It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US News & World Report OWNED as they try to exclude Herman Cain, Donald Trump, and Rudy Giuliani- Wa

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
US News & World Report OWNED as they try to exclude Herman Cain, Donald Trump, and Rudy Giuliani - Wahaha!

In another poll, US News and World Report tries to exclude Herman Cain, Donald Trump, and Rudy Giuliani from the vote, and 64.48% vote "Other".





Story and poll here:
www.usnews.com...

They are doing anything and everything they can to exclude him. But it's not working!

ROFL!

Was created to show the flaw in this thread:
US News & World Report OWNED as they try to exclude Ron Paul- Wahaha!

*facepalm* of the Century!

edit on 8/20/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Is the facepalm of the century because of crazy deja vu?



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Section31
 


The only thing "Wahaha!" about this is that it was posted yesterday.



Wahaha!



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
When people read or interpret that damn poll, they have to understand that the 'other' category represents a wide field.

It is foolish to use the 'other' category as an accurate measure for one specific individual or group.

edit on 8/20/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Section31
 


I'll tell you something right now, it may be crazy and illogical but I have an inherent distrust for people with Cain in their surname, either in full or as part of it. I have never met a good and decent one yet. They are men of the spear.



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
You notice that Ron Paul was also not on the list.



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
You notice that Ron Paul was also not on the list.

We are talking about the 'other' people that fit the 'other' category.

Do you see how damn annoying it is to use the 'other' category within the poll for one specific candidate?

Herman Cain, Donald Trump, and Rudy Giuliani were also not on that list.

edit on 8/20/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Section31

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
You notice that Ron Paul was also not on the list.

We are not talking about Ron Paul.

We are talking about the 'other' people that fit the 'other' category.

Do you see how damn annoying it is to use the 'other' category within the poll for one specific candidate?

Herman Cain, Donald Trump, and Rudy Giuliani were also not on that list.
edit on 8/20/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)


Donald Trump, and Rudy Giuliani aren't even running so why would they be on the list? Also Perry wasn't on the list either.



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Section31
 


If you read the comments section, you'll find Ron Paul was on the minds of most in that vote. I like Cain too but my other was Ron Paul. I think a Paul/Cain run would be unstoppable.



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Section31
 


Actually, if you'll take a look in the comments section, you'll see that the VAST majority support Ron Paul as their 'other', not Cain.

Nice try though.



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010
Donald Trump, and Rudy Giuliani aren't even running so why would they be on the list? Also Perry wasn't on the list either.

Hmmm... Interesting to see Mike Huckabee's name on the list. Since he has already stated that he is not running, sounds like the entire GOP poll is flawed from the start.


Originally posted by Erowynn
reply to post by Section31
 

Nice try though.

Can you prove that every vote within the 'other' category is for a specific candidate.

Nice try though.

edit on 8/20/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Its at 64.48% now



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by tetsuoatx
Its at 64.48% now

Fixed text. Minus the image.

Lol... Thanks.

People will twist anything into something entirely different from what it means.

edit on 8/20/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Put it this way, from a 'graph-making' point of view, the ten named candidates should be a representation of the ten highest votes received.

The lowest candidate on the graph (Hayley Barbour) has 0.35%. Therefore, they imply that each candidate in the OTHER category received less than 0.35%. Or else they would have a category for them self, wouldn't they?

But, 59.08%/0.35% = 168 candidates in the OTHER group.

I know very little about American Politics, but there really can't be 168 other candidates running for POTUS.

I can only assume the graph is doctored tremendously and, by that logic, any guesses of what/why/how/who they omitted, and by how much, would be pure speculation?



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
It's just an online poll dude. Calm down you shouldn't take this stuff seriously.

Anyone can make an Internet poll.



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by dyllels
I can only assume the graph is doctored tremendously and, by that logic, any guesses of what/why/how/who they omitted, and by how much, would be pure speculation?

I get where you are going. I also agree with your cognition.

Since there are a good handful of potential GOP candidates not on the list, the problem we are having is defining the makeup of the 'other' category. As a result of more than one person missing from the list, my overall assumption would be to hold off on defining the 'other' category.

That is the nature of this thread. I'm trying to show everyone the flaw in their assumptions.

We just do not know.


edit on 8/20/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join