digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Digg's 2008 Presidential Poll - Revised

yourfreepoll.com — Sorry about the first one. That was the first Poll I ever started. I went to a different site this time, hopefully it will work out a better this time around. I added a few Libertarians to the ballot.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • stripe64, on 10/12/2007, -22/+67Libertarians who were complaining, should be supporting Ron Paul, since he is a Libertarian disguised as a Republican.
    • fasda, on 10/12/2007, -48/+19If he was truly a man of libertarian principles he would run as one but he doesn't so he is a republican.
    • Guydevice, on 10/12/2007, -4/+48He did run as one, but that didn't really get him anywhere.
    • Guydevice, on 10/12/2007, -27/+2Oops.

    • TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -13/+41Umm... wtf where is Kucinich???
    • AshTR, on 10/12/2007, -30/+8Where's Kevin Rose?
    • beelz, on 10/12/2007, -25/+18Barack Obama! FTW!
    • apzdsx, on 10/12/2007, -16/+5If your candidate isn't on the list you should vote for George Pataki, the poor guy hasn't even gotten 1 vote so far. He can be your "None of the Above" vote.
    • brokekneck, on 10/12/2007, -26/+20Wow Barack Obama is rocketing. Really supising to me. I personally wouldn't but geezzz..... I'm shocked Hillary isn't up there, but then again. I don't think people are really that stupid. Ron Paul FTW!!!!!
    • GeneralAntilles, on 10/12/2007, -39/+11Barack Obama wants to hand out tax money like candy, so of course he's getting the votes.
    • jivatmanx, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3@broke
      as of now, Hillary actually has 5 more votes than Ron, lol.
    • RoflcopterFUEL, on 10/12/2007, -48/+129I can't believe there're people who'll vote for hillary. Must be all of those crazy feminists who don't give a damn about anything other than it's a female running.

      Obama 08.
    • mdhauke, on 10/12/2007, -46/+11@broke,

      They were that stupid before Obama entered the race. Liberals will do anything they're told.
    • brokekneck, on 10/12/2007, -14/+22@ jivatmanx

      Yeah... Probably because the Libertarian crowd hasn't woke up yet. See we sleep at night and feed at day. Unlike the blood sucking Hillary vampire crowd. :P

      EDIT: Oh man that was wrong.
    • LeeJunFan, on 10/12/2007, -23/+14No ***** - Ron Paul is the only one who's going to do anything about our privately owned "Federal" Reserve, and the Mexico border. Why do people always vote for the person with the most damn airtime instead of the person best suited for the job. As far as I'm concerned if you don't vote for Ron Paul, you're a damn traitor to the country.
    • doctorfungi, on 10/12/2007, -28/+9John McCain.

      I'd vote for him because of this policies. Not because he's black, not because he's female.
    • Dunadan, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3whoops wrong spot. Sorry
    • tmanka, on 10/12/2007, -20/+52I know he is leaning towards NOT running, but I would really like to see Al Gore on the poll...after seeing his documentary An inconvenient truth he seems so much more human and on the path of what this country's first priority should be....getting off oil, for environmental, economic, and political reasons.
    • jron, on 10/12/2007, -2/+41The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people.
      -Ron Paul
    • slalomskier, on 10/12/2007, -12/+3Hey, you forgot Dennis Kucinich!

      Anyone who already has a bumper sticker that says, "Kucinich Clinton 08" and "Kucinich Obama 08" is on my ballot.

      Also for legalization of marijuana.
    • WorfoSAUR, on 10/12/2007, -39/+18I can't believe there are people who'll vote for Barrack Obama. Must be all those crazy black people who don't give a damn about anything other than it's a black man running.

    • Enasni1212, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16You should REALLY add a sarcasm tag... I did a double take when I read that.
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7If Newt Gingrich is in there, Al Gore should be as well. Neither have officially signed on. Bogus Poll. No Digg.
    • brundlefly76, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10This is not an effective online poll - like most online polls, it ignores a very important part of the development process - you have to rotate the selections in the poll selection listing to avoid topmost positions getting more hits - people just screwing around or just want to see the results - or just lazy people. This is even more important for a 20-question multiple-choice.

      I am just exasperated with the Democratic party - after failing to win the last two presidential elections - now we will pit the Republican party against a woman and a African-American - greeeaaattt. I love Barack Obama but remember that the conservative votes will count also in the final election.

      I would just like to *win* this time, not just make a statement.



    • BlackMagic2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22Clinton is really anti-video game...

      I could care less who votes for who, I could care less if Clinton was in office (although I'd laugh my ass off because that would be two families controlling the white house for 26-32 years). Just surprised that the digg community, strongly against the anti-video game people, would even think about voting for her.
    • Y2JCrisis, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13I think it would be cool for once not to have a Bush or Clinton in office. Hasn't happened since I was 6 years old. And actually, if you consider that Bush was VP during Reagan's presidency, it hasn't happened since I was -2.

      If Obama makes it through the primaries, I'm going with him, I think. If McCain makes it past the primaries, I think I'll go for him. If both make it to the big dance, I'll have a rough decision to make.
    • BlackMagic2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Guess that means that if they both make it Clinton will be in office?
    • ts8lemonade, on 10/12/2007, -7/+33Who the ***** voted for HIllary? Don't you people like playing video games? What a bitch.
    • traviskicks, on 10/12/2007, -9/+9well that is dissapointing to see Barak Obama as a winner. I have a hard time understanding why any libertarians would vote for him over the Republican nominee, whomever that is. Ron Paul, of course, remains my top choice. :)
    • lbjazz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Travis . . .
      Libertarians would vote for a democrat now over a republican because the republicans are no longer a truly conservative party. Their political ideology is something closer to theocratic stupidity. Just a thought.
    • DonWilson, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2This clearly isn't an accurate polling, but whatever. Rudy is still #1 amongst republicans, so I'm fine with that. =)
    • VampTheChamp, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0I'm surprised Mccain isn't higher. We really need a powerful no BS guy now to retain our former glory.
    • shirosamurai, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Also wondering where Kucinich is in that poll... shameless plug, but if any of the true progressive/liberal crowd around here are looking for an alternative to Hillary or Obama --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Kucinich#2008_Presidential_campaign
    • 0crabby0, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I see a bias towards the candidates listed in the middle.


      http://www.yourfreepoll.com/xzwsmxqnsr.html

      In the future, please list the candidates in alphabetical order
    • andrewmi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@shirosamurai

      Strange, I thought that generally there is a bias toward the candidates at the top (i.e., those at the top are seen first and tend to get more votes). I think the reason that people in the middle are getting more votes is that more people would vote for the people in the middle (where the bigger names happen to be located, mostly). But your idea of alphabetical order is a good one.

