Guy, you're way off. The problem is not "unscientific internet polls". Lol.. did you ever stop to think the owners of the media don't want Ron Paul to win? What is more likely, the corporate media lying, or online folks "hijacking" polls. Haha... get real.
CAN I MANYPULATE THE ELECTIONS JUST BY VOTING FOR RON PAUL????
I HOPE NOT. BECAUSE ... I AM AN HONEST PERSON.I DONT WANT TO MANIPULATE ANYTHING. I JUST WANT TO VOTE FOR RON PAUL.THAT'S ALL MY INTENTIONS LIKE MANY OTHER OUT THERE.
BY THE WAY...I WILL ACTUALLY CHECK OUT THE VIDEO OF RON PAUL WINING THE POLS OF 2011. THE WINING VIDEO IS FROM LAST YEAR 2010.......WHO TO BLAME? FOX NEWS.
CLEAR EXAMPLE THAT THE MEDIA IS RESPONSIBLE. CHECK IT OUT.
1st of all- Could you please tell me when Ron Paul got 80% in something? For my own education I would like to know that.
2nd- So people just never change their minds? People can't change who they're voting for? And I'm pretty sure that once all the other candidates were being shown everywhere on the news while Ron Paul was virtually excluded by the media, yeah, his support goes to candidates who are being shown. Unless you have facts that prove that someone did something, how can you accuse?
Who wons the polls your saying that are real? Bilderberg owns the media and they own Obama and McCain. Your a brainwashed tool for the new world order and don't even know it. He is a real republican and show your proof of manipulating. LOW point is the people like you that think Associated press or Rueters which is woned by the Rothschilds is fair. Do your homework and I'll pray you see truth because that is what Ron Paul is about!
wait... let me get this straight. is your argument seriously that ron paul supporters have lax moral standards because of a tendency to vote twice on an arbitrary online polling advertisement?... do you know how fucking retarded your argument is? the irony of course is that libertarianism is as much an ethical philosophy as it is a political position. why is it that i only hear libertarians speak of metaphysics and the moral repercussions of political coercion?
If Ron Paul Supporters are claiming that they are different than the system that stuffs ballet boxes, than why are they doing it on-line? You don't get to claim your moral when you act just like everyone else.
first of all, i havent stuffed any ballot boxes. i am not even old enough to vote and i don't vote on online polls. second of all, i am not asserting that ron paul occultists who actually participate in political elections are not acting immorally. there is no inherent right to sanction unwarranted aggressions. voting is immoral. but voting multiple times in an arbitrary online gallop poll, as much as you want to believe it is, is not immoral. it's just a waste of time.
wow you are retarded, that is a statement not a question BTW. Ron Paul is the most moral candidate there is, where as people like you hate the idea that your not voting for him but he still has the most support. people like you are the ones without the morals, wake the fuck up!
With all due respect Sabot I would suggest your conclusion is incorrect. I was actually polled by phone ( 1st time ever)
I was given these options. If you voted today would you vote for Romney,McCain press #3 for other ,press#4 to not be contacted again. I pressed #3. because Paul was not an option. The recorded response was #4. Hence it was an overtly bias poll. Of the 21 polls I checked RP was not an option on 7. With Diebold voting machines I would suggest ALL results must be questioned.
I'll be blunt - I believe in freedom and you can't have that with opressive laws period. Try arresting George Washington for the Pot he smoked.
But just because we don't think the same... I gotta give you credit for your respect level sir. quite a bit of excitement (expected when you say something like this about one of the only citizens' candidates) on this subject and you have responded on the issue. Props to you sir.
I want to clear up a few things for you. I don't believe in government total ownership of all business. I don't believe in total collective ownership. I am not socialist or communist. What I believe in is managed Capitalism. I also believe that there is a place for public works projects that do not produce a profit that make life better for individuals and capitalistic business.
You can feel the ignorance 1 min in. Nothing was hijacked exept our government and the media. They have had these polls in other elections you idiot. What is the difference. The media censors Ron Paul and he still has a huge following. Look at the NH recount and see what happened with the votes that are hand counted. Most the rest of the country is private computer voting so you will see how much trouble they went through to mess with these votes.
coultn agree wit u more PAUl has his supportes on a leash they sit an text his name for hours jus so they think other will see he won the debates and vote for him they need to realize all smart people know paul wont win
And what type of logic are you following? It just show that Ron Paul supporters are enthusiastic and someone like McCain's supporters are old farts who don't care about America.
I will educates as best I can in the future moron. I am not wrong. It is clear from your comment that you have not morale leadership, so go crawl under a rock. While you are under that rock enjoy the thought of me being wrong.
Ron Paul supporters are the most passionate supporters in the history of America's politics. This is why Ron Paul scores high when only the SELF-motivated have to go online or send an SMS.
Those polls are not statistically significant.
But Polls that do not accept Ron Paul as an option,or don't count properly Ron paul's supporters because that will be a problem to the establishment are even less significant. Please watch "hacking democracy" and a few videos about polls before replying..
Ron Paul has a huge presence of online support; a lot of his supporters are active on the internet, comparatively more than his rivals. More supporters online, higher percentage of supporters taking these online polls.
It's tantamount to a Senator's state heavily supporting their representative, only rather than a state, it's the internet.
Even if it's an issue of corruption, it's petty compared to the manipulation done by some of the front runners themselves.
