage -- ask a stranger about ron paul... they'll say ron who??? you know damn well the msm gives him no coverage because they want to whittle down the candidates. Is that objective? No it's not. and the fact that people will let it slide because it's not contrary to your ego or personal agenda is Fk'd. with a capital U.- cadmiumpaint, on 02/07/2008, -19/+3he's been given coverage proportional to his support. He gets less than 5% of the vote. He doesn't deserve more attention than he's already getting. He's been on major talk shows. Not everyone wants to drink his kool aid.
- arcticsoft, on 02/07/2008, -1/+15So if you get coverage proportional to your support, why do we call this a free country and a democracy? McCain gets 35% of the vote and 70% of air time. Doesn't seem to proportional.
- cadmiumpaint, on 02/07/2008, -13/+3mccain is the clear front runner in his party. he has 20x the delegates and votes that paul has. you ronpaulbots are so ridiculous.
if you want reasons as to why he's loosing, look at Paul's platform. it only appeals to a very very small amount of people. its not a media conspiracy.
- cadmiumpaint, on 02/07/2008, -13/+3mccain is the clear front runner in his party. he has 20x the delegates and votes that paul has. you ronpaulbots are so ridiculous.
- arcticsoft, on 02/07/2008, -1/+15So if you get coverage proportional to your support, why do we call this a free country and a democracy? McCain gets 35% of the vote and 70% of air time. Doesn't seem to proportional.
- dmh11686, on 02/07/2008, -14/+5When all else fails blame the media. Ron Paul and Huckabee received the same amount of media coverage when they started. They have both been in all the debates. Yet Huckabee improved in the polls and has won 7 primaries. Republicans were never going to accept an antiwar candidate, especially one who is older then McCain and comes off as whiny.
- d03boy, on 02/07/2008, -0/+5what about when ron got 2nd in 5 states? still no coverage... actually they blacked him out more..
- rarson, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2Huckabee pandered to the Christian right, and gained a ton of support that way, which is why the media let him into their little circle.
- cadmiumpaint, on 02/07/2008, -19/+3he's been given coverage proportional to his support. He gets less than 5% of the vote. He doesn't deserve more attention than he's already getting. He's been on major talk shows. Not everyone wants to drink his kool aid.
- wastedfish, on 02/07/2008, -28/+10I guess some people don't like his idea of abolishing all of our public programs such as education and health care. Stop blaming the mainstream media on him not being popular. If he was popular he would be on mainstream media.
Where will he get his support from? Republicans? Maybe, but not much.
Democrats? Last I checked were pretty adamant about socialized health care.
He doesn't have a real demographic to appeal to, it's something you will have to accept.- SauceSpot, on 02/07/2008, -10/+7get your facts straight before saying ron wants to get rid of education. he wants to make the department of education smaller which is hindering the progress of making education better.
- AnarkeIncarnate, on 02/07/2008, -1/+10He wants to eliminate it. The Fed has not helped education, especially with stupid unfunded federal mandates. Education needs an overhaul but it can't be done with the way the top down system is impairing that ability.
- grinchdec23, on 02/07/2008, -0/+3The Fed haha ! Now there is a problem that needs solving...its not even american owned.
- AnarkeIncarnate, on 02/07/2008, -2/+8It is not abolishing if they were never legal to begin with. The local governments (the ones with authority to deal with health care and education and DID for so long still have that power. The fed just messes it up with quick fixes ala Ralph Kramden.
- DigitalOmnivore, on 02/07/2008, -1/+8Ron Paul has stated before he will not eliminate any public health care, social security or welfare.
The department of education provides 8% of the funding for local schools. That isn't even close to the amount of tax money it costs to operate. It's a jobs program for friends of politicians. Nobody has the guts to speak out about it because then their 'against the children'.
Ron Paul's support is 50% Republican, 40% independent, 10% democratic. This comes from polling on a few different websites, the numbers are always close to what I just mentioned.
He obviously has a demographic he appeals to, or he wouldn't raise the money he has. - MWeather, on 02/07/2008, -1/+8Paul doesn't want to abolish public education. He wants to get rid of the Department of Education, which is something Reagan wanted to do and was part of the Republican platform throughout the 90s. The fact you see this as a radical idea only goes to show the bias in the media.
- waynetheman, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1"He doesn't have a real demographic to appeal to, it's something you will have to accept."