      As for McCain, I definitely would have considered voting for him until the last couple of weeks, when he has seemed to turned away from his usual "do what I believe" attitude (which is good) to a "do what the evangelicals want" attitude (which is very very bad). Pundits have said he can't win because he gets no support from the Bible Belt, so in an effort to rope them in he has decided that teaching intelligent design is a great idea - yesterday he gave the keynote speech to the Discovery Institute, the ones who push ID like crazy. Maybe I just didn't know much about him in the first place, but it definitely seems like he's creeping to the right in an effort to get that elusive nomination. Too bad; I liked him as a moderate.
    • shirosamurai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think you replied to the wrong person :P
    • PacoDG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Doug Stanhope in 2008 http://stanhope2008.com/
      Go Libertarian Party
  • JakePM, on 10/12/2007, -25/+6interesting. thanks for throwing this up. 17 votes for Ron Paul? Never heard of him? We'll just have to wait and see. I threw my hat in the ring, but not for Mr. Paul. Sorry.
    • Herkimer56, on 10/12/2007, -37/+30Ron Paul is just another career politician that's telling you what you want to hear. I find it interesting how many of his followers are making direct threats to those who refuse to support him. In this case we're told that we will be "weeded out" if we don't vote for him. It's really outrageous and irresponsible to threaten the very people that you are asking to support your candidate. Is this an example of how he's going to defend our constitutional rights?
    • Guydevice, on 10/12/2007, -15/+50"Ron Paul is just another career politician that's telling you what you want to hear."

      Have you even looked at his voting record?
    • Herkimer56, on 10/12/2007, -33/+74Yes, I have. He's supposedly for protecting constitutional rights but he's doing everything he can to overturn Roe v Wade. He's for pulling funding from our troops in the field in Iraq. He voted against allowing same sex couples to adopt children. He voted against legislation that would have helped catch on-line child predators. He voted against honoring Rosa Parks and Mother Teresa. He voted against campaign finance reform. He believes that the Federal Government has no right to regulate drugs or medical help. In fact, he doesn't believe that the Federal Government should not be in any way involved with providing medical help to U.S. citizens. He wants to abolish the Federal Reserve and return the country to the gold standard. I'm sure that his heavy financial investment in gold has nothing to do with that decision at all.

      I could go on but frankly I don't see the need. There is nothing about the man that would recommend him to either Conservatives or Liberals. He's certainly not someone that we should even consider as being worthy of the Presidency.
    • Guydevice, on 10/12/2007, -13/+35"There is nothing about the man that would recommend him to either Conservatives or Liberals."

      I'm sure he appeals to those who respect the constitution. And no, the constitution is not bad.

      http://digg.com/political_opinion/Ron_Pauls_scores_perfect_100_in_constitution_index_disinter
    • jivatmanx, on 10/12/2007, -17/+34What I find particularly troubling about Ron Paul's voting record is in his voting yes for the additional restricting of what were already very strict bankruptcy laws, especially horrifying as the vast majority of bankruptcies are caused when a person has a medical emergency and recieves treatment that they could'nt afford. The new law essentially turns debt into a form of eternal servitude to, guess what, THE STATE. I suppose the Christian principle of forgiveness only applies when it does'nt get in the way of banking interests that fund you (and perhaps your gaming of the DIGG system).

      Regardless of what their "Free-market Libertarian principles" tell you, if the majority of American people want to protect their economic interests, they will not vote for his man.

      Besides, I thought the Industrial revolution proved that when you refuse to regulate buisness at all, ultimately consumers suffer, workers suffer, and ultimately even competition suffers when monopolies occur. A bit off-the-wall but truthful analogy of corporations is that they are like the borg, large, Amoral entities that grew out of early legislation that allowed corporations far more individual rights than humans themselves are allowed. Now, their quest for profit does lend them towards a high level of efficiency which benefits consumers, but other concerns like the enviornment must be incorporated as well, Or perhaps we'l soon see the world to be basically controlled by a few large corporations. The trend is certainly going that way.
    • Guydevice, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2There would still be antitrust laws, silly.
    • GeneralAntilles, on 10/12/2007, -11/+7The industrial revolution was an economy of monopolies backed by a government involved enough to keep small competition out of the market. In a true free market there are no monopolies, because starting a business is so damn easy that anybody with a little money and a good idea (or a terrible one) can do it and become the next big Fortune 500 company. There are no government regulations to keep them out of the market and if they've got a compelling product, then they will make money.
    • geoboy, on 10/12/2007, -14/+38Herkimer56, I'm not sure what you're getting at, but you just described someone who is trying to PROTECT the constitution. I'll take you Roe v Wade example.

      Ron Paul would like to see Roe v Wade overturned because there's nothing in the constitution about abortion. If you want abortion legal on the federal level, then it should be amended into the constitution. Until then, the right to an abortion should be up to individual states. Buuuuut I guess states lost their rights after the Civil War anyway. So ***** the constitution! Oh wait, Ron Paul wants to respect the constitition, unlike about every other politician.

      Roe v Wade is still too controversial to touch, so I agree it would be a bad move to talk about it being overturned. And that is why Ron Paul will not be the next president, which I think is unfortunate. Not enough free thinkers out there willing to exercise bettering their personal responsibility.
    • geoboy, on 10/12/2007, -14/+7Thanks for digging down my comment, whoever you are. I'm new to this Libertarian thing, so if I got something wrong speak up. But digging down my comment (which was on topic) just because you disagree with it is childish. Oh wait, this is Digg.
    • brokekneck, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22@ Herkimer56


      Then who is? Ok, I'm going to take the nice route for once. Your right.... He voted no on all of things. Your missing the big picture. We will start with same sex marriage. Why do you need a marriage license in the first place? Same sex or not, how about its not the ***** government's business. The bond between two humans in that manner is not there business in the first place. With that said. Who is the federal government to say who can and cannot based on sexual preference. All it that vote would do is allow the federal system to get bigger. When in fact it needs to be smaller. It should be a state issue not a national issue.

      Now...
      "He voted against legislation that would have helped catch on-line child predators."

      Did you read what that would entitle government agency's to do? It goes directly against the 4Th amendment. If you can't get the job done with in what they already have. Then extending those entitlements isn't going to do anything. Except, well, help the RIAA come knock at your door.


      It seems pretty transparent to me. You really haven't sat down and read through all these bills he voted against. Nor why he did so. If there is anything we need, downsize federal government. Some of his standing I disagree with. On the other note, he seems alot more likely to get the job done. Or we could have a another Bush/Cilton.... Your the voter too I guess. I mean ***** if our nuts aren't num yet. Maybe we aren't teaching enouff about a man and a peanut.
    • PotatoSalad, on 10/12/2007, -7/+29@Herkimer56

      Ron Paul has consistently voted against things that would increase the size of the Federal Government. Yes, that includes things like voting against same-sex marriage laws because he believes that marriage of any kind has no place in the Federal Government (it should be left to the States to decide). That does not mean that he adamantly opposes same-sex marriage, but most people are too ignorant to realize that.
    • muikano, on 10/12/2007, -15/+6never trust a person with two first names. Jack Ruby, Jesse James, etc etc
    • Dunadan, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Don't forget Ricky Bobby...
    • rtini, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2"Ron Paul would like to see Roe v Wade overturned..."

      aaaand he can forget about winning. NEXT...
    • Ignignokt01, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I understand the point all of you are trying to make about his dedication to preservation of the constitution and its power, however, I don't think the constitution applies to NEW topics that arise in time. Surely the founding fathers (as liberal we all like to see them as) wouldn't have been fond of gay marriage, and didn't even think about writing anything about it into the constitution or bill of rights. (btw im pro gay rights, before you label me as conservative for saying such things about the founding fathers)

      If something overtakes the power of the constitution, but is morally sound, is it inherently a bad thing? Something to think about for hardcore libertarians...
    • Guydevice, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)"
      http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

