Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Ron Paul is Exploding!

page: 4
91
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


I guess this thread is a more appropriate place to point this out, so here goes. This is more about "realpolitics" than rasmussen itself but they use them as a source for these "averages". I'll just copy what I was trying to point out in another thread. Something to think about:

Just for grins, I tried finding out where all these "votes" are coming from on "realpolitics.com". From the links provided on the top 5 "sources" they use on that website, I clicked on every one and decided I'd try to get an answer on where these numbers are coming from. Here are the results I got:

Fox news - 904 live telephone calls

Rasmussen - Voice broadcasting method, no amount of calls mentioned that I could find.

CNN- 1008 phone calls on aug 5-7th

USA today/Gaullup - No info given on procedure for obtaining results.

McClatchy/Marist - Unlcear. No immediate info on where these polls are conducted..

So if we assume that each "poll" was around 1000 live phone calls or a voice broadcast solution, we can assume that is around 5000 votes, no??

Most polls indicated an error margin of 3-7%

Just from what I'm finding out, I don't think this is a very reliable way to say what the "national averages" are. Well, considering there are around 130-150 million eligible voters in the U.S. (well, according to this: wiki.answers.com...)

I can't really blame realpolitics for the figures they receive from their sources. What I can say tho, is that I work in the VOIP dialer industry and often refer clients to leads companies. One thing I'm wondering about is where these outlets are getting their leads from.

Leads (phone numbers) aren't free to obtain believe it or not. If they are conducting telephone polls it is highly possible to obtain numbers with a specific sway in politics. I'm not saying that is what's happening here, but it certainly is possible.
edit on 21-8-2011 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 

This brings to mind another question? How many of you "likely primary voters" have been asked if you are likely to vote in the primary? I'm a likely primary voter and I have lots of friends who are likely primary voters. How scientific are the polls that actively seek certain answers? That sort of cheating is just as bad because they are looking to get a certain outcome. Wish I knew how to insert a poll. I'd add one to find out how many likely primary voters have been polled.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Damn. Guess I'll post something about Ron Paul.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


I was unaware of that. I have never heard them say that. OTOH it's not like I watch what they say much, either.
I don't watch them either, I just see what other people post on YouTube either exposing their bias, or with interviews. But as far as I know they obviously haven't straight up said "In the news today, straw polls are important!", but by giving Bachmann a good amount of attention for getting first place in the Iowa straw poll, I think they were giving their viewers the idea that they're imporant.


OK. Conceded. If you're just playing around, what the hey? [color=limegreen]You're not doing anything to help his campaign anyway, but if you actually believe these straw polls.....
That came off pretty condescending, no?


What's the problem? I cited a source of a valid scientific poll--not a straw poll--that showed more accurately Paul's actual percentage at 9%. That's my WHOLE POINT with why I keep doing this. The straw polls are invalid for a whole host of reasons. One of the major reasons is that Paul supporters actively seek to spam the polls. Those voting also self-select. They are not random. They may not even be voters. In the Iowa poll Paul gave them tickets so they could vote. (For the record, so did Bachman, who gave away more.)
"Paul supporters actively seek to spam the polls", right, voting for the candidate of your choice is spamming.


The MSM DID report on the Iowa straw poll that followed the debate.
I was talking about the online poll that followed the Iowa debate, Ron Paul got first in that. See for yourself:

Texas Congressman Ron Paul has won the first-ever online Iowa straw poll, capturing a commanding 44% of the over 6,000 votes cast in an online poll sponsored by Iowa Congressman Tom Latham's campaign.



Paul came in second, and MSM said so. They did not ignore his placing there.
Yet they didn't give him even close to as much attention as Bachmann got, even though he only lost by 1%.


The reason people who put up polls, whether it is some lamestream media, the college republicans, or half a dozen bloggers a day, do not want to put Paul on the list of choices is BECAUSE Paul supporters spam the polls in an organized fashion.

