Ron Paul: Too weird for the White House

[Bowfinger]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KsGcLHNICs

LOL This just takes the cake.

To the people against ron paul or who don't know any better... These are the people telling you who you should vote for. This is how stupid THEY think you are. This is tantamount to voter fraud, since so many people hang on every word the media says.

Seriously... how could they put a blacked outline like that and put 'someone else' instead of just omitting him?

Also, many places are showing paul actually leading some 23-25% to 20 instead of behind by 1 point.

It's a conspiracy! It's a conspiracy I tell you!

Or maybe not.

I know the Paul-bots love to imagine the whole world is conspiring against Paul, and they may even be right, but this CBS story doesn't support it. The reason "Someone Else" is listed third in that graphic is not because CBS is "telling you who you should vote for." No, the truth is far more bizarre than that. "Some Else" is shown third because ... wait for it ... "Someone Else" was the third most popular choice of people taking the poll. Imagine.

Granted, in order to determine this, one has to stop leaping to self-serving conclusions, get off one's butt, and dig deep into the bowels of the Internet. (Or you can use Google. It took me a whole 30 seconds or so.) Anyway, here's a link to the actual poll: CBS News Poll: 12/20/11

Still too lazy? Here are the results:

1. Gingrich - 20%
2. Romney - 20%
3. Someone Else - 19%
4. Undecided - 17%
5. Paul - 10%
6. Assorted Also-Rans - 14%

There's your big conspiracy, Paul-bots. CBS didn't show Paul as #3 because he didn't poll that high. In this poll he was beat by "Someone Else" and "Undecided/Don't know". Sorry. Hope your next conspiracy works out better for you.

 

[xj0hnx]

Of all of the things mentioned in that story, the thing you took issue with weren't the statements "AIDS can be transmitted by saliva" or that MLK Day = "Hate Whitey Day," but that the caricature of one of his associates is inaccurate. Are you sure you're seeing this issue clearly?

This is all you need to know about the article ...

- James Kirchick is a fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a contributing editor to The New Republic.

The New Republic? Really? lofuckingl. As far as the "Foundation for the Defense of Democracies", a neocon "non-profit" started after 9/11 devoted to keeping America, Israel, and the West safe from their enemies, hmmm, who could possibly be members of this group, let's look shall we.

Mark Dubowitz, William (Bill) Kristol,Charles Krauthammer, and well looky here, Newt Gingrinch. Amazing that a neocon think tank that another candidate is part of would be trying to smear Ron Paul. And you're calling Alex Jones a nut case?

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Sorry, but Alex Jones is a nutcase. The best that can be said about him is that he doesn't actually believe in the 9/11 Truth movement but is only preying upon true believers for the money it provides him.

Of all of the things mentioned in that story, the thing you took issue with weren't the statements "AIDS can be transmitted by saliva" or that MLK Day = "Hate Whitey Day," but that the caricature of one of his associates is inaccurate. Are you sure you're seeing this issue clearly?

Aids can be transmitted by saliva if the person has an open cut in their mouth. Plus in the 80's when that was written ALOT less was known about the disease.

Regarding MLK and the other things.......politically incorrect at best. Though their is little evidence he wrote them himself. I paid some writers on GURU to write some content for a website and I posted it without proof reading all of it.

Again if this articles demonstrates the biggest skeletons in his closet I'm 1000% ok with that because they are trivial compared to other candidates and presidents past and present.

 

[airdata]

It's a conspiracy! It's a conspiracy I tell you!

First of all, paul-bot sounds stupid, and you make yourself sound stupid for saying it.

I've seen many places reporting paul being in 2nd or even first in iowa.. hell there's even a thread for it.

If they really have "someone else" and "undecided" in the same poll making up 36%, do you really even trust the poll?

And now, who are you behind? Do tell. It makes this alot more fun when we can all laugh at you for whoever you're supporting for president.

I mean, Ron Paul is such a joke and all winning debates and voting consistently and talking about actual issues... So I'm pretty sure that makes guys who flip flop on every issue, take bribes, cheat on wives, and any other range of things complete and total failures.

 

[airdata]

oh shit.. cbs redeemed themselves. Ron Paul in the lead w\ 27.5 %. Suck on that bowfinger.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57346123-503544/ron-paul-takes-lead-in-latest-iowa-poll/

 

[xj0hnx]

I mean, Ron Paul is such a joke and all winning debates and voting consistently and talking about actual issues... So I'm pretty sure that makes guys who flip flop on every issue, take bribes, cheat on wives, and any other range of things complete and total failures.

