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.

 

Why Hannity Never Showed Poll Results after Iowa Debate

page: 1
25
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+3 more 
posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Hannity clearly said he would show the Poll Results at the end of his show tonight after the Iowa debate, but no results were given....WHY?

Here's why -



www.facebook.com...
edit on 16-12-2011 by grantbeed because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by grantbeed
 


Hannity is a idiot if he thinks he can show the results within minutes after the debate.

Maybe he realized that?



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 

after the debate, he interviewed all the candidates, and promised poll results at the end of his show. the reason why he never delivered is because it paints ron paul in a favorable light.

i wonder how deep the rabbit hole goes. are national poles skewed to paint him in an unfavorable light? on foxnews.com (yes, the pit of hades, i know. but i returned unscathed
) the "national pole" that they called "normal" was a sample of around 270 people! 270 people for the whole nation, with an error margin of 6%...right. anyways, ron paul was in 3rd or 4th. in the iowa pole they showed (a sampling of 555 people error margin 4%) ron paul was winning with 23% of the vote to gingritch at 22%.

how can they call a pole "national" if only 270 people were polled? i smell shenanigans.

edit on 16-12-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 01:24 AM
link   
double post.
edit on 16-12-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Still to soon to say who did the best.

Me? I liked most answers, but they were quite generic...with the exception of Paul's.

A star for ya...just due to you puttin' "shenanigans" in your post.


LUV THAT WORD!



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 01:37 AM
link   
How can this be, I watched fox news saying Newt dominated...
Got to love unfair and biased news. Remember Ron Paul is unelectable...



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 01:54 AM
link   
Hannity just needed a few more hours to doctor the poll results and spin it to make Newt look like the winner, trust me these establishment guys know how to look out for each other.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Hahaha John Huntsman got 56 votes. Was that all of his staff?

Kind of feel bad for him, but he does suck.

Ron did awesome. Not surprised fawks news would cover it up.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Anyone see the Hannity interview with Paul after the debate? It was a hatchet job. But I dont like how Paul is handling the issue of if he will run as a third party and his endorsment. He has gone from saying he has no intention to Wallace at the start of November-

www.opposingviews.com...

Now in the interview with Hannity he says he cant conceive of it. I guess he can change his mind and you couldnt exactly call him a liar but there seems to be something dishonest about his answers. Like he isnt telling us something. I think its disappointing in a way.

Its also interesting that Wallace has angered the Paul fans with his comments saying a Paul win would discredit the Iowa caucuses-


Text Text Chris Wallace walked back his earlier remarks to Neil Cavuto that if Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucuses, it will discredit the contest.



Wether you think Paul is being entirely honest about his intentions it looks like he might not have to worry about it. Fox news look pretty damn scared of Paul lately. I think their hatchet jobs on Paul and the lack of attention may be actually helping Ron Paul more than its hurting him.
edit on 16-12-2011 by theovermensch because: typo

edit on 16-12-2011 by theovermensch because: typo



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
How is it that anyone can take Sean Hannity seriously is beyond me. Hannity is absolutely a loud speaker for neo-con propaganda.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by grantbeed
 


LOL! Yeah, they will do anything to avoid mentioning RP's name, eh? I watch as They call so-and-so the "front runner," and it doesn't matter who it is, it's never RP - so it's never the front runner. They LIE as well as OMIT.



Just for My own nefarions purposes (to eliminate poverty):

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
ipollnews.com says 98.8%(!!!!!!!!!!!) think Ron Paul won the debate last night, I swear to god. Right now he has 6,893 votes out of 6,977. My goodness.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by theovermensch
Anyone see the Hannity interview with Paul after the debate? It was a hatchet job. But I dont like how Paul is handling the issue of if he will run as a third party and his endorsment. He has gone from saying he has no intention to Wallace at the start of November-

www.opposingviews.com...

