Republican Debate Tonight...Will They Attack Ron Paul or Ignore Him? (1296 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: 0.38 on 87 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (View user info) at 2007-06-05 18:30:50 EDT
Starts in a half hour.
7:00ET
6:00CT
On CNN.
User Reviews
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-06-07 09:06:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-07 03:58:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I can't believe I'm saying it, but I'm warming up to Tucker Carlson...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Lye4VjMMQE
Thank you Tucker, you bowtie wearin' twatbag! I love you!
===
whether you are a supporter of ron paul or not, saying who you voted for on air is pretty bad form, especially for a journalist
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-06-07 08:29:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-06 21:05:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Did you read the article I posted about Ron Paul's numbers perhaps being much greater than the "scientific" polls are showing if for no other reason, besides the obviously overwhelming online support, than those people without land-based phone lines are not included in the polls?
Hell, who even still HAS a land-based telephone line? My grandparents, for one. And they still get their news from television, unlike a growing percentage of Americans.
You haven't a leg to stand on, Indo, except you smug little assumptions and your half-witted mud-slinging accusation that just because I say scientific polls can be rigged that it's some sort of NWO conspiracy.
Again, you're a fucking fool and I'm calling your ass out right now.
--------------------
You are "calling my ass out right now?"
What the hell does that even mean, are you gearing up to threaten to kill me again?
You didn't just say they can be rigged. You said you believed they are rigged before you believe that Ron Paul supporters are more likely to cast votes on line.
I don't have a leg to stand on? The whole basis of your argument (up until you mentioned land lines) was that every single polling company was in on a conspiracy. Don't you see a problem with your reaction here? You immediately make up fantasy about a conspiracy involving every single polling company instead of accepting a much more reasonable explination of an over active (and much broader) internet support. The fact that you jumped to conspiracy before you even found the land line argument shows you aren't arguing from facts or reasonable assumptions, but instead are stuck with the idea of Ron Paul's popularity and will make up anything to support it and deny anything that detracts from it. that is your problem. No matter what happens in this election, in the news, in life instead of changing your mind, accepting that you may be wrong you will jump to wild conspiracies. This is why you fail at life.
As to the land line claim, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that since Ron Paul is more popular on line than in real life that a sizable portion of his fans don't have land line (most people who don't are younger and more inclined to use internet phones). But the largest estimates of households without land lines is 9%. What portion of the 9% do you think are huge Ron Paul fans? what portion of that 9% do you think are part of a younger generation (who are much less inclined to vote or respond to phone surveys)? Even if we assume that that 9% is somehow magically and against all reason 100% behind Ron Paul, he still isn't a leading candidate. And the truth is probably much much lower than 100%. But of course I am a govt plant and am probably making all of this up because you found the truth.
http://www.mobileherald.com/nine-percent-of-americans-dont-use-landlines/
Submitted by EmissionImpossible (user info) at 2007-06-07 04:09:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
OH NO!!!
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-07 03:58:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I can't believe I'm saying it, but I'm warming up to Tucker Carlson...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Lye4VjMMQE
Thank you Tucker, you bowtie wearin' twatbag! I love you!
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-06 23:25:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You have a half reasonable argument, Caul. I apologise for going off the way I did. That was pretty uncalled for. You just have to understand that it's the cumulative effect of all the other instances where people and news orgs like CNN have blatantly dismissed Ron Paul, or 9/11, or whatever else it is, and it gets old.
I react the way I do because it really gets to me. It's like a mountain of circumstantial evidence to a crime you know a person committed, but you just don't have the proof that could put him away, or even in instances where you think you have that proof, it is completely dismissed and/or ignored.
Can you understand that?
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-06-06 22:16:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
instead of calling me a NWO pussy...you could answer that, douche
http://www.ubersite.com/m/108822#2431092
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-06-06 22:14:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-06 21:44:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Seriously...what kind of a fucking pussy are you?
===
and if i was a drone operating a website, in a news org of that size and saw comments that ressembles spamming (not saying it is...just looks like it...calm down), i would call up my equally unimportant boss and he'd probably ask me to shut the link down.
i doubt the CEO called up the little tech boy and asked him to shut the link down as some kind of black op. they probably don't even give a shit about it.
now a lot of people like you will contact CNN screaming like mongs and get automatically transfered into a large bin filed under "we don't give a shit". and because of that, some serious intelligent complaints will be diluted.
that's the perfect example of why idiots like you indirectly silence or discredit good people.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-06-06 22:06:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-06 21:47:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Let's get this straight, Caul... You doubt they "did this with malicious intent" but you readily admit they probably took down all the Ron Paul comments?