      Going by this it appears that the constitution doesn't restrict gay marriage. Try again.
  • DoodlesMcPooh, on 10/12/2007, -18/+12Barrack Obama for me.
  • Guydevice, on 10/12/2007, -13/+19Find out where your views lie:

    http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html
    • dkm201, on 10/12/2007, -19/+10More ***** libertarian digg propaganda, this questionnaire links to a libertarian website and has extremely biased wording.
    • noreturn, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Centrist. Just ***** great.
    • Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7dkm: give an example of the "biased wording", please (actually, given there are only 10 questions, how about explaining all the bias you see?). That would be a /constructive/ comment, helping to make the test better, rather than just whining for its own sake.
    • Muyoso, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Its easily seen as biased. Answer all the questions "Agree" you are a libertarian. Answer all the questions "Disagree" you are a Statist. Answer the economic questions "Agree" and the Social questions "Disagree" and you are a republican, vice versa for democrat.
    • oriolesfan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@ muyoso

      And how does that make it biased? What you just described makes perfect sense to me. Answer one way, you're Libertarian, another way, you're Statist, and some of each, you're Liberal or Conservative. The whole point is that the questions gauge your belief in freedom in Social and Economic issues. If you are for them all, surprise!, you're a Libertarian (because that is their philosophy).
    • usemanzana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm going to have to agree with the people who say that the site is obviously libertarian-based. If you want a real questionnaire you need to go somewhere else, because most rational people are going to end up libertarian by that measure. I don't think that all rational people are libertarians, by any means.
    • usemanzana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Quick addition to my last reply... People were asking for why someone thought the questions were biased, and I thought I'd give that a go: I am a reasonably hardcore liberal. However, I agree with most of the things that appear on those questions. Do I think we should end corporate welfare? Of course! However, I don't believe that deregulation of corporations is a good thing, and because of this I probably would prefer not to vote for a Libertarian, if this is an issue I feel strongly about. Of the ten questions, I think that there are only 4 that people might actually object to. However, I personally agree with every statement made on that quiz. I would much prefer to vote for a candidate who supported the majority of my views, rather than one who simply agreed to all of the standard ones.
  • trnscndr, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2The first poll was more accurate:
    http://dulyconsider.blogspot.com/2007/02/2008-us-presidential-election-poll.html because it uses range voting and you can constantly change your vote as candidates drop and your views change. And you get to rank all candidates avoiding the plurality effect.
  • jwaddell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13read today that Vilsack dropped out. I had never heard of him.
    • blackjack75, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10That's because you don't watch Comedy Central.
    • syder, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Here's a picture of him:
      http://tinyurl.com/2khykc
    • CatalystDM, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Probably a good decision... if he can't win his home state of Iowa then he essentially has no chance. And, as a resident of Iowa, I can safely say that he has very little political appeal in the state.
  • froggyfly, on 10/12/2007, -39/+7Ron Paul is the only candidate that can stop the New World Order. If you do not vote for Ron Paul you are either 1. A neocon, or 2. Do not know the truth about government sponsored terror!
    • rancemo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+32I'm not claiming to know the truth, but I highly doubt you do...
  • fasda, on 10/12/2007, -2/+46How can you make a decision now? I mean we haven't even seen their ability to slander opponents.
    • omaryak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Consider this a pre-slime tally, while the candidates are still fresh off the shelf (although some of the slime has already been thrown by Insight and Fox).
  • plugitin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Nice, just realized I'll be 18 for those elections. Who the hell am I going to vote for?
    • Guydevice, on 10/12/2007, -22/+11http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

      Ron Paul if you scored Libertarian.
    • stripe64, on 10/12/2007, -23/+13Ron Paul
    • fasda, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6all political questions have the same answer: which one do you despise the least. Now just wait till after the primary and chose between the two candidates unless you really want to look at the third parties.
    • thatbox, on 10/12/2007, -17/+12Barak Obama please ;_;
    • rmxz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Look to the third party candidates.

      Against conventional wisdom, your vote means even less when you follow everyone else and cast the vote for one of the two big parties.

      When you vote for a smaller third party, the losing major party will look and see "hey, which third party do we need to be more like to win next time".

      For example, if the democrats lose; but observe that if only they had half the green party votes --- or if the republicans lose but observe that if only they had half the libertarian votes -- the major parties will move their platforms in those directions.

      So vote for the party who's opinions most closely match your own. Vote for them even if they'll lose - and the major parties will both move in the direction you'd like. If you vote directly for the major parties you're vote's wasted because these elections are never decided by 1 vote, and the major parties get the message that they're doing exactly what the people want.
    • mrmario, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2A republican.
    • coviecarbine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2me too I'm only 17 but I'm already registered to vote, not positive who I'm voting for yet but I'm trying to choose someone before the slander ads are everywhere.
    • Muyoso, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Here's a novel idea, why not wait and see what the politicians ideas are? You know, instead of voting in a race or sex or party, bote in someone you believe has the best ideas for the country?
    • BlackMagic2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3#
      fasda by fasda 6 hours ago Block/Report this User
      [comment buried, show commenthide comment] + 0 diggs bury this digg this
      all political questions have the same answer: which one do you despise the least. Now just wait till after the primary and chose between the two candidates unless you really want to look at the third parties.



      The only way to waste your vote... is to vote.

      PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DO NOT VOTE FOR THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS... because with every election, they will just get more and more evil.

      I can't stress how important it is, so I will say it again, louder. DON'T ***** VOTE FOR THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS!
    • darkamster07, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2yeah me too, it'l be my first, as of now I am leaning twards Obama (I hate the Clinton bitch)
    • MasterFunk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Plug, this is all you have to do, keep a clipboard in your car and keep a tally for the amount of times you see one of the candidates on a bumper sticker. Who ever has the most come election day. vote for them.
    • mettaseva, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0How about Ron Paul? He's a real breed apart, and if you take a closer look, you'll see he is a man of integrity and a statesman with a profound understanding of foreign, domestic, economic and constitutional issues.

      For example, Ron Paul voted against:
      ` the Iraq War and
      ` the Patriot Act.

      Ron Pal never:
      ` votes to raise taxes,
      ` votes for an unbalanced budget,
      ` accepts money from lobbyists,
      ` votes to raise congressional pay, and
      ` votes to increase the power of the executive branch.

      Ron Paul does vote:
      ` to protect civil liberties,
      ` to end the war on drugs,
      ` to lower healthcare costs,
      ` to cut government spending,
      ` against reinstating a military draft, and
      ` against regulating the Internet.

      As you might expect, he has huge and growing following on the Internet, and he's garnering support from Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, young voters, anti-war voters and disenfranchised non-voters alike. I, for one, believe he's the best candidate we've seen in a long, long time -- and I encourage everyone to read and learn more now: http://www.bigeye.com/ronpaul.htm
  • Guydevice, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Where'd all of the Obama votes come from all of a sudden?

    Obama....77
    Paul........57
    Guiliani...10
    • aptmunich, on 10/12/2007, -6/+35Communist manifesto? Seriously?
      Jesus... you'd think people would realize there's a different between social security and communism by now.
    • drum_bum, on 10/12/2007, -6/+722ndRevolution: "He doesn't know jack ***** about the Constitution"

      Um yeah, he only taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1993 to 2004. I bet he knows absolutely nothing about it though. You're an idiot.
    • kam4pal, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21@2ndrevolution

      Whether I or you will vote for him is a different issue but fact is, as far as I know he taught constitutional law at University in Chicago and he is Harvard Law graduate.
    • nymphetamine, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13"He's half black so everyone thinks it would be "cool" to have him as a president."