In other words, Paul supporters cheat, then get mad because others try to prevent them from cheating.
That's BS and you know it, telling other supporters about a poll is not spamming. Spamming a poll would be switching your IP address and voting dozens of times for the same candidate, not having lots of supporters voting for a candidate.
edit on 21-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dasher
reply to post by kro32
 


If you don't like the principle of sovereign and united states, get out of the United States. Your comments are overwhelmingly federalist and ideologically impotent. Either justify the nature of sovereign states and creator-given rights of individuals as incorrect, or may everyone see and know how anti-American and puppet-like your conduct is based upon it's emptiness and blindness. It is appropriate for all to be warned that your comments often are distractions and diffusions. Furthermore, it is nearly appropriate for me to label you a troll except that your posts only walk that line near enough to reek, but not necessarily be worthy of full condemnation. I do reserve the possibility that you are simply simple (bless your heart, if so).

I am not fully sure of what is going on behind the scenes, but at face value, Ron Paul does seem to be our best hope to steer our course back towards the principles which our country was founded except with the wisdom of all that we have learned from our massive mistakes.

We should demand that Congress reissue the constitution and arrest those who are in violation. If Ron Paul is a true American, that is eventually what will occur, minus the re-issuance as he will hopefully wake up enough people to make that superfluous.



I couldn't have said it better myself


Also this:




It is appropriate for all to be warned that your comments often are distractions and diffusions.


I guess I am far from being alone in noticing that very same thing on here. In fact I almost expect it (more of the same) in each and every thread on here, if there ever were a more fitting definition of a Troll....there ya go



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 02:07 AM
link   
I think it is time someone on ATS said this. Ron Paul is not going to win, simple as that. I am a Ron Paul supporter but lets be real, the main stream media barely covers him, way too many sheeple and he breaks away from the norm set in America. Sorry guys, but it just isn't happening.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by destinedkid17
I think it is time someone on ATS said this. Ron Paul is not going to win, simple as that. I am a Ron Paul supporter but lets be real, the main stream media barely covers him, way too many sheeple and he breaks away from the norm set in America. Sorry guys, but it just isn't happening.


I look at it like this...if damn near HALF of the world can freak out and wanna overthrow their corrupt governments/burn down their countries over police brutality and what have you via Facebook and Twitter, then I think Ron Paul might very well stand a good chance at bagging this baby
More and more each day people are waking up and really becoming more and more pissed off at what all is happening around them, and being that the worse is yet to come??? Yea we got time



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler


The MSM DID report on the Iowa straw poll that followed the debate. Paul came in second, and MSM said so. They did not ignore his placing there. The reason people who put up polls, whether it is some lamestream media, the college republicans, or half a dozen bloggers a day, do not want to put Paul on the list of choices is BECAUSE Paul supporters spam the polls in an organized fashion.

In other words, Paul supporters cheat, then get mad because others try to prevent them from cheating.


edit on 8/20/2011 by schuyler because: (no reason given)


umm really they cheat? Since when is voting cheating? I was sure it was allowed to vote in a poll wow I learn something new every day. Also all the polls I have been in you could only vote once not quite cheating. Maybe he just has more supporters than you think. Just because you might not agree with him does not mean that he did not earn thoes votes grow up. They dont want to put him on the polls because they know he will get almost all the votes ( and leaving their choice with 5% or so will make them sad
) how about that, that sounds a lot more realistic then what you suggest. If the man wins or gets good polls its because he earned them just like any one else in the poll.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 02:35 AM
link   
I tend to agree that the chances of RP becoming the Rep candidate for POTUS are pretty remote if not nia impossible. Far too many US folk are pigeon whole people! eg. "I have always voted REP and I always will" or "I have always voted DEM and I always will". RP would need at least 30% of these to vote for him regardless of his party affiliations. There is also the other problem of how US folk are registered to vote. Of these 50 or 60% would need to to ensure they are registered to be able to vote for RP.

Its clear that nothings going to change whether its Obama vs Perry or Obama vs Romney because whoever wins TPTB win because like I have said already in previous threads, the dice are loaded and everything is stacked against the people or should I sheeple!!

If RP was to somehow win the REP nom then that would be amazing and a big problem for TPTB (assuming RP's not a closet insider). But if he did then maybe an accident may be his fate!!

Whatever ensues the chances of him ever being declared POTUS are extremely remote.

If US folk what change for real then they will have to vote with their feet and down tools and come out is mass on the streets to protest state by state! Not likely!!
edit on 21-8-2011 by RoguePhilosopher because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
Yes I can't wait to have 50 different laws for every issue.