===
these statements belong if you're a reasonable person who understands that to a news org who sees its website getting rapid uninamous support for one candidate it might look like spam and flaw the data so best better remove it.
a news site i go to (cyberpresse.ca) had the same problem. they couldn't determine whether one person or a thousands were leaving comments in blogs or elsewhere so they removed commenting until they implemented ip checks and email confirmations. since then, no comments ever get deleted unless in the cases of extreme abuse.
of course, one could've thought they are controlled by the CFR and scream a lot of nothing only to be ignored but a few nice requests solved the problem.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2007-06-06 22:02:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
In the time it took you to swear a lot and tell someone he was a pussy for offering a reasonable opinion, I'd written a strongly worded email and sent it to CNN.
If you're pissed off about it, tell the people who matter, not some goon on uber.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-06-06 21:59:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
jesus, calm down
i'm not excusing anyone. what's in it for me?
all i'm saying is that CNN might have felt like it was getting spammed and thought, as the owner of this site, it was better to remove the comments.
i can understand why that might bother you. all i'm saying is that there doesn't have to be some kind of evil malicious NWO bilderberger intent behind their move. hell, maybe they thought they were target of malicious spammers.
either way, you can voice your criticism to CNN and ask them to spam proof their site (it isn't) so that they don't remove what LOOKS like spam when it's actually real comments.
that's how normal people do things.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-06 21:47:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Let's get this straight, Caul... You doubt they "did this with malicious intent" but you readily admit they probably took down all the Ron Paul comments?
You could essentially stop right there because the two statements don't belong together where I come from... Maybe in French Canada, but not fucking here.
CNN will be hearing from me. I am PISSED OFF.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-06 21:44:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
What the fuck kind of apologetic excuse is THAT, Caul?
Why would you even feel justified in accepting that as an explanation...even to yourself?
Seriously...what kind of a fucking pussy are you?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-06 21:42:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Lambchop, yeah, but that's not same link or set of comments.
charminglybeef posted the exact same link to those CNN comments in this very post last night commenting that it was funny:
http://www.ubersite.com/m/108989#2434745
The link was FILLED last night with the comments from that whatreallyhappened.com article. Now it redirects to an older set of comments about the dem's debate!
This is blatant censorship.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-06-06 21:40:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i doubt CNN did this with a malicious intent.
it is more likely that they felt spammed and thought that the comments didn't look very serious to have only Ron Paul supporters and encompassed the whole spectrum.
it sucks, but most large news orgs would do the same
Submitted by Lambchop (user info) at 2007-06-06 21:31:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
ETS: I poked around on the blog archives under the " filed under New Hampshire" link and found:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/05/debate-scorecard-2/#comments
this was the closest thing i could find to a "who won the debate".
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-06 21:24:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Look again at this article explaining how CNN removed a bevvy of Ron Paul support from its website:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/missingcomments.php
Now, try this...
Take the link provided: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/03/who-won-the-debate/#comments
and change the "03" in the address to anything else... Try "05" because that's when the Republican debate happened 06/05/...
It redirects to 2007/06/03/who-won-the-debate....
How about that one, y'all?
Nice of CNN to do that for us huh? Set up that little redirect...take away our speech on their website... Well, hey, they own it after all. It's not like they're intentionally fucking with a presidential election, is it? I mean...they're not twisting people's arms to vote a certain way, they're just being good citizens and protecting us from the harmful Ron Paul supporters.
What's it gonna take until we all wake the fuck up? You wanna be a fucking fool and an idiot like Indoninja, go right ahead. I'll use my brain, thanks.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-06 21:05:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Did you read the article I posted about Ron Paul's numbers perhaps being much greater than the "scientific" polls are showing if for no other reason, besides the obviously overwhelming online support, than those people without land-based phone lines are not included in the polls?
Hell, who even still HAS a land-based telephone line? My grandparents, for one. And they still get their news from television, unlike a growing percentage of Americans.
You haven't a leg to stand on, Indo, except you smug little assumptions and your half-witted mud-slinging accusation that just because I say scientific polls can be rigged that it's some sort of NWO conspiracy.
Again, you're a fucking fool and I'm calling your ass out right now.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-06 20:59:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Indo, let me rephrase...you're not making a fool of yourself, you ARE a fool.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-06 20:58:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I can't directly confirm this, but given the already well displayed bias of the media against anything Ron Paul and anything populist, I don't doubt this occurred and worse:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/missingcomments.php
CNN removed comments from its website that were pro Ron Paul during the debates. Par for the fucking course.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-06-06 20:50:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-06 18:47:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
What the FUCK are you talking about!? The guy's got like 6 people working for him! This is not some organized blitz, this is disparate supporters showing their support in the forums they have available to them, and they just happen to be the SAME forums available to ALL of the candidates, including those with millions of dollars of special interest money and more paid campaigners, managers, consultants, and street operatives than you can shake a stick at!
You're so far off, you're making a fucking fool of yourself.
--------------------
I didn't mean to imply he rigged the internet buzz, I am saying he admitted it is out there.
I am making a fucking fool of myself? You think that some NWO conspiracy rigging *every* single respected polling company in the US is more likely than Ron Paul's followers spamming polls.