I'd say $4 million in one day, and $6 million in a next (not to mention $1 million in one day THIS year from a "money bomb" that had almost no advertising)--with dozens of thousands of new donors, averaging less than $50 a pop--is a fairly sizable demographic.
You can stop spreading misinformation now.
- SauceSpot, on 02/07/2008, -10/+7get your facts straight before saying ron wants to get rid of education. he wants to make the department of education smaller which is hindering the progress of making education better.
- Skitzzo, on 02/07/2008, -30/+10You'll have to keep guessing because no one in their right mind would like what he has to say. You can bitch and moan all you want about air time and the media but the truth is most of America disagrees with this nut job. GET OVER IT!
- zephyr42, on 02/07/2008, -2/+12No because America is filled with ignorant fools who don't actually know what the "gold standard" means and think it's a terrible idea because the news said so. ron paul's ideas make a lot of sense to the intelligent America, not to common man. You have to dumb things down for people like you.
Ron Paul is too smart and makes too much sense everyone wants to paint him as crazy. Meanwhile we go in the *****-can. - DigitalOmnivore, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1Are you skitz from dethecus?
- MWeather, on 02/07/2008, -0/+4Yep, nothing to like about eliminating the federal income tax by cutting spending to what it was under Carter.
- arcticsoft, on 02/07/2008, -1/+5Ya ron paul is nuts! how would anyone think about fixing a broken system. what a crazy freak, wanting to go by the constitution! sucks cause most people dont agree with personal choice and accountability, they want the government to hold their hand and take care of their kids education, health care, if you had it your way you would have the government pick your nose for you! Maybe paul should run as an independent, my definition of the new republican "the party that makes more government programs to remove choices from people and baby feed them everything", definition of democrat "to make more programs than republicans".
- round427, on 02/07/2008, -0/+6"You'll have to keep guessing because no one in their right mind would like what he has to say."
Educated people exist who have a different opinion than you. Grow up. - rarson, on 02/07/2008, -0/+3I would present a counter-argument to your comment, except you didn't give any facts or any basis to not support Paul, so there's nothing to counter.
I guess I could say that he's not a nutjob, but that's a given, all you have to do is listen to the man to know that.
- zephyr42, on 02/07/2008, -2/+12No because America is filled with ignorant fools who don't actually know what the "gold standard" means and think it's a terrible idea because the news said so. ron paul's ideas make a lot of sense to the intelligent America, not to common man. You have to dumb things down for people like you.
- onetimer, on 02/07/2008, -27/+32The problem is - you're in an echo chamber. You assume that mainstream America (and the GOP voter base) would share the views that paul has. The fact is, they wouldn't. ALOT of the GOP base would NOT vote for an anti-war candidate (especially one who wants to withdraw from everywhere and abolish the CIA, DHS). That's not my opinion, but a fact.
Then you would have a hell of a time convincing the left about abolishing all those government programs. And by hell of a time I mean he wouldn't be able to, because it kinds of contradicts their entire political philosophy.
Look, I know the MSM is a convenient target, but you have to realize that alot of people wouldn't vote for paul anyways.- grinchdec23, on 02/07/2008, -7/+18If they actually understood what all goes on they would side with Paul... and you know it.
- onetimer, on 02/07/2008, -11/+3No, that is just your opinion.
- OffPiste, on 02/07/2008, -5/+3The results from the Primaries don't support your allegations.
- dylio, on 02/08/2008, -1/+2Do you even ***** read or just allow whatever sounds right to you to be said?
He said IF people actually understood his platform things may be different. The MSM forces ideas and beliefs about Paul down the throats of those who do not think for themselves. They use labels and terms that discourage OBJECTIVITY.- onetimer, on 02/08/2008, -1/+1Now dylio, I know you have some teen angst you're dealing with, but calm down before you start frofthing at the mouth.
He said "they would side with Paul". That is his opinion, not anything objective. Your last statement is also a non-objective ma
- onetimer, on 02/08/2008, -1/+1Now dylio, I know you have some teen angst you're dealing with, but calm down before you start frofthing at the mouth.
- grinchdec23, on 02/07/2008, -7/+18If they actually understood what all goes on they would side with Paul... and you know it.
- Gabberwok, on 02/07/2008, -53/+25I'm sorry, but the mainstream American voters will not go for Ron Paul, even if he gets more airtime. Frankly, he comes across as shrill and at least a little bit nuts, and that's before you look at his positions closely. He's mostly right about Iraq, but aside from that, I think he's a loon.