Yo dawg he a racist, yumad?

 

[soundforbjt]

oh shit.. cbs redeemed themselves. Ron Paul in the lead w\ 27.5 %. Suck on that bowfinger.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57346123-503544/ron-paul-takes-lead-in-latest-iowa-poll/

That is an Iowa poll, the poll in question (19%-someone else) was a national poll.

ownage not found.

 

[bfdd]

are Obama supporters in this thread trying to prod Ron Pauls ties to people who may be racist? Oh lawdy how the tables have turned.

 

[Bowfinger]

First of all, paul-bots sound stupid, and you make me sound stupid for being one.

FTFY

I've seen many places reporting paul being in 2nd or even first in iowa.. hell there's even a thread for it.

Absolutely ... but those are different polls. This one, which sampled likely Republican primary voters (IIRC) got a different result. The insinuation by the Paul faithful was CBS was lying, was "telling you who you should vote for," just because they didn't like this specific poll's results. Tough, reality sucks sometimes.

If they really have "someone else" and "undecided" in the same poll making up 36%, do you really even trust the poll?

Do you have any objective basis for NOT trusting the results, or is this all just an emotion-driven temper tantrum? I dug no farther than what I presented, showing CBS accurately showed "Someone Else" placing third in that poll. If you can show the poll's methodology is flawed, I'm all ears.

And now, who are you behind? Do tell. It makes this alot more fun when we can all laugh at you for whoever you're supporting for president.

I mean, Ron Paul is such a joke and all winning debates and voting consistently and talking about actual issues... So I'm pretty sure that makes guys who flip flop on every issue, take bribes, cheat on wives, and any other range of things complete and total failures.

Get over yourself. I have no interest in getting in the middle of the never-ending war between the Paul-bots and Paul-bashers. My only interest was finding whether CBS really did something so blatantly biased. The fact of the matter is they didn't, whether you can accept that reality or not.

 

[Bowfinger]

oh shit.. cbs redeemed themselves. Ron Paul in the lead w\ 27.5 %. Suck on that bowfinger.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57346123-503544/ron-paul-takes-lead-in-latest-iowa-poll/

Now you're just being an idiot. I'm sorry you're taking this so personally, but you need to work on your critical thinking skills. Just because somebody posted something on teh intarwebs doesn't make it true. Learn to do a little homework before you open your mouth and look like a fool.

 

[Bowfinger]

That is an Iowa poll, the poll in question (19%-someone else) was a national poll.

ownage not found.

Exactly. Two different polls get different results because they're using two different samples. The devil's always in the details.

Edit: And it certainly makes sense Paul's support in Iowa is significantly higher than nationally. Paul has been campaigning here for months and is spending a small fortune on local advertising. One would expect his numbers here to be higher. Today's Iowa poll is the second week in a row he's come in first. It's now accepted he's going to do very well in the Iowa caucuses, almost certainly one of the top three even if he doesn't win.

 

[airdata]

It can still be seen as a slight to Ron Paul. Their polling is flawwed for having 2 "undecided" categories and simply naming them differently... thereby making the whole poll worthless.

In the memo they do state that Ron Paul is in 3rd... but they choose not to mention that on their newscast where the "someone" name was shown.

Without seeing the actual poll/memo it's easy to believe they just wrote him off. They've been doing it all year. Listing the #1, and then #3 candidate with no mention of that damned Ron Paul at #2. Been happening all year. They've been caught removing and modifying polls in which Ron paul is winning or at least placing high. This is all year this has been happening.

So even after seeing the actual poll, they're still fucking Ron Paul. They're still showing a fucking sillouette "somebody else" instead of mentioning ron paul. Hell, they shouldn't have even published a poll in which it's obvious that they polled retards.

 

[Bowfinger]

It can still be seen as a slight to Ron Paul. Their polling is flawwed for having 2 "undecided" categories and simply naming them differently... thereby making the whole poll worthless.

In the memo they do state that Ron Paul is in 3rd... but they choose not to mention that on their newscast where the "someone" name was shown.