Now in the interview with Hannity he says he cant conceive of it. I guess he can change his mind and you couldnt exactly call him a liar but there seems to be something dishonest about his answers. Like he isnt telling us something. I think its disappointing in a way.


edit on 16-12-2011 by theovermensch because: typo


I would give your question a bit more of a thought however, have you ever stopped to think that they have not asked that same question to any of the other candidates? This question is barbed and they only ask it to potentially harm Dr. Paul.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by theovermensch
Anyone see the Hannity interview with Paul after the debate? It was a hatchet job. But I dont like how Paul is handling the issue of if he will run as a third party and his endorsment. He has gone from saying he has no intention to Wallace at the start of November-

www.opposingviews.com...

Now in the interview with Hannity he says he cant conceive of it. I guess he can change his mind and you couldnt exactly call him a liar but there seems to be something dishonest about his answers. Like he isnt telling us something. I think its disappointing in a way.

Its also interesting that Wallace has angered the Paul fans with his comments saying a Paul win would discredit the Iowa caucuses-


Text Text Chris Wallace walked back his earlier remarks to Neil Cavuto that if Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucuses, it will discredit the contest.



Wether you think Paul is being entirely honest about his intentions it looks like he might not have to worry about it. Fox news look pretty damn scared of Paul lately. I think their hatchet jobs on Paul and the lack of attention may be actually helping Ron Paul more than its hurting him.
edit on 16-12-2011 by theovermensch because: typo

edit on 16-12-2011 by theovermensch because: typo


This shouldn't bother you if you realize how the GOP has been working with the MSM, especially Fox on blacking out Ron Paul for years. The GOP is in a position where they have to support Dr. Paul if he wins the nomination. They can't come right out against him, but they can use their tool...the media like they did in last nights debate to try and make him look bad. They can try to manipulate the polls and play every dirty trick in the book to kill his run like they did in 2008. But now Dr. Paul knows how to play the game and he has much more support than he did 4 years ago.

So what can Ron Paul do to counter this? Not ruling out a third party run! They fear if he does this, he splits the vote and Obama wins.

So there you have it. It's Paul's Ace-In-The-Hole and I'm glad he's got it!
edit on 12/16/2011 by maddog99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by maddog99
 





Text So what can Ron Paul do to counter this? Not ruling out a third party run! They fear if he does this, he splits the vote and Obama wins. So there you have it. It's Paul's Ace-In-The-Hole and I'm glad he's got it!


I know it is his ace in the hole but he should be honest with the die-hard Republicans that want to know who he will endorse. He owes it to these voters to be clear.

Does Paul stand for the Republican Party or himself. It would seem only himself and his supporters. This is an important issue to alot of republicans. They fear that Paul will suck alot of the anti-obama vote away and hurt the Republican Party. He should be clear about his intentions. He owes it to die-hard republicans.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by theovermensch
reply to post by maddog99
 





Text So what can Ron Paul do to counter this? Not ruling out a third party run! They fear if he does this, he splits the vote and Obama wins. So there you have it. It's Paul's Ace-In-The-Hole and I'm glad he's got it!


I know it is his ace in the hole but he should be honest with the die-hard Republicans that want to know who he will endorse. He owes it to these voters to be clear.

Does Paul stand for the Republican Party or himself. It would seem only himself and his supporters. This is an important issue to alot of republicans. They fear that Paul will suck alot of the anti-obama vote away and hurt the Republican Party. He should be clear about his intentions. He owes it to die-hard republicans.


Okay, but what do you consider a die-hard Republican? What we now label as Neo-Cons? I was a young Republican and voted for Regan. I remember boasting how only Dems started the wars and Republicans ended them! Once I started learning a little more about politics and the world, I went Independant. After 9/11, the bail-outs, the housing bubble, etc, I found Dr. Paul and learned more than I could ever imagine.

But back to the question...

Ron Paul stands for true conservatism. None of the other candidates do. He already said he would support one of them only if they changed their views. The only one who's come close is Rick Perry who said ron Paul pretty much opened his eyes to the Fed and how Washington and money works. But they are all so far apart from him on his foreign policy...how could he endorse one of them? He would betray his supporters and destroy what he's been fighting for the past 30 years!