Submitted by Lambchop (user info) at 2007-06-06 19:56:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Scientific polls are dumb just because of the fact that they carry such a large margin of error which just makes them void anyway.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-06 18:54:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Anansie (user info) at 2007-06-06 15:13:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
If most of the buzz about him has happened online, it makes sense that he'd have the most supporters online, and therefore would win most online polls, doesn't it? I'm not saying that internet polls mean absolutely nothing, but they definitely don't cover everyone that will be voting.
I mean, my grandmother is one of those people that has made it to the polls every year since she turned eighteen and yet has no idea how to work the internet. I know that doesn't count as real evidence, but I'm just sayin' is all.
I doubt his lack of support in other polls is because of any sort of conspiracy so much as it is because people (those who don't follow these things through the internet) haven't heard of him. I'd say he has a better chance of getting support now that people are scheduling him for tv appearances.
--------------------
Again, I understand the point you're trying to make, but let me explain this in more simple terms...
According to these "scientific" polls, Giuliani has something like 34% of Republican voters under his belt. That should translate to millions and millions of people, wouldn't you agree?
Now, all I'm asking is for someone to show me evidence that those millions of people are either a) more likely not to use the internet, or b) less enthusiastic about their candidate than, say, your typical Ron Paul supporter, at least to such an extent that hardly any of them show up in online polls to support their candidate and make their voices heard.
It makes no sense when you reason it out. I'm not saying that EVERYONE has internet... I don't have to claim that to make my point... All I have to do is show that it is no more likely that Ron Paul's supporters would have internet access than Giuliani's supporters. That's it. Considering the kind of money that Giuliani has received, I don't think that argument could successfully be made.
Here's another tidbit of information for all of you. According to something I read, Ron Paul has more individual campaign donors than ANY OTHER CANDIDATE in this race!
Think about that too while you're chewing on this question of internet access and whether or not it will translate to the "real world".
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-06 18:47:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-06-06 15:02:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Kaelic (user info) at 2007-06-06 14:52:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I hate to admit it, but it's true --- why would Paul's supporters somehow be more inclined to use the internet? These days everyone has internet access ... and especially among well to do republicans, logic just doesn't follow that they wouldn't, yunno, support their candidate when the time comes, but shit, we'll see. The guy still has my vote.
-------------------
Use your head.
What is more likely. That a candidate who, has self admittedly, created an internet buzz has a disporportionate following on-line or that every single polling agency on the country is in on some NWO scheme to keep Ron down?
----------------
What the FUCK are you talking about!? The guy's got like 6 people working for him! This is not some organized blitz, this is disparate supporters showing their support in the forums they have available to them, and they just happen to be the SAME forums available to ALL of the candidates, including those with millions of dollars of special interest money and more paid campaigners, managers, consultants, and street operatives than you can shake a stick at!
You're so far off, you're making a fucking fool of yourself.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-06 18:42:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Huckabee impressed me too, Bob. His answer on the evolution v. faith issue was right on the money. I was incredibly impressed by that answer. It told me that I'd at least be more comfortable with a Huckabee in office than any of the "top tier" *cough cough*.
Let's just blow this apart right now. These fuckers aren't "top" of anything but having the most special interest money and media compliance.
Submitted by The_Drake (user info) at 2007-06-06 17:43:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by TheUniter (user info) at 2007-06-06 17:41:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by The_Drake (user info) at 2007-06-06 17:12:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
hahaha you like "harmony" and "getting along"
FAG!
Real men don't need underscores.
------------
: (
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2007-06-06 17:43:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Romney got slammed.
Rudi & McCain gave canned answers.
Hunter and Huckabee actually impressed me.
Thompson gotta lose that rug.
Paul needs to diversify his repertoire to more than "We need to get out of Iraq."
Submitted by TheUniter (user info) at 2007-06-06 17:41:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by The_Drake (user info) at 2007-06-06 17:12:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
hahaha you like "harmony" and "getting along"
FAG!
Real men don't need underscores.
Submitted by The_Drake (user info) at 2007-06-06 17:12:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Be my friend!
Submitted by The_Drake (user info) at 2007-06-06 17:12:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by captainamerica13 (user info) at 2007-06-06 17:04:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
ETS,I just wanted to say thanks for answering my question in your last post sincerely and with knowlegable answers. I know some people might give you a bad reputation, but we should all have the right to express our opinions in this world be they right or wrong.
I would bet that most of us who show up on this site portray a far diffrent side when we're in the real world. Some of us run others down on their posts just to be something they can't be outside of here, others display their diffrent political ideologies, some come on here just for the fun of it, while others may come here for a sense of community.
I for one belive opinion is important and we need to make sure we have this place and the rest of the internet free of censorship, a crucial liberty I fear may be in danger if we allow some of these politicians into office. Hopefully we can make at least a little diffrence.
I think that's something we can all agree on.
---------------
hahaha you like "harmony" and "getting along"
FAG!