Have to print out rulebooks just to have to travel across the country.


Who cares about laws?

Criminals.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 02:48 AM
link   
ronpaul 2012 hes real doesnt try smooth talking stuff about oh i supported this or that like the other bs ppl.. dont listen to the media.. listen to the former msm ppl on here theyy tell the truth



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by destinedkid17
 


After reading your post, no, you're not a Ron Paul supporter.

If he has the guts to get up everyday, fly and drive to local cities around the nation and do all of these things when a man the age of 76 should be retired, FOR US, then the efforts should be reciprocated.

So stop whining about how he doesn't have a chance. This entire campaign is a group effort, supported by his exponentially growing grassroots. He is making the sacrifice for us, and we gotta do the same thing.

If you don't understand this concept, how do you even call yourself a Ron Paul supporter?
edit on 21-8-2011 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 03:55 AM
link   
New Hampshire Young Republicans Straw Poll today:
Ron Paul– 45%
Romney– 10%
Perry– 8%
McCotter– 8%
Johnson– 6%
Cain– 5%
Bachmann– 5%
hampton-northhampton.patch.com...


Interview with Jon Stewart-Daily Show
Congressman Ron Paul will interview with Jon Stewart-Daily Show Monday September 26 5:30pm Eastern Time
www.ronpaul2012.com...

Ron Paul's Speech at the Florida Liberty Summit: - 08/19/2011


Due to a cyber attack on ronpaul2012.com causing difficulties in donating during the final hours of the moneybomb, The Ron Paul campaign has extended the moneybomb until Noon (Pacific) Sunday- 8/21/11.
www.dailypaul.com...
edit on 21-8-2011 by conar because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by RoguePhilosopher
 


i have been voting since the early 80's i have never voted for a republican...Dr. Paul will be my first. i am part of the change that is coming...



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by CaDreamer
 


Its going to take a hell of a lot more of you. Good luck!



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
Yes I can't wait to have 50 different laws for every issue.

Have to print out rulebooks just to have to travel across the country.


You know that is how it was supposed to be. That was why we had states....Not just one big country.... The states got together and made a union in order to help each other out....

What we have now actually goes against what our founding fathers wanted...

Besides... Nothing much would be changing.... We already have laws on just the state level and not the federal level....

So, no need to buy a hand book.

Out of curiosity who do you like for pres?



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 06:41 AM
link   
Carl Cameron asks Ron Paul in 2008: "are you electable sir?"



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by Dasher
 


The Constitution was written to remove absolute power from the States as that was the issue of the time. "To make a more perfect union," as stated. You cannot have a more perfect union with 50 different sets of rules.


Wrong! It was written to STRENGTHEN the power of the states. Yep, they did not want any state to fail, so they created a union in order to ensure that the states did not fail....


Why are you still under the impression that we only have federal laws right now? Never heard of state law?

Quit suggesting state laws do not yet exist. Some kid is liable to come on here, read your crap and believe it...


state law is not new at all......what would happen is the federal government would have less power over the state government.... That is it... The state government would have more power over itself than they used to...
That is it...

I think you will live if one state decides to, say, legalize gay marriage,and another one decides not to....

Oh wait,I get it...You just don't like reading...You keep complaining about this non existent hand book that you think you will have to read. Don't worry...No reading is involved.....

Unless you want to....you know... learn.
edit on 21-8-2011 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32


The central government at the time had ZERO power to enforce the few responsibilities they had so they needed a new form of govermnent. Now Ron Paul wishes to return us to a system we already broke away from due to it's failure.


That system did not fail...I don't remember reading about any state ever failing in the US, do you?

Unless you are talking about that lost....51st state?



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by Dasher
 


As you've apparantly been watching enough of my comments to base that perception on you are well aware of all the times I've justified every comment i've made either through explanation or sources and if you still doubt you are free to peruse my post history for your answers.



No,you haven't.... You only continued to post in a mis-informed and ignorant manner, showing you know nothing of the simplest of American History.

As of this post you made,there have been no " sources" from you... Just you making a claim that apparently state law does not exist yet.....which is beyond silly.

Can you feel everyone laughing?





new topics




 
91
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join