Without seeing the actual poll/memo it's easy to believe they just wrote him off. They've been doing it all year. Listing the #1, and then #3 candidate with no mention of that damned Ron Paul at #2. Been happening all year. They've been caught removing and modifying polls in which Ron paul is winning or at least placing high. This is all year this has been happening.

So even after seeing the actual poll, they're still fucking Ron Paul. They're still showing a fucking sillouette "somebody else" instead of mentioning ron paul. Hell, they shouldn't have even published a poll in which it's obvious that they polled retards.

That's an emotional, butt-hurt reaction, not a rational one. They had two different "other" categories because they mean two different things. "Someone Else" means the respondent has decided who he wants, but it is someone besides their listed candidates. For example, people who still support Cain or Christie might select "Someone Else." "Undecided," on the other hand, means people who have not yet zeroed in on one person they support. That's not the same as "Someone Else."

The fact is Paul garnered only 10% support in that poll. Even if CBS had grouped "Someone Else" and "Undecided" together, Paul would have placed fourth, behind "Other", "Gingrich", and "Romney". The CBS slide accurately presented the results of that poll, whether the Paul camp likes it or not.

 

[xj0hnx]

Do you have any objective basis for NOT trusting the results, or is this all just an emotion-driven temper tantrum? I dug no farther than what I presented, showing CBS accurately showed "Someone Else" placing third in that poll. If you can show the poll's methodology is flawed, I'm all ears.

You'll have to excuse him, but historically Ron Paul has been shafted in the media polls. Even as recently as the Iowa straw poll where he came in a close second, but was barely mentioned, instead skipped over to talk about Perry, and Santorum.

 

[fskimospy]

It can still be seen as a slight to Ron Paul. Their polling is flawwed for having 2 "undecided" categories and simply naming them differently... thereby making the whole poll worthless.

In the memo they do state that Ron Paul is in 3rd... but they choose not to mention that on their newscast where the "someone" name was shown.

Without seeing the actual poll/memo it's easy to believe they just wrote him off. They've been doing it all year. Listing the #1, and then #3 candidate with no mention of that damned Ron Paul at #2. Been happening all year. They've been caught removing and modifying polls in which Ron paul is winning or at least placing high. This is all year this has been happening.

So even after seeing the actual poll, they're still fucking Ron Paul. They're still showing a fucking sillouette "somebody else" instead of mentioning ron paul. Hell, they shouldn't have even published a poll in which it's obvious that they polled retards.

Someday you guys are going to realize that Ron Paul doesn't win elections because he isn't very popular, not because of a grand conspiracy.

Ron Paul appeals very strongly to a certain group of people, and they absolutely love him. That is not large enough to win a national nomination or election however, as you will see.

 

[sandorski]

There have certainly been some odd News Media treatment of RP. If the Article in the OP is to be believed, why hasn't(or has it been?) any of this been brought up in the Debates? Even the Republican Party seems committed to make sure RP loses, so why do they not expose him?

Here's an interesting piece from the Young Turks(Progressive) on the issue: Video

 

[bfdd]

Someday you guys are going to realize that Ron Paul doesn't win elections because he isn't very popular, not because of a grand conspiracy.

Ron Paul appeals very strongly to a certain group of people, and they absolutely love him. That is not large enough to win a national nomination or election however, as you will see.

or he's just not popular with the powers to be so they don't give him any spot light. how can a guy who is consistently polling in the top 5 get less air time than santorum or someone who dropped out like everyones favorite billionaire?

 

[fskimospy]

or he's just not popular with the powers to be so they don't give him any spot light. how can a guy who is consistently polling in the top 5 get less air time than santorum or someone who dropped out like everyones favorite billionaire?

Ron Paul has more than a 75% name recognition rate, people know who he is. Stop and think about most of his social program and economic positions, they are enormously unpopular. Maybe his insanely unpopular positions are why he loses, not some grand conspiracy.

 

[bfdd]

Ron Paul has more than a 75% name recognition rate, people know who he is. Stop and think about most of his social program and economic positions, they are enormously unpopular. Maybe his insanely unpopular positions are why he loses, not some grand conspiracy.