Submitted by captainamerica13 (user info) at 2007-06-06 17:04:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
ETS,I just wanted to say thanks for answering my question in your last post sincerely and with knowlegable answers. I know some people might give you a bad reputation, but we should all have the right to express our opinions in this world be they right or wrong.
I would bet that most of us who show up on this site portray a far diffrent side when we're in the real world. Some of us run others down on their posts just to be something they can't be outside of here, others display their diffrent political ideologies, some come on here just for the fun of it, while others may come here for a sense of community.
I for one belive opinion is important and we need to make sure we have this place and the rest of the internet free of censorship, a crucial liberty I fear may be in danger if we allow some of these politicians into office. Hopefully we can make at least a little diffrence.
I think that's something we can all agree on.
Submitted by The_Drake (user info) at 2007-06-06 15:39:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Despina (user info) at 2007-06-06 15:16:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
ETS jumping on some stupid political bandwagon and not shutting up about it? This is a new one.
--------
You're a little out of character there, cupcake. Where are all the "lol"'s and grammatical errors?
Submitted by Despina (user info) at 2007-06-06 15:16:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
ETS jumping on some stupid political bandwagon and not shutting up about it? This is a new one.
Submitted by Anansie (user info) at 2007-06-06 15:13:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
If most of the buzz about him has happened online, it makes sense that he'd have the most supporters online, and therefore would win most online polls, doesn't it? I'm not saying that internet polls mean absolutely nothing, but they definitely don't cover everyone that will be voting.
I mean, my grandmother is one of those people that has made it to the polls every year since she turned eighteen and yet has no idea how to work the internet. I know that doesn't count as real evidence, but I'm just sayin' is all.
I doubt his lack of support in other polls is because of any sort of conspiracy so much as it is because people (those who don't follow these things through the internet) haven't heard of him. I'd say he has a better chance of getting support now that people are scheduling him for tv appearances.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-06-06 15:02:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Kaelic (user info) at 2007-06-06 14:52:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I hate to admit it, but it's true --- why would Paul's supporters somehow be more inclined to use the internet? These days everyone has internet access ... and especially among well to do republicans, logic just doesn't follow that they wouldn't, yunno, support their candidate when the time comes, but shit, we'll see. The guy still has my vote.
-------------------
Use your head.
What is more likely. That a candidate who, has self admittedly, created an internet buzz has a disporportionate following on-line or that every single polling agency on the country is in on some NWO scheme to keep Ron down?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-06-06 14:59:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-06 14:32:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
But again, you've offered no reason why I should believe that a Ron Paul supporter is any more likely to vote in these online polls than the supposed MILLIONS of Giuliani supporters that supposedly exist.
-------------------------------
You have offered about a hundred in the last month.
How many posts have you made about Ron Paul? How many comments did you leave that just consist of "check out this shit on Ron Paul" and provide a link.
Have you seen another single post about a candidate other than Ron Paul here?
Lets do a quick straw poll here. How many people have gone and voted for a candidate on-line, and out of those how many voted for Ron?
Submitted by Kaelic (user info) at 2007-06-06 14:52:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I hate to admit it, but it's true --- why would Paul's supporters somehow be more inclined to use the internet? These days everyone has internet access ... and especially among well to do republicans, logic just doesn't follow that they wouldn't, yunno, support their candidate when the time comes, but shit, we'll see. The guy still has my vote.
Submitted by The_Drake (user info) at 2007-06-06 14:46:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Giuliani was the fakest one of the lot. With McCain in close second.
When McCain addressed that Army Wife, He said something like "I want to tell YOU, Miss something-or-other, my condolences, blah blah" All the while staring at the camera. He never even looked at the woman. McCain is shit, if you want to go for heartfelt, have the courtesy to address the speaker for christs sake.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-06 14:32:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
But again, you've offered no reason why I should believe that a Ron Paul supporter is any more likely to vote in these online polls than the supposed MILLIONS of Giuliani supporters that supposedly exist.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2007-06-06 13:53:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
ron paul's success in these online polls directly correlates to the demographic that he recieves his support from. i know my sixty year old grandpa couldn't work a computer to save his life, but he sure as fuck knows how to vote.
not saying ron paul sucks, just that online polls only cover a very limited demographic, so one person's landslide success in them shouldn't come as a surprise.
but i'm sure you already knew that, right?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-06 13:35:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I didn't say I hated scientific polls. I just don't trust them any more than I trust the media at large, that's all.
I have given you some perfectly good ways a so-called "scientific" poll could be completely rigged with a minimum of people even knowing about it, and that is to replace the "random dialing" computer program being used, and, instead, have it pull from a database of known Giuliani, Romney, or McCain supporters. It's not that difficult. Not one of the employees at the pollster's office would have to be the wiser.
I don't understand how some of you can perfectly understand the concept of proxy servers being used for multiple voting in online polls, but cannot understand this.
But hey, if you've really got that much faith in your media...