This battle has been going on between Ron Paul and the rest of the Republican party for years. He believes, as many of us do, there will be little difference between Obama and the rest of the GOP field. That's why I, like many, have decided to vote for the person and not the party and will write-in Ron Paul if we have to.

It's pretty much Paul or bust.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
democracy is a double edged sword. the people can change their mind.

what we are witnessing is the end of the republican party as we knew. and the fight from the old guard to stay in power.

it's obvious the people want a new direction.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by maddog99
 





Text It's pretty much Paul or bust.


I agree but I dont think he should be shielded from critcism. And I think you will see this issue get bigger. Its pretty much all they have got. But I honestly dont think Paul should be able to use the Republican Party as a vehicle to get coverage and then ditch them when he doesnt win. I think alot of Republicans will be very angry if he loses the nomination and then hurts the Rebublican nominee by running third party.

I would say a die-hard Republican is somebody that wants a Republican to become President. Not a third party. I think they are entitled to feel that way.
edit on 16-12-2011 by theovermensch because: typo



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by theovermensch
reply to post by maddog99
 





Text So what can Ron Paul do to counter this? Not ruling out a third party run! They fear if he does this, he splits the vote and Obama wins. So there you have it. It's Paul's Ace-In-The-Hole and I'm glad he's got it!


I know it is his ace in the hole but he should be honest with the die-hard Republicans that want to know who he will endorse. He owes it to these voters to be clear.

Does Paul stand for the Republican Party or himself. It would seem only himself and his supporters. This is an important issue to alot of republicans. They fear that Paul will suck alot of the anti-obama vote away and hurt the Republican Party. He should be clear about his intentions. He owes it to die-hard republicans.

The same die hard republicans that voted for McCain and will vote for Romney if the old guard has there way. What the Republican party is is a firing squad in a circle. They should pull their heads out and quit worrying about who he will endorse and endorse Dr. Paul. He owes it to these voters to be who he is; a defender of the constitution and the people of this country. If he is such a loser as the Neo Cons believe then what are they worried about?



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by maddog99

Originally posted by theovermensch
reply to post by maddog99
 





Text So what can Ron Paul do to counter this? Not ruling out a third party run! They fear if he does this, he splits the vote and Obama wins. So there you have it. It's Paul's Ace-In-The-Hole and I'm glad he's got it!


I know it is his ace in the hole but he should be honest with the die-hard Republicans that want to know who he will endorse. He owes it to these voters to be clear.

Does Paul stand for the Republican Party or himself. It would seem only himself and his supporters. This is an important issue to alot of republicans. They fear that Paul will suck alot of the anti-obama vote away and hurt the Republican Party. He should be clear about his intentions. He owes it to die-hard republicans.


Okay, but what do you consider a die-hard Republican? What we now label as Neo-Cons? I was a young Republican and voted for Regan. I remember boasting how only Dems started the wars and Republicans ended them! Once I started learning a little more about politics and the world, I went Independant. After 9/11, the bail-outs, the housing bubble, etc, I found Dr. Paul and learned more than I could ever imagine.

But back to the question...

Ron Paul stands for true conservatism. None of the other candidates do. He already said he would support one of them only if they changed their views. The only one who's come close is Rick Perry who said ron Paul pretty much opened his eyes to the Fed and how Washington and money works. But they are all so far apart from him on his foreign policy...how could he endorse one of them? He would betray his supporters and destroy what he's been fighting for the past 30 years!

This battle has been going on between Ron Paul and the rest of the Republican party for years. He believes, as many of us do, there will be little difference between Obama and the rest of the GOP field. That's why I, like many, have decided to vote for the person and not the party and will write-in Ron Paul if we have to.

It's pretty much Paul or bust.





Yep , same here Man . I decided 8 YEARS AGO that Ron Paul should Run for President considering his Politics and the course our Country has been heading in since 9/11 . He is the Right Man at the Right Time to give this Country BACK to the American People !.......



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
25
<<   2 >>

log in

join