      That is not only the funniest thing I've ever heard, but also the stupidest!
    • alostpacket, on 10/12/2007, -9/+34@2ndRevolution

      Have you ever read the communist manifesto? it's actually a pretty fascinating read. do you realize socialist ideas are where our highway system our free public schools system, progressive income tax and many other foundations of the US come from? Our country is actually a mix of capitalism and socialism (as most all western nations are), and yes social security is a socialist ideal. The difference between the US and a purely communist country is that our government doesnt control production and commerce, but rather regulates it for fairness and provides a social safety net to encourage fearless competition.

    • Gtitian, on 10/12/2007, -9/+20someone should "whois" 2nd revolution, as I'm pretty sure he just threatened to murder Obama.

      "He's got the communist manifesto in his pocket and he's sticking to it. Hope it's thick enough to stop a bullet."

      Seriously, are you out of your ***** mind?
    • brokekneck, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@ 2ndRevolution

      Drop the shooter talk dude. Negative things like that really don't get anything done. If anything your just ensuring your side looses. If you want change educate people. All you do is bring bad attention to yourself when you do those things. And in reflect of that you bring negative influence to your cause.
    • quokkapox, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13@2ndRevolution : > "tow the socialistic line"

      Your lack of education is unfortunate.

      It's "toe the line".

      If you cannot even bother to get your metaphors right in your native language, why would you expect people to give any credence to your arguments? Freakin' learn to write, or quit writing.
    • Whitie31762, on 10/12/2007, -18/+2What... He's a Lawyer and a Professor? Well, that's two great reasons not to trust him right there. Has anyone ever met an honest Lawyer or a Professor who wasn't a left winger? What has he done in the Senate? Is there any reason TO vote for him?
    • lordmetroid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7If you want to read the Communist manifesto(Not many know what it says) I recommend that you read the 10 planks at least. The document can be found on Project Gutenburg, http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/61 and an overview of the content can be found on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto#10_Planks_of_the_Communist_Manifesto is the least you can read, it doesn't take long. Know at least one of the enemies of freedom and how it will manifest itself.
    • oriolesfan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12ndRevolution = B7
  • 2ndRevolution, on 10/12/2007, -46/+8Hate to say it, but if Paul doesn't win it in 2008, my guess is that the time will come for us to exercise our 2nd Amendment rights and fix this mess. I have no plans to become a socialist nor do I plan to live in a socialist country. All of you who support the socialists are counting on the government saving your ass. My advice would be to stay indoors and wait for the dust to settle. We already know that security is more important than Liberty to your ilk.
    • fasda, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11You know political revolutions only happen when a large majority of people are effected by economic hardships so unless theres a massive depression in the next 2 years your little revolution won't happen. Secondly on a more practical note how are people going to fight tank and infantry divisions, gain air superiority and other such details you'll need to get your little revolution off the ground.
    • Herkimer56, on 10/12/2007, -13/+21Again we're seeing threats from the Ron Paul crowd. It really makes you wonder how screwed up in the head these people are. Does anyone know if Ron Paul is aware of all of this spamming that's being done here in his name? Is he aware of the content of these postings and does he approve it? If he does then he doesn't even deserve to be in Congress much less the White House.
    • Guydevice, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15That's just one person, although it is a little disturbing.
    • jeffiek, on 10/12/2007, -10/+10"Again we're seeing threats from the Ron Paul crowd."

      Threats? He's making a GUESS. One I happen to disagree with, one that's extremely unlikely, but a possibility nonetheless. As fasda correctly pointed out, people that are well off don't tend to start revolutions. How long the "well off" will last is uncertain, the immense amount of government spending of late could lead to hyperinflation. Not saying it will, but it is a possibility.

      As for fasd's comment about fighting superior forces - can you spell Iraq? Or how about that lone Chinese guy standing in front of a TANK? There's no guarantee that the US forces would shoot. No government is immune. Remember the U.S.S.R?

      The result of socialism is well known. It results in a lower than possible standard of living and quality of life. At the same time technology raises the standard of living. My fear is that improved technology will be able to offset the loss due to socialism. We'll wind up a miserable social mess without that "poverty" incentive to change. One example of that effect is the "zero tolerance" stories about schools that have been showing up lately. Rule by bureaucracy is mindless, it has no morality and no ability to make judgment.

      Is that how you want to live? Mindless bureaucracy randomly trampling on little kids? Molding them into mindless sheep? So they can spend their lives serving the governments ends instead of their own well being? Go ahead then, support Obama.
    • fasda, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@jeffiek
      well about the superior fight force it will take an extreme amount of motivation to do it and this is a country that can't even get all the voting population to a poll one day of the year. Well about the socialism thing its just that we don't live in one since we have private business and only a very small number of things even have public ownership. While we may not be a laize faire capitalism we still are a capitalist society just with government programs for the people who are less fortunate.
    • jeffiek, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11@fasda
      "Well about the socialism thing its just that we don't live in one since"

      Social security and Medicare consume 7% of GDP. Source:
      http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3650&sequence=0

      That's just two (out of how many?) redistribution programs and they consume 7%. It's not just individuals, there are plenty of programs for business too! Your turn for some research - find the amount spent on farm subsidies. Redistribution of wealth by force is a hallmark of socialism.

      You're in a socialist society, you just can't see through the disguise.
    • fasda, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4The definition of socialism as an economic theory requires that the state to own the means of production and distribution. the last time I checked cooperations were very much private. But about your concerns about farm subsidies there has almost always been farm subsidies going back well before Karl Marx.
    • jeffiek, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9@fasda
      "The definition of socialism as an economic theory requires that the state to own the means of production and distribution. "

      Would you prefer fascism? Or perhaps corporatism? Whatever term you like it is NOT freedom. Don't get so hung up on some textbook definition. None are ever 100 per cent accurate. Look instead at their major characteristics and the results. English is very context sensitive and easy to manipulate. Even the word "own" is ambiguous. Part of the definition regards the "ability to control". So who, and to what extent, is the owner of a business? The person that paid money (theoretical definition)? Or the government that can regulate it (practical definition)?


    • brokekneck, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@ fasda

      How far is the separation between big business and government? I mean you tell me the next time I'm going to see a American based company like Ford or GM pop up out of no where. Ok here is a better example. We live in a supply and demand economy. So why are we paying so much for medicine? Well parts of that resolves to the FDA. They will not allow importation of medication. Which does what? Drives the price up cause there isn't any competition. People need the meds. Only a handful make it in America. Now what is everyone talking about now that pills are so expensive? Medicad. Are you starting to connect the dots together here? That basically insures those companies more money. Which puts that market into monopoly. I don't personally don't believe that's protecting the best interests of America. But then again people do need medicine. And some truly can not afford it. So its a tricky one.
    • cliston17, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Have you seen the wait times in Canada to have a surgery?
    • darkamster07, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3don't be a fool, I don't care what you think, just try and accept the truth: a revolution will never get off the ground in the US, most people are fairly content with sitting on their asses all day fretting over Anna Nicole. I totally believe in the constitution, but unless unconstitutional crimes and/or US citizen killings are widespread, do you expect the common citizen to give a *****?
    • darkamster07, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1there is no such thing as freedom, only forms that come close to it.
  • Zinite, on 10/12/2007, -5/+47WTF someone voted for Nader? Nader doesn't even vote for Nader.
    • Rkstar, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17Nader is actually my first choice from that list as far as who I'd like to see president. But who I'd vote for, because of the way politics works - Obama gets my vote.
    • victorycig, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4I saw him on Democracy Now... He was incoherent.
    • jivatmanx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18@rkstar

      Agreed. Nader most closely represents my personal views more than any other candidate. He's perhaps even more of a staunch support of personal freedoms as Ron Paul is (the issue which is making him popular). And without the corporatism and lack of enviornmental conscience that Ron Paul has.