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2007-06-06 12:34:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Those polls are complete shit, ETS. It is amazing you hate "scientific" polls but give credence to an online poll that everyone knows is flooded with Ron Paul supporters.
Ron Paul fans aren't the first to do that to a poll. It was a notorious action of the folks of freerepublic.com...so much that the term "Freeping" means exactly that.
Ron Paul's support is limited mainly to 9/11 "truther" idiots. Obviously prisonplanet.com is pulling for him, and all the sheeple that follow that junk are lined up behind Alex Jones.
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-06-06 11:55:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
wooo wooooo
P.S. If Hilary wins the election I'm moving out of country
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-06-06 09:47:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2007-06-06 09:30:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Holy fuck - me paraphrasing Romney: "We will need, amongst other things, a strong military if we want to move the muslim world into modernity".
Anyway ETS, reread what I said. I'm not saying it CAN'T translate to the "real world", which is what you seem to want evidence of, even though I think it probably DOESN'T, and for proof of that all you need to do is compare Paul's results in online polls with those from other, randomly taken ones. I'm saying it's stupid to think you're ADVANCING your case that he has widespread support when you draw attention to each new internet poll, when all you're doing is confirming what we already know.
----------------------------------
ETS doesn't believe in random polls. They have an overly complicated algorithim set to up to "randomly" call pre screened house holds that will give them the desired outcome for their polls.
If you weren't such a sheep you would realize that makes way m,ore sense than Ron Pauls followers being more active on-line, and of course his followers would never spam polls (just look at ETS he isn't spamming this site wiht Ron Paul info)
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2007-06-06 09:30:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Holy fuck - me paraphrasing Romney: "We will need, amongst other things, a strong military if we want to move the muslim world into modernity".
Anyway ETS, reread what I said. I'm not saying it CAN'T translate to the "real world", which is what you seem to want evidence of, even though I think it probably DOESN'T, and for proof of that all you need to do is compare Paul's results in online polls with those from other, randomly taken ones. I'm saying it's stupid to think you're ADVANCING your case that he has widespread support when you draw attention to each new internet poll, when all you're doing is confirming what we already know.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-06-06 09:25:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
ANGELA MERKEL 2008
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2007-06-06 09:02:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Well, i just saw him on Jon Stewart and he's certainly endearing. +1.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-06-06 07:19:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-06 04:38:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Give me one good reason that doesn't translate to the real world, Thorpe. Show me some statistical correlation that states that only Ron Paul supporters exist online and that the other candidates' supporters, while far outweighing Ron Paul's, are simply quieter online.
Why should I believe that Ron Paul's supporters are any more likely to send a text message or visit a website for their candidate than any other candidate's supporters. Give me a good reason and I'll stop pointing to these polls.
I've given several reasons why these so-called "scientific" polls are complete bullshit, if for no other reason than they cannot explain to me how candidates with $20 and $30 million in the bank cannot raise enough support to even come CLOSE to touching Ron Paul's numbers.
Even with the almost total media blackout and lambasting that Ron Paul recieves, even with his funds languishing far behind the moneyed "frontrunners", you see people in every forum imaginable supporting Ron Paul, not just online.
But again, I have yet to hear one good reason I should think that a Ron Paul supporter (X) is any more likely than a Giuliani supporter (Y) to send a simple text message or visit a fucking website.
-------------------------
Becaue that is the only place your pathetic voices can be heard.
If Ron Paul was a frontrunner covered in every major republican candidate news story, do you really think you would waste so much time posting this BS?
You haven't given a single reason why real polls are BS. You just made some outrageous claims about them being rigged (in an overly elaborate manner). You have no proof, and your theory makes little sense.
If you really doubt it so much why don't you start randomly calling house holds and see what they say?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-06 04:38:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Give me one good reason that doesn't translate to the real world, Thorpe. Show me some statistical correlation that states that only Ron Paul supporters exist online and that the other candidates' supporters, while far outweighing Ron Paul's, are simply quieter online.
Why should I believe that Ron Paul's supporters are any more likely to send a text message or visit a website for their candidate than any other candidate's supporters. Give me a good reason and I'll stop pointing to these polls.
I've given several reasons why these so-called "scientific" polls are complete bullshit, if for no other reason than they cannot explain to me how candidates with $20 and $30 million in the bank cannot raise enough support to even come CLOSE to touching Ron Paul's numbers.
Even with the almost total media blackout and lambasting that Ron Paul recieves, even with his funds languishing far behind the moneyed "frontrunners", you see people in every forum imaginable supporting Ron Paul, not just online.
But again, I have yet to hear one good reason I should think that a Ron Paul supporter (X) is any more likely than a Giuliani supporter (Y) to send a simple text message or visit a fucking website.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2007-06-06 04:01:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Maybe you should stop treating each new online poll victory for Paul as a new vindication of your statements - it's pretty well established he has a large online following.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-06 03:34:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I just want to live in a better country. Being involved in something doesn't have to be a fad.