Most people have no fucking idea what he stands for or his voting record because THE MEDIA AND NEWS NEVER FUCKING TALK ABOUT IT. Except to make some comment on how weird and out there he is and that he's so unpopular he'll never be elected. Please motherfucker don't spit this non-sense with me. I do not think it is some grand conspiracy to keep Paul out, I think they just don't like Paul so they ignore Paul. Hell his son gets about as much spot light now and what the fuck has he done recently?

edit- I'm currently searching google for main stream media outlets that have written articles on Pauls views and voting record. Currently I can only find blogs and other non-sense, most of which talks about his links to potential racists lols. Only one I could find was an article from Aug or Sept from HuffingtonPost and it's an editorial. Still looking, on my lunch break.

more interesting stuff the majority of the "racist" shit I'm reading seems to stem from him being "anti-Israel" lols

 

[fskimospy]

Most people have no fucking idea what he stands for or his voting record because THE MEDIA AND NEWS NEVER FUCKING TALK ABOUT IT. Except to make some comment on how weird and out there he is and that he's so unpopular he'll never be elected. Please motherfucker don't spit this non-sense with me. I do not think it is some grand conspiracy to keep Paul out, I think they just don't like Paul so they ignore Paul. Hell his son gets about as much spot light now and what the fuck has he done recently?

That's ridiculous. A quick google search shows nearly 2,500 hits for an article about him today alone. Plenty of people know as much about what he stands for as they do for any other candidate. He wants to eliminate social security and medicare. Those positions are so far insanely out of touch with America that any rational person can see he will never get elected President.

Don't get angry, just accept reality.

EDIT: If you don't see news articles from major media outlets written about him all over the place by simply searching 'ron paul' on google, you're using google wrong.

 

[bfdd]

That's ridiculous. A quick google search shows nearly 2,500 hits for an article about him today alone. Plenty of people know as much about what he stands for as they do for any other candidate. He wants to eliminate social security and medicare. Those positions are so far insanely out of touch with America that any rational person can see he will never get elected President.

Don't get angry, just accept reality.

EDIT: If you don't see news articles from major media outlets written about him all over the place by simply searching 'ron paul' on google, you're using google wrong.

im not googling "ron paul", please I am not some fucking amateur. I am looking long and hard for mainstream news article regarding ron pauls politics and guess what THEY JUST DON'T FUCKING EXIST. So people know his name, they don't know his policies outside the fact others said "they're crazy". yeah that's an informed audience, tool bag.

 

[bfdd]

before i even refresh this page i'm just going to post again, don't care if a double post.

the reason a lot of people seem to not want to vote for ron paul is that he's "against the little guy", well i thought we americans all thought we were millionaires and that's why we don't want high taxes on the rich? oh we dont'? now we think we're all the little guy who needs the government to watch over us? WHICH THE FUCK IS IT YOU BIPOLAR DIPSHITS? Goddamn seriously, the hypocrisy and inconsistency of humanity is frustrating me to no end.

ps I'm not angry, I just enjoy being vulgar to fucking retards.

 

[airdata]

Eskimospy : What you're not taking into account is old people. These old people still vote... in fact, they have great voter turn out rates which is why candidates pander to them.

I know it's 2011, but there are alot of people who don't use the internet or simply get home from work and plop down in front of the 5 oclock news where they're omitting Ron Paul from most broadcasts.

As I've said before, this is a form of voter fraud. Go back to pre internet days, and who would even know Ron Paul existed? not many..

The establishment is losing some ground, but they have plenty of suckers left to vote for whatever they say is right.

If you would honestly vote for Newt Gingrich to lead our nation, you're at the same level as somebody who would vote for Micelle Bachman to lead our country, probably lower.

 

[bfdd]

it doesn't fucking matter if i can find information about him, i can that isn't the point, the point is the big media outlets aren't sharing that information about him, you only hear how crazy he is and it's retarded. i'm not even a fucking paul supporter and i won't vote for the guy, but the hate he gets is fucking asinine. oh well what else to expect from people who can't stand anything but the status quo.

 

[KlokWyze]

That's ridiculous. A quick google search shows nearly 2,500 hits for an article about him today alone. Plenty of people know as much about what he stands for as they do for any other candidate. He wants to eliminate social security and medicare. Those positions are so far insanely out of touch with America that any rational person can see he will never get elected President.

Don't get angry, just accept reality.

EDIT: If you don't see news articles from major media outlets written about him all over the place by simply searching 'ron paul' on google, you're using google wrong.

Please post main steam media news articles outlining his "insane" policies.

Has RP raped some of you guys before? Christ