      I actually think Nader's a better, more intellectual writer as well; I used to read some of his "blog" stuff a while back, it was incredibly insightful; the Ron Paul stuff does'nt strike me as particularly ingenious or new; just a playing on people's urges to weed out corruption.
    • demonsofgoetia, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16@rkstar:

      "Nader is actually my first choice from that list as far as who I'd like to see president. But who I'd vote for, because of the way politics works - Obama gets my vote."

      Sad, you should vote for Nader. Your vote is never wasted, so long as you vote for who YOU believe in. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Those who say a vote for Nader means you've voting for someone else or helping someone else win are full of *****. It's the millions of people who vote according to a 'lesser of two evils' brainwashed notion that ruin it for everyone.

      I've said it before and I'll say it again when the next Republican or Democrat are in office:

      Don't blame me I voted for Nader!
    • brokekneck, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11@ demonsofgoetia

      That is very true. Your vote is never wasted. Its always been the little groups in America that make the change. I wouldn't vote Nader. I'm a libertarian. So my vote goes for Ron Paul. But I hardly see voting third party a waste. Infact voting third party has more influence then voting like the sheep. When the two party system is sitting with dick in hand. Wondering... "where did my votes go". They tend to ask why.
    • Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6"Your vote is never wasted"

      On the contrary, your vote is ALWAYS wasted. Voting is an evil and a waste of time. But, as demonsofgoetia says, if you're going to vote, at least vote for WHO YOU WANT, not who you think will win! (And if you have any sense at all, vote for Ron Paul - unless you have enough sense not to vote)
    • nestafett, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I voted for Nader cause he's the only one on the list that I see that has consistently done something to improve his country and succeeded.
      a over 40 year positive track record?
      ummm yeah, I'll go for that guy
    • Rkstar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I actually did vote for Nader in 2000... Gore had a clear win in my state so I could afford to have my vote make a statement, rather than a vote to win. Then Bush won, and I saw what happened under his reign. So I voted for Kerry in 2004... with a real "anybody but Bush" attitude... and I wanted my vote to go to the candidate who was most like to be that person. For 2008, as much as I still believe in Nader and the work he's done, he's unfortunately really showing his age, already older than the oldest elected president. My vote for Barack isn't a vote "against the other guy" (who would be the other guy, any way?). I chose him because I think he'd make a great candidate. I think he was the only candidate who voted against this ridiculous war we're in. And it would be nice to see ignorant racists saying they're going to leave the country because of the president rather than all the reasons people with brains fled our nation because of Bush.
  • Poland, on 10/12/2007, -12/+3Is it too early to say that Obama wins?

    Cause right now he is winning by a landslide...
    • dagobah77, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19It was over before it even began. Everyone knows that the only thing diggers love more than Ron Paul is Obama.
    • mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20Digg is not exactly a good representation of the general public (maybe even the exact opposite).. but I'm all in favor of Obama winning in the real elections.
    • kiloWatt, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4Its never to early to say it like this...
      OBAMA FTW!
  • TygerTyger, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Where's Mike Huckabee, the dark horse from Arkansas?
    A good man and a candidate to watch
    • OsakaWilson, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2 :Enter Duck:
      Huckabee!
      :Exit Duck:
  • blaze03, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Ron Paul and Barrack Obama are both good votes, but I would vote for the candidate more likely to win based on popularity (which is Obama...Ron Paul is relatively unknown to the American population at large). Splitting the vote is devastating, as we saw in the 2000 election when Nader took votes away from Gore. The Republicans intentionally ran Nader ads to hurt Gore by splitting the vote: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20001027/aponline115918_000.htm
    • GeneralAntilles, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10So we get Obama banning semi-automatic weapons? Right, then. No thank you. I'll vote for Paul.
    • demonsofgoetia, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11"when Nader took votes away from Gore"

      I'd never throw my vote away by just voting for one of two popular choices. My vote counts, and I vote Nader. The 'lesser of two evils' ***** is mind numbing. People need to stop blaming the intelligent few who can think outside of the boob tube box and vote for someone who stands for something vs. the sheep who fall in line and play the 'lesser of two evils' game.
    • blaze03, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@demons

      I definitely agree that your everyone's individual vote counts. However, in my opinion, when push comes to shove, it is a naive way of thinking and voting for your grassroots candidate may have far-reaching, real world consequences. This is no more clearer than the 2000 election: we are all responsible for voting Bush into office and the entire nation is reeling from it now. Who knows if voting Gore in would have been any better or worse, but the fact is split votes affected the elections.
    • blackjack75, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13"So we get Obama banning semi-automatic weapons? Right, then. No thank you. I'll vote for Paul."

      Frankly if you decide on your president on THIS issue, then all I know is guns should be banned.. because of people like you. I couldn't care less if he wanted to ban guns or not. There are far more important issues to make your choice on.
    • Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"but I would vote for the candidate more likely to win based on popularity"

      What is it you hope to achieve by voting? Is it (a) to make your opinion known, or (b) to "score" by voting for the winner? If it's the former, then "voting for the candidate more likely to win" is the worst possible thing you could do: it completely destroys any information content in your vote - voting for the person who most closely represents your wishes, even if (s)he only gets one vote, at least allows the winner to see roughly what people who didn't vote for him care about.

      (Oh, yeah: if it's b, you're an idiot)
    • blaze03, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Because "information content in your vote" is more important than the real direction and impact of our heavily influential nation for the next 4-8 years. Yep. What fantasy world do you live in?
    • Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10If you're just voting for whoever you think will win, how are you having any effect on "the real direction and impact of our heavily influential nation", again?
  • jasonlee88, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Where's Dennis Kucinich on this poll?
    • stripe64, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Ron Paul wants to legalize industrial use for hemp, that is the first step in getting marijuana legal.
  • spiffistan, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3IANAR, but can't you include Arnold?
    • jivatmanx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4You honestly think there's enough political will to change the constitution just so Arnold can run? Granted, I love the man's stance on green issues, but, he's just one dude, and it's really hard to pass a constitutional amendment.
    • dkm201, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Not born in United States... Can't run for president.
    • dkm201, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Why digg me down? It's a requirement to hold office. You have to be born here. Just like you also have to be 35 and have lived in the US for fourteen years.
  • SSCrow, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Man I have not been paying enough attention to Politics.
    20 People on the poll.
    wtf.

    And I can;t decide,
    Hilary has Bill backing Her (No innuendo), But I hate her stance on Violence in Video Games.
  • stev1e, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Doug has my vote!
    http://stanhope2008.com/
  • dohidied, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Has anyone else never heard of Ron Paul?
  • 5hop4orce, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4I'll vote for myself as a write-in candidate.
  • TheGooseyOne, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9yeah and this poll won't be affected at all by the massive majority of viewers of this site being 20something liberals. I got nothing against them, but if anyone thinks this poll is accurate at all, or even holds a remote amount of weight toward what might happen in 2008, please grow a cerebral cortex
  • cmholm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Ah yes, throw some Libertarian candidates into the only forum where they get critical mass, net forums. Back in the meat world, I'd find them more relevant if they'd manage to consistently hold some State or Federal level seats. Then, it wouldn't just be all pie-in-the-sky Utopian theory, and they'd have to suffer through some of the trade-offs that any other *seated* party gets stuck making, from the Fascists to the Commies.
  • CSKellogg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Not that I'd ever vote for him but Sam Brownback is missing from the poll
  • Gtitian, on 10/12/2007, -11/+19Here's how I know I'm not a Libertarian:
    I won't allow people to starve to death.