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2007-06-06 03:27:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I wonder what your next toy will be, that you play with and play with until it runs out, breaks or falls off the front pages.
(Show of hands auto +2)
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-06 03:22:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b168/electrictoothsyndrome/cnn_debate_poll.jpg
Here's the current tally for the online CNN poll...just in case they try to pull it from their webpage.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-06 01:30:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Wildman (user info) at 2007-06-06 01:25:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You are delusional if you think a woman has any chance of becoming president...now
You are delusional if you think a black man has any chance of becoming president...now
Maybe...in 16-20 years.
----------------
This is a race about one issue and one issue only...the war. Period. Yes she will win. In spite of her shitty record on it, having voted for it in the first place and having voted yet again to fund it, she will win.
Ron Paul is the only Republican that can beat her on this issue, and when it comes to any other issue and the question of its relation to the Constitution, Ron Paul will spank her hiney like a newborn.
But if some of you Republicans want to continue to live in the dark, fine. You'll eat your words, just like Wildman here, when Hillary is our next president, and you'll wonder..."what IF we'd given Ron Paul a chance?"
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-06 01:26:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
That was the latest MSNBC online poll which is overwhelmingly in Paul's favor.
I went to Fox News, and although they had quite a few polls about the war in Iraq and so forth, and they list the "scientific" poll results from a month or more ago on the right hand side of the page, they aren't hosting any online polls about the current debate. Interesting. Wonder what they're afraid of...
Submitted by Wildman (user info) at 2007-06-06 01:25:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You are delusional if you think a woman has any chance of becoming president...now
You are delusional if you think a black man has any chance of becoming president...now
Maybe...in 16-20 years.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-06 01:19:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Who stood out from the pack? * 15369 responses
Sam Brownback
1.1%
Jim Gilmore
0.6%
Rudy Giuliani
8.8%
Mike Huckabee
3.5%
Duncan Hunter
1.1%
John McCain
6.6%
Ron Paul
64%
Mitt Romney
9.8%
Tom Tancredo
2.7%
Tommy Thompson
2%
Who showed the most leadership qualities? * 15216 responses
Sam Brownback
1.1%
Jim Gilmore
0.9%
Rudy Giuliani
10%
Mike Huckabee
2.7%
Duncan Hunter
1.3%
John McCain
8.4%
Ron Paul
61%
Mitt Romney
10%
Tom Tancredo
2%
Tommy Thompson
1.8%
Who was the most convincing candidate? * 15124 responses
Sam Brownback
1.2%
Jim Gilmore
0.9%
Rudy Giuliani
8.8%
Mike Huckabee
3.5%
Duncan Hunter
1.2%
John McCain
6.7%
Ron Paul
63%
Mitt Romney
10%
Tom Tancredo
2.2%
Tommy Thompson
2%
Who had the most rehearsed answers? * 14927 responses
Sam Brownback
2.4%
Jim Gilmore
1.2%
Rudy Giuliani
38%
Mike Huckabee
2.4%
Duncan Hunter
1%
John McCain
19%
Ron Paul
6.9%
Mitt Romney
24%
Tom Tancredo
1.6%
Tommy Thompson
3.3%
Who avoided the questions? * 14825 responses
Sam Brownback
3.1%
Jim Gilmore
1.9%
Rudy Giuliani
42%
Mike Huckabee
2.1%
Duncan Hunter
1.5%
John McCain
15%
Ron Paul
5.5%
Mitt Romney
23%
Tom Tancredo
2.2%
Tommy Thompson
3.1%
Who had the best one-liner? * 14651 responses
Sam Brownback
1.7%
Jim Gilmore
1.4%
Rudy Giuliani
13%
Mike Huckabee
7.4%
Duncan Hunter
2%
John McCain
9.1%
Ron Paul
47%
Mitt Romney
6.7%
Tom Tancredo
6.4%
Tommy Thompson
5.7%
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2007-06-06 01:00:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Well? Did he win or what?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-06 00:54:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Wildman (user info) at 2007-06-06 00:50:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Fred Thompson is going to be the next president.
-------------
Well, he is a CFR member, so you might have a point there. But whether he gets on the stage or just sits around like a pussy on the sidelines, he's still going to sound exactly like the rest of the field.
This whole thing is designed for Hillary to win. Ron Paul, Mike Gravel and a couple others are throwing monkey wrenches in that system, but make no mistake...Hillary is being prepped for the job by her masters.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-06 00:52:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by charminglybeef (user info) at 2007-06-06 00:45:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm Canadian, so I'm afraid I can't do much. Have certainly been talking about it though.
You wouldn't happen to have a video link for the debate would you? CNN only seems to have part one and four on offer for free...
-------------
You can check youtube. I know a lot of Ron Paul's army of dispersed supporters seem to be well on top of things in that regard.