    Period. No matter what. Even if it's their own fault their starving to death, I will not, can not, sit there and watch someone starve to death, freeze to death, bleed to death, etc. None of the above. Under a TOTALLY libertarian system, there would be absolutely NO safety net to prevent people from literally starving to death in the streets of city's around the country except personal charity, and I think its sort of absurd that the greatest government in the world would be unable to help it's poor.
    Libertarians here, if they are true to their beliefs (I actually used to be one) would argue that if people worked hard, they wouldn't be poor. Who is anyone to judge really? I'm ranting here... but man... Some of you (2nd Revolution) really impress(depress) me with your angst.
    Honestly, if you knew anything about history (ie. the industrial revolution, as mentioned earlier) you'd know that "free-trade" is perhaps the absolute worst idea of all time. It's great of course for about 1% of the population, and very very bad for every other person. Please read more books.

    In America, we're all Americans. Not just our most wealthy 1%.
    • GhostCow, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Ever heard of charity? No one is stopping you from helping anyone, I just don't want the government using force to "help" people.
    • blackjack75, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Then why give the government force at all? It already uses quite enough to screw people.
    • adriyel, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14So why does the government need to be involved? Are you familiar with the concept of a private charity? If this idea bothers you so much, when/if a libertarian gets elected, take your tax savings, and donate the money to the charity of your choice. Private charities are more efficient than the government by orders of magnitude, so those dollars freely given will do far more than they would under the fed. Boom, you've given your fellow citizen more freedom, and you've taken care of your conscience.
    • Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3See http://www.house.gov/paul/nytg.htm
    • jivatmanx, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2@gtit
      could'nt have said it better myself
    • Neiby, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5@gtitian: You *really* need to educate yourself about libertarian thinking. You've got it pretty wrong. If you think libertarian-minded people what poor people to starve...well, you're ignorant.
    • icmp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4First, I'd like to see a "None of the above" option added to the poll for those of us who would rather not be forced to choose one and therefore possibly have to compromise on our principles.

      @ gtitian

      Libertarians do not want people to starve to death. Libertarians are just like anyone else in believing people should have appropriate opportunities to help themselves (charity, etc) without having to steal from other people to pay for it.

      Further, governments do not 'help' anyone -- they merely redistribute wealth.

      Also, citing the industrial revolution as an apparent failure of "free trade" is historically inaccurate. If you would be kind enough to cite the exact time frame during which this so-called "100% libertarian" free market existed I would appreciate it-- because from my own research I can pretty much assure you it never existed. There was always some aspect of "government" regulation that stifled the ability of free interactions between individuals or pre-existing conditions which presented a serious wealth disparity amongst the population.. Perhaps you are the one who needs to read more books.
    • MamaJama, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6If YOU feel so strongly about helping the needy then YOU help them. Helping our fellowman should be the responsibility of EVERY man and woman not of the government! Sorry, be WE have to be their safety net, NOT the United States government. Have you never seen how badly their agencies are run? Are you so totally clueless as to how the regulations in place within those agencies actually KEEP people needy and at the mercy of the government? Trust me, if we, the citizens adopted the attitude of 'each one reach one' rather than embracing the 'hands off' attitude of 'the government will take care of them there would be NO needy people in our nation. It isn't that libertarians are anti-helping people, they are anti-government helping people because in the end it only keeps them down and needy! It is very hard to pull yourself out of welfare once you are in that system because their rules don't allow you to improve your situation and still receive help....case in point? A friend, recently divorced could only get a low-paying job while she went to school. She could not make ends meet. She was not getting child support. She applied for government assistance. The ONLY way she could get help would have been to quit her job! She was making too much money to survive on that income alone (it really was a choice between food or rent) and yet the GOVERNMENT programs that you so heartily think are in place to help people would only give her help if she gave up her FREEDOM and became completely dependent upon the government. She turned to the private sector for the boost she needed to get out of her situation. She worked hard and she is doing well now -- no thanks to the government! So, I ask you, we need government charity why???? The private sector and individual citizens are FAR more effective at giving people REAL assistance than the government every will, or can.

      my 2 cents.
    • Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"First, I'd like to see a "None of the above" option added to the poll"

      I'd like to see him elected!
  • punkrock4life, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9fyi, ralph nader has publicly said that he will not run unless hillary gets the democrat's nomination.
    • demonsofgoetia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"ralph nader has publicly said that he will not run unless hillary gets the democrat's nomination."

      Doesn't stop me from voting for him.
  • Edu115, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Why isn't Christopher Walken in there?
    http://www.walken2008.com

    This poll needs more cowbell!
  • diggless, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3this poll needs more gore
  • max1574, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7BARACK OBAMA FTW!!!!!!11

    oh wait... I live in Australia
    • Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Unfortunately, there's no way (is there?) to skip to the results without voting, so if you're a foreigner who's interested in the results, you have to vote :(
    • k2thelew, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If Hilary is elected, ill be right there with ya man. Or maybe Canada?
    • stripe64, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6If either Hillary or Giuliani wins, I am getting the ***** out of this Country. Canada sounds good to me.
  • blizzardice, on 10/12/2007, -12/+15Someone tell me what makes barak obama eligible for presidency, other than he is american. What has he done for his countyy? The answer is nothing.
    • Niatech, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4What has he done for his country ..?
      Running for president... What are you doing ?
    • nestafett, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5What has just about anybody on that list done to help this country? not saying no one has, but really they're all somewhat equal.
      the only exception is Nader whos done heaps for the past 40 years and, unlike some others on the list, has always put the people above an ideology or corporate interest.

      except for the people on the list I dont know =)

      and please dont say Ron Paul, I didn't know the guy before digg and now that I've seen all the comments posted about him I hate him.
    • Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"What are you doing ?"

      Not running for President!


      nestafett: Ron Paul.
    • Jessejb, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5I agree. He's a loser.

      BUT

      People will vote for him because if they don't they are afraid they will be called a racist.
    • theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13"People will vote for him because if they don't they are afraid they will be called a racist."

      Not quite. It is more like: "People SAY they will vote for him because if they don't they are afraid they will be called a racist."

      What people say they will do, and what they actually do are two entirely different things.

    • barktwiggs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Mitt Romney as CEO of Bain invested and helped get many companies off the ground, thus providing thousands of new jobs to Americans (Domino's Pizza, Staples anyone?). He also rescued the scandal/debt plagued 2002 Olympic organization and turned it around into a succesful, profitable venture. Finally as Governor, he turned several billion dollars of debt in Massachusetts into a surplus all while not raising taxes. I think that sets a good precident for what he'll do as President.
    • bergerdml, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I don't think Obama is popular amongst whites because he is black because they are afraid of being labeled as racist. If that were the case, why weren't Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton popular amongst whites?
    • groovychk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Saying that people are only for Obama because they are afraid they'll be labeled racist is the kind of thing a racist in denial might say.
    • EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Barack Obama has a major in political science with a specialization in International relations, and received a law degree from Harvard University where he was president of the Harvard Law Review. He spent 11 years teaching Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. He will have served two years as US Senator and seven years as a State Senator. Obama is a gifted speaker and has received acclaim for his ability to build bipartisan coalitions.

      Bush received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Yale, followed by a suspicious tour of duty with the Air National Guard before receiving an MBA from Harvard. He had a checkered career in business, and his only political experience was six years as governor of Texas.

      Why is Barack Obama's experience such an issue?
      • mettaseva, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I'm not concerned about Barack's experience. I'm concerned about the fact that he is now willing to invade Pakistan!

        At this point we need a real anti-war candidate, and I for one am a Democrat who will now be voting for Ron Paul. He's a man of integrity and a real statesman with a profound understanding of foreign, domestic, economic and constitutional issues: http://www.bigeye.com/ronpaul.htm
    • Guydevice, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Hooray, he has experience. Nobody has yet stated what policies of Obama would compel him/her to voter for for him. I think the Digg community would vote Obama over Jefferson.
    • Jessejb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@the blooms Yeah you're right on that one.

      @bergerdml Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are insane... For one they want reporations. I didn't make anyone a slave and you weren't a slave. So why should i give you millions of dollars?

      @groovychk The statement i made has nothing to do with racism. It's people like you that infer what you like and make hebetudinous statements. That is exactly the reason will "say" they are voting for Obama. But he prob won't even get the nom.

      @ethergant Wow sounds like he's been a teacher for a while. No body brought up Bush I said Newt. And if you need an Black man to vote for so you feel better inside why not Michael Steele?
    • EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Ah yes, Newt Gingrich. The man who brought "family values" to the forefront of American discussion. The same man who has repeatedly cheated on his wives and divorced his first wife while she was in the hospital, then had the nerve to condemn Clinton for the same thing. The man who bounced 22 checks in the House Banking Scandal. The man who helped move the Republican party away from their traditional ideals of fiscal responsibility and small government and turn them into the party of evangelical Christians. The man who helped elevated politics to the bitter feud it's been for the past 15 years. He's a real prince of a guy.
    • groovychk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@jessejb
      "The statement i made has nothing to do with racism. It's people like you that infer what you like and make hebetudinous statements. That is exactly the reason will "say" they are voting for Obama. But he prob won't even get the nom."

      Saying it isn't racist doesn't make it not racist. "People like me"??? Now I'm sure of what I said. Racist and idiotic.
    • Jessejb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It really intrigues me that you can so quickly be sure that I, and other people, are racist. You have no clue.
    • groovychk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@jessejb

      Only you and Dick. Just read your statements. Your comments are about race as a major factor if not THE major factor. Get your own clue.
  • nixfu, on 10/12/2007, -21/+2



    SCREW THE DEMS!!




    DRAFT NADER!!




    DRAFT NADER!!


  • iceblur, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Man, they need to use labels for those input tags.
  • thearrow, on 10/12/2007, -14/+17Barack leading the poll? Further proof Digg has idiotic members.
    • Pottersquash, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12The existence of this poll is proof digg has gone idiotic. What are you all 12???? What are we doing next sigining an online petition to have diggnation broadcast on Adult Swim

      GROW THE ***** UP
  • Jessejb, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4WTF Obama? Being black does not qualify you to lead a question. Please tell me how he is more qualified than Newt? That's right he isn't.

    AND

    He smokes and that is icky
    • Pottersquash, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2What makes newt unqualifed?? What are these "qualifications" that you are asking for? We've had presidents from all kinds of walks of life, exactly what hasn't Obama done that every other pass president has done that you think he should go and do? Or do you just want the age limit raised?
    • dmjarrington, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6Obama supports war with Iran. Vote Ron Paul. Don't be stupid!
    • groovychk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@jessejb

      You seem to be obsessed with Obama's blackness.
    • Jessejb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I mean a country not question... it was like 4am sorry
  • guytoronto, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3I'm Canadian, but I'd vote for Hilary. Just cause I think she's a fine piece of ass.
  • bclinton, on 10/12/2007, -14/+4Just what I would expect from the liberal digg community.

    "Hey everyone, I know what is wrong - The Muslims keep attacking us because of stuff we are doing wrong - I got an idea - let's vote a Muslim as president and they wont hate us anymore"

    "Hey narly cool - thats a great idea - lets vote for Obama"

    "Ok, cool - then they will stop hating us and attacking us"
    • annonimality, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Obama's a Christian. Stop believing everything Fox News tells you.
    • kineticabstract, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@DickButterWorth -

      How, exactly, does spreading lies make bclinton qualify for the "voice of reason"?
    • groovychk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@bclinton
      Barack isn't and never has been a muslim
  • Earlofnecromium, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Where the hell is Stephen Colbert????
  • earthwater, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3User named 2ndRevolution way up there says with verve about Ron Paul, "If you don't like it, you're a typical neocon or socialist and will be weeded out when the time is right." It sounds like s/he has the Final Solution.

    Does anyone think that Ron Paul's bill to legalize NON-psychotropic hemp production is the same as legalizing pot? You're stupid.

    Does anyone think that the bankers will let pass Ron Paul's bill to put us back on the gold standard? You're stupid.

    Even if I like some of Ron Paul's ideas, he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the presidency. The main thing now is to get all the shrub's cronies out of power.
  • nakba, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2How do you have any idea whether people vote because of Obama's skin color or his policies? I know that I would vote for him because of his policies, and his skin color is just an added bonus, not because I have white guilt, but because being half-black, he is more likely to be concerned for the welfare of African-Americans, the most consistently oppressed group in the United States.
    • jivatmanx, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2On the other hand, a lot of black people don't consider him as such, simply because he's not culturally "black" as it is defined in the States.

      As such, I believe that rather, he'd be the multicultural president, which is great and imo more important than having a woman president (I do profess a bias of not wanting a woman president though, it would be better than a neocon)
    • dmjarrington, on 10/12/2007, -11/+9He's not black, he's Kenyan...

      And he supports war against Iran.


      Don't vote Obama. Or Clinton. Or Giuliani. Or McCain.

      All Support war against Iran.

      Vote Ron Paul.
    • dmjarrington, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18@jivatmanx

      neolibs are just as dangerous as neocons. Who cares if Clinton is a woman... She is a part of the Bush/Clinton dynasty... Say NO.
  • jron, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6while i'm here, who are these people voting for Rudi Giuliani? why? why? =(
  • gojeda, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10As if there was any doubt, this poll shows just how deluded and out of touch diggers really are.

    Laughable....
    • DrMickhead, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Diggers aren't necessarily out of touch, they're just out of the mainstream. It's much cooler to have an alternate point of view, which is why all the frontpage stories are either about Apple computers, Nintendo Wii, or Barack Obama.
  • EmmSee, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Obama's just as much white as he is black. I'm confused on why he's always referred to as black and not white?