As for what you can do being Canadian, you can still contribute to Ron Paul's campaign, I believe. I think Caul tested that out a few days ago. That's the kind of thing that would help more than anything. If you can give a few bucks, you can take heart in the fact that you did your part to see that your neighbor to the south got its act together and stopped fucking with the world. :D
http://www.ronpaul2008.com
Viva la Ron Paul Revolution!
Submitted by Wildman (user info) at 2007-06-06 00:50:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Fred Thompson is going to be the next president.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-06 00:47:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Ron Paul has one paid campaign operative in the key primary state of New Hampshire... ONE! UNO! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/05/AR2007060502787.html?hpid=topnews
But, yes, these online polls are coordinated spam, commanded by a tight-knit, centralized operation of people working day and night at the behest of Paul and his sinister online militia brigade.
Please. I know it's coming, Indo, so fucking spare me. Face it. Ron Paul is a frontrunner because his message is sound and because it's entirely different than anything else in the Republican field. Just because all the "scientific" pollsters who work for the major media, and the major media itself, won't give him the time of day don't mean JACK.
Submitted by charminglybeef (user info) at 2007-06-06 00:45:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm Canadian, so I'm afraid I can't do much. Have certainly been talking about it though.
You wouldn't happen to have a video link for the debate would you? CNN only seems to have part one and four on offer for free...
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-06 00:38:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Once again, Ron Paul gets shafted on minutes as the "top 3" hog the limelight, yet Ron Paul support does not waver. As you can see by the CNN poll results below, Ron Paul has MORE THAN 4 TIMES as many votes for the question of "who won the debate" as anyone else... In fact, he has more votes than all the other Republicans COMBINED, and he does this without the media's help, and he does it without getting equal time in the debates... Amazing.
http://chrisdodd.com/republican_debate/chart.png
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-06 00:31:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Glad to hear it. It's good to know that the message is getting through to some. All I ask is that you pass it on to your friends and family.
Submitted by charminglybeef (user info) at 2007-06-06 00:26:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Never knew about this guy until reading your posts.
Can't say I've ever been so engaged by anyone in American politics.
"Kill 'em all and let the market sort it out."
Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-06 00:18:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
That's all from CNN's website. IP address restricted poll.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-06 00:17:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Question 7: Close window
Who was the snappiest dresser?
1. Mitt Romney 48%
2492 votes
2. Ron Paul 27%
1374 votes
3. Rudy Giuliani 5%
281 votes
4. Tom Tancredo 4%
194 votes
5. Tommy Thompson 3%
175 votes
6. John McCain 3%
171 votes
7. Mike Huckabee 3%
171 votes
8. Sam Brownback 2%
127 votes
9. Jim Gilmore 2%
88 votes
10. Duncan Hunter 2%
85 votes
Total: 5158 votes
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-06 00:16:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Question 6: Close window
Whose campaign got the biggest boost from the debate?
1. Ron Paul 47%
2435 votes
2. John McCain 14%
743 votes
3. Mitt Romney 11%
592 votes
4. Rudy Giuliani 10%
498 votes
5. Mike Huckabee 7%
347 votes
6. Tom Tancredo 5%
260 votes
7. Duncan Hunter 2%
98 votes
8. Tommy Thompson 2%
89 votes
9. Sam Brownback 1%
55 votes
10. Jim Gilmore 1%
41 votes
Total: 5158 votes
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-06 00:16:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Question 5: Close window
Whose performance was most surprising?
1. Ron Paul 33%
1687 votes
2. Tom Tancredo 20%
1016 votes
3. Mike Huckabee 18%
924 votes
4. John McCain 10%
526 votes
5. Mitt Romney 6%
286 votes
6. Rudy Giuliani 4%
197 votes
7. Duncan Hunter 3%
175 votes
8. Tommy Thompson 3%
171 votes
9. Sam Brownback 2%
98 votes
10. Jim Gilmore 2%
78 votes
Total: 5158 votes
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-06 00:16:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Question 4: Close window
Who had the most disappointing performance at the debate?
1. Rudy Giuliani 27%
1415 votes
2. Mitt Romney 19%
991 votes
3. Ron Paul 13%
649 votes
4. John McCain 12%
617 votes
5. Tommy Thompson 11%
553 votes
6. Tom Tancredo 6%
328 votes
7. Sam Brownback 4%
199 votes
8. Mike Huckabee 3%
143 votes
9. Jim Gilmore 3%
137 votes
10. Duncan Hunter 2%
126 votes
Total: 5158 votes
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-06 00:15:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Question 3: Close window
Who had the best one-liner or comeback?
1. Ron Paul 34%
1778 votes
2. Rudy Giuliani 18%
950 votes
3. Tom Tancredo 14%
703 votes
4. John McCain 11%
574 votes
5. Mike Huckabee 11%
568 votes
6. Mitt Romney 6%
295 votes
7. Duncan Hunter 3%
136 votes
8. Tommy Thompson 1%
76 votes
9. Sam Brownback 1%
44 votes
10. Jim Gilmore 1%
34 votes
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-06 00:15:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Question 2: Close window
Who seemed to know most about the issues?