    • dmjarrington, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3He's KENYAN OMFG
    • annonimality, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@dmjarrington

      "Obama's father, Barack Obama Sr., was black; his mother, Ann Dunham, was white..."

      http://www.answers.com/topic/barack-obama
    • picardo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6It doesn't make sense to classify people of mixed race by their race. It's a thing that Americans do often, though, and they classify you purely by looking at your skin color. If you have darker skin, then you are labeled black. At the least, you are not labeled white. Maybe there is another explanation, like if you are from Middle East, and that's offered up to explain your skin color. But in Obama's case, his father being black immediately makes him black. He doesn't label himself a "black politician." We label him a black politician based on his skin color, and it's something we (and the media) must stop doing.
    • omaryak, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"I'm confused on why he's always referred to as black and not white?"
      Perhaps you would prefer that he be called an Oreo?
  • nakba, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Obama is referred to as black, because in America, if you are at all black-looking, you are black, especially in politics, since so much of the political power is concentrated in the hands of well-to-do white males.
  • bigj5150, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2I'm voting for Richardson. I think we need a man who is respected internationally so we can begin to repair some of the damage done by Bush.
  • smokecheck, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2 Go to google video and type in the money masters.. and learn !!
  • hankidic, on 10/12/2007, -10/+10Barack Obama??? Come on! I had a higher opinion of my fellow diggers...
    • Neiby, on 10/12/2007, -11/+12No kidding. The number of votes cast for Obama and Clinton are surprising. I would have thought there would be more intelligent people here who understand how philosophically bankrupt and immoral socialism is.

      I guess not. They just want to get in line for their handouts and welfare checks.
    • Woodpecker, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5Um, Barack Obama isn't exactly Hugo Chavez. He's actually quite defensive of neoliberal economics.
  • HiCaP, on 10/12/2007, -15/+6cmon, as a NYer and with 9/11 still on my mind, no one named Barack Hussein Obama would ever get my Vote.
    OH, and Hilary, what a Joke.

    • Neiby, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14I don't care about Obama's name, I care about his policies. He's almost as bad as Hillary. No way in hell would he get my vote.
    • kineticabstract, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Seriously? You don't want to vote for a guy solely based on what his parents named him? I don't personally care who you vote for, but PLEASE pick a better reason than his name.

      I tremble for the future of our nation.
    • Shadar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3So you're saying you're a freaking coward that wants terrorists to succeed? They perform a terrorist act and you HELP them by becoming afraid. What a freaking pansy... grow some balls.
  • nakba, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8@hicap
    Barack Obama is not a Muslim. He simply has a name that thousands of people in the world have. You are revealing your jingoism and xenophobia.

    @neiby
    How can you say that socialism is immoral? How is providing for those who need help not moral? The New Deal is the greatest thing that ever happened to America, except for the recognition of blacks as equal citizens, and it is far better than proliferating deadly weapons throughout America, or deregulating corporations in order to allow them to more easily rape the populace.
    • Woodpecker, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Socialism isn't immoral, but it doesn't work. What we NEED is a moderate mix of socialism and a free market, like Scandinavia. And first we need to get spending under control, that should be the highest priority. But you're right, the best thing the government can do is help society, which is definitely a New Deal idea.
    • lordmetroid, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7It doesn't work because people have different plans for their lifes and socialist think their is the only one and they are also conviniently not taking into account human nature.

      As a Swede I can assure you that Sweden s not all good and dandy, all aspects of life is regulated what and what I can not do. We have the highest taxes in the world and yet healthcare, school, justice is crumbling in an rapid speed and our debt is growing even soo. I am not going to stay much longer in communist Sweden.
    • jivatmanx, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13@LordMetroid

      I'm going to say this flat out: I don't believe you're a swede.

      First off, looking at the stories you dugg, almost every single one of them deals with domestic united states politics, the vast majority of which are about Ron Paul. You have only a single political story about sweden which is an a story in a conservate blog trashing sweden.
      Second, you say that Sweden's debt is growing, which is complete *****, they have a quickly growing SURPLUS.

      An article YESTERDAY on forbes ( http://www.forbes.com/etfs/2007/02/23/sweden-denmark-etf-pf-etf-in_cd_0222soapbox_inl.html ) was entitled "sticking with sweden's strength" and mentioned:

      "...includes an index to measure the kind of creativity most useful to business--talent, technology and flexibility--and it found Sweden to be the No. 1 spot in Europe and the world. The top 10 countries, in descending order, are: Sweden, Japan, Finland, the United States, Switzerland, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway and Germany."

      So much for crumbling schools.

      I think you're full of *****. Why would you lie about living in sweden so you could post anti-socialism antecdotes?
    • Whitie31762, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Providing for those who can not help themselves is the job of churches and other charities. The governments job is to defend our boarders and interest abroad. Socialism just encourages a growing group of those who refuse to help themselves because they know that the government will steal from some hard working producer to give to them.
    • jivatmanx, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4@whitie
      I'd rather have the gov't defend the health of it's citizen than "defend" a country like iraq.
      @LordMetroid

      Not to mention that you have 1 friend on your friends list: ronpaul2008

      and that you dug a bunch of Global Warming Denial stories. I bet you've never even been to sweden... I don't think there's a single person in sweden who denies global warming.
    • lordmetroid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I am a Swede... Just a very liberty loving Swede who wants to move to USA for more liberty(relatively). First time I have had anyone question my Swedishness. Feels kind of strange. I suppose I am very unswedish after learning the concept of liberty even as the mandatory government schools tried their best of indoctrination of socialism in everyone(Took me a whole year of studies in political science to understand the concept of liberty). I also have influences throughout the societies of the globe with a multitude of long visits(year lenght) to other countries.

      Sure there are a lot of nice schools in Sweden but relative to around 5 years ago they have become much worse. Even if it would be the case of them being nice, it doesn't matter from a moral standpoint. They are still payed through theft of people's property and follow the state's objective. As I have been in the teacher's education college I can tell you the prime directive is to foster a good democratic citizen.

      Crazy and surreal that my Swedishness is questioned because I bash socialism. You could at least have googled my nickname, I used it since 1994 so there is plenty of evidence of my Swedishness.
    • jivatmanx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@lordmetroid

      Yeah, I checked out your nick, you're legit. I also apologize for my harshness
      I just thought that perhaps you would have known about the surplus had you been living there.

      The U.S. is a good place to live, we'l welcome you, although I warn you that if you want to come here based on something such as education, research it a lot. Our educational system is very diverse, and, I was thinking that if you were perhaps thinking that student apathy was evidence of a failure of socialism, I would say that our apathy most certainly rivals any, in my experience, and the experience of many teacher's I've overheard, especially of the very young, and the school system is certainly not better than Sweden's.

      I think I understand that perhaps the culture of the United states may suit you better... I understand you may indeed prefer a heterogenous society with a diversity of races.

      We're very high-paced and stressed though, most certainly not with the low blood pressure of swedes I reference in an article below.

      Also, I like Mora knives and the Pukko's that come from Sweden.

      Again, I apologize for my brashness, the evidence had led me to believe that you were being insincere.
  • nakba, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2I am moving to Sweden.
    Well, maybe not, but if I lived there, I wouldn't move.
    Unless I needed to for some reason.
    Plus it's cold.
    • jivatmanx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2personally, I'd love to live there. Here's a cool article: http://www.thelocal.se/6492/20070222/

      "Sweden is the happiest country in western Europe, according to a new study that links blood pressure to levels of contentment.

      The study, by researchers at Britain's University of Warwick, claims to have established a connection between a nation's happiness and its blood pressure levels. Happy countries have fewer blood pressure problems and fewer mental health problems."
    • DrMickhead, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Everybody was happy in London in Huxley's Brave New World too, but that doesn't mean I'd want to live there...
  • FAT_PIGGY, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Ron Paul has my vote
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 143 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.