1. Ron Paul 52%
2684 votes
2. John McCain 18%
918 votes
3. Mitt Romney 10%
536 votes
4. Rudy Giuliani 9%
445 votes
5. Mike Huckabee 3%
179 votes
6. Duncan Hunter 2%
124 votes
7. Tom Tancredo 2%
112 votes
8. Tommy Thompson 1%
67 votes
9. Sam Brownback 1%
47 votes
10. Jim Gilmore 1%
46 votes
Total: 5158 votes
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-06 00:15:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Question 1: Close window
Who do you think won the debate?
1. Ron Paul 53%
2732 votes
2. John McCain 12%
642 votes
3. Rudy Giuliani 12%
639 votes
4. Mitt Romney 12%
608 votes
5. Mike Huckabee 5%
233 votes
6. Tom Tancredo 2%
120 votes
7. Duncan Hunter 1%
70 votes
8. Sam Brownback 1%
61 votes
9. Tommy Thompson 1%
32 votes
10. Jim Gilmore 0% 21 votes
Total: 5158 votes
Submitted by charminglybeef (user info) at 2007-06-05 23:34:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/05/who-won/#comments
That's pretty damn funny.
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2007-06-05 22:47:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2007-06-05 22:32:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Well, they weren't the only people to "ignore" your boy, Nutjob.
The Associated Press didn't even acknowledge him BEING THERE.
Buahauahauahahahahahaha
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070606/ap_on_el_pr/republicans_debate
___
Hahhahaahahhahahah M3D1A C0N5PIRACY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2007-06-05 22:32:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Well, they weren't the only people to "ignore" your boy, Nutjob.
The Associated Press didn't even acknowledge him BEING THERE.
Buahauahauahahahahahaha
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070606/ap_on_el_pr/republicans_debate
Submitted by Lugalug (user info) at 2007-06-05 19:54:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It won't work because people are too fucking scared to do two things:
Admit the US is the most powerful nation but NOT the the holiest.
Stop thinking that "war on terror", tight security/police state, and militant buildup in muslim areas is going to stifle this shadow enemy.
How about a "war on cockroaches"... same shit.
When someone rapes your signficant other and you walk in on it, it's best that the person committing the rape just get the hell out rather than stay and try to explain and "make things better".
Not that the US raped Iraq or anything, but the country wasn't asking for "liberation", and now that they have it just look at that shit, it takes two eyes... eh who gives a fuck anyway.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-06-05 19:36:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Ron Paul is stuck in the past.
The Gold Standard won't work in today's world.
We can't retreat from foreign policy whenever we aren't popular.
His ideas on healthcare are even rougher than mine for the poor.
Despite all that there is a chance, however slim, that his vetoing everything that doesn't fit with his narrow vision of what the govt should do could cut out some of congresses BS.
But Ron Paul is still at 1%. However I do have to take back my claim that he has never broke the 1% mark. In April he was at 2%, looks like his exploding popularity is closer to imploding.
But now that he was on Daily show his Youtube subscription has shot up by 17%, that is a little over 2000 votes. That translates to .0081% of the voting population, he almost has this in the bag!
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2007-06-05 19:35:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
There's like, 10 guys in that thing - you can forget 'debate', it's gonna be a sound bite contest
Submitted by Lugalug (user info) at 2007-06-05 19:21:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I saw him on the Daily Show last night. To be honest, almost all of the "major" contenders on the republican side are all about "fuck that guy". I listen to conservative talk and they consider him to be a nut.
It makes me sick to my stomach, and I'd love to see Paul stomp some ass, but like Bill Mauher said:
"If most Americans were any kind of smart shouldn't you be leading the polls right now?"
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2007-06-05 19:17:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I don't know about the debate - which I have on the TV right now- unfortunately, I'm playing a Bad Religion CD on "11" instead of listening in - but I know we'll ignore YOU.
Submitted by Lisa (user info) at 2007-06-05 19:04:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Hi AJ
I'm sorry I ignored you for a month. I'm going to call you sometime this year, I pr0mise.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-05 18:46:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2007-06-05 18:41:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
or they might just debate with him.
there is a middle ground.
try buddhism, i think it'd be good for you.
-----------------
Their problem is, they can't win a debate with him and they know it. Debating him, while I'd LOVE to see it, just isn't gonna happen, I fear.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-05 18:45:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
AJ: Yes.
To to:
http://www.cnn.com/
Then click on "Special Coverage NH Republic..." in the "CNN Pipeline" section on the right. They are covering the debate live there.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2007-06-05 18:41:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
or they might just debate with him.
there is a middle ground.
try buddhism, i think it'd be good for you.
Submitted by polyamorousaj (user info) at 2007-06-05 18:33:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Is there anywhere online to watch it live? I'm stuck at work.
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2007-06-05 18:33:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
enough, already