You are responding to my video where that is the statement that I made. I must assume that is what you are taking issue with. I am asking that Ron Paul Supporters not manipulate polls and call them accurate. That is dishonest! If you claim to have moral leadership, that action does not support it.
And as your video stated, within the first 13 seconds of it, "Non-Scientific Polls" as you said. I was commenting on the fact that ALL polls are bullshit. Understand now?
Have you finished your resume for Fox News yet? - So, taking our 'manipulation of online/phone polling,' how do you explain what's happening in New Hampshire? wouldn't actual vote tampering be a better topic? rather than your silly assumptions?
Ok. The best reason for the difference of poll numbers from online to the state is because when people vote on the online poll it is ALL TOGETHER. ALL STATES. or anywhere in the world. Then for the state poll it probably would be the same or similar to it if you would add all states together.
I am an avid Ron Paul Supporter and we don't manipulate polls. We vote ONLY once each because you cant vote more than that. We are enthusiastic about our candidate than any other's by far. NONE of our money raised comes from anyone but us. We get off our asses and do something about what most people just sit around and complain about and we are WRONG for that? The first Americans fought against tyranny and were labeled radicals by the British...but guess what they are called now "Fore-Fathers"
You are wrong in claiming that these inflated results are reality for the nation, and the true results are just a conspiracy. Ron Paul has limited support, but he did get second in Nevada:14%. Not too bad at all, but not the 80% that some inflated on-line polls say.
I think that the tampering with votes is more of a Government-style tactic since they have the control and access to do it without concequence. It's a proven fact that electoral systems/ballots/polls are not tamper-proof, as such elections/exit polls/primaries could have used those methods for decades.
Sabot, what I think is that people like myself are very enthusiastic about Ron Paul's message and, like me, they watch and vote in every debate whereas the other candidates do not have such avid supporters. Just my opinion
It is actually the other way around you crazy bastard, ron paul supporters are ethical, intelligent, and moral people. It is the media that is manipulating the polls not ron paul supporters!!! Quit trying to spread propoganda about ron paul and his campain.
and by the way HOW are they manipulating the polls? maybe if you can come up with a somewhat intelligent response to that question i will be more respectful on my next post.
I am not spreading propaganda. When you see on-line polls that show crazy levels of support for Ron Paul, there is obviously a coordinated effort to boost the level of support. This becomes unethical when claims are made that they are accurate and not manipulated.
NOT YOU AGAIN! this guy is more of the type of person that probably has some childish grudge against the RP supporters, and i bet most likely he would agree with RP himself with a lot of issues
It is a really good way to get clear results because you can set it up to only text once. Now if this was set up to text more than once you need to send a video to Fox news and ask them why they are trying to manipulate the vote. I am sure that you will not respond to this, I know you can not prove otherwise.
what proves they are obviously manipulated. Are you a software programmer? A web-site editor? How can you say this? This is most likely your own opinion and not fact. Websites/text message polls allow you to vote only once from one IP Address or one phone number.
These programmers aren't stupid, they know how to prevent people manipulating and messing with their polls. You just need to realize how many people actually do agree with Ron Paul's message. I know you want an easy excuse like poll manipulation, but thats just untrue.
So the polls that say Ron Paul has 80% support are not manipulated? No one has 80% support. On-line polls can be manipulated just by having a lot of friends all go and vote who normally don't go to a site. The key to a statistically accurate poll is a random sample.
Yeah but why could they not vote for Ron Paul? isn't it moral to gon and vote for the candidate you want, that's the only thing. If other candidates supporters do not vote on these polls, it's not RP supporters fault, aren't the other supporters moraly wrong not to vote on the online polls? Your rethoric is stupid! And random sample... look at the P&T vid on F. Luntz!
And BTW, what is the matter with being politically involved - if more people in this country got involved the politicians would have to listen, but instead our civil liberties are being lost..
OOOhhhhhh... you watch TV, the media... sorry, your argument is invalid - you have been manipulated... The media has swayed you, you have been sheepified.
I know that not many people know about Ron Paul yet, but those people don't care about any of the other candidates, so they don't bother to vote online or anywhere else, only Ron Paul's supporters actually believe in their candidate and truly care about the results, that is why he always wins the polls, not because of some conspiracy.
We just vote on ron paul when we see polls. How is that manipulating results? We have as much right to vote in an online poll as you do. By the way, making conclusions about what all of america thinks based on Iowa seems a bit of a stretch to me. Iowa is one state out of fifty. If you look at the straw polls, Ron Paul has absolutely dominated them, and historically straw polls have been the best indicator of who will win.
I have no problem with Ron Paul supporters voting in on-line Polls. Just don't claim that the media is covering up the true massive support for Ron Paul when you are just a minority. Ron Paul Supporters do not make up 80% of the population.
Of course not, we don't claim to be. We just make the claim that there are many of us out there and we are very passionate in our support for Ron Paul because it is guided by a support for our constitution and our freedom. We claim that the media covers Ron Paul less than any other candidate, and that they constantly imply that voting for him is useless, which subverts democracy.
I know you don't like Ron Paul supporters but if you could get past your distaste for us for a minute and do some research on Dr. Paul you might see why we are so fanatical, you might not change your mind, but you might understand us a little better.
Ron Paul is the modern day Ross Perot. No, I don't mean idealogically, just in terms of his viability as a candidate. (Wow, I never noticed, even their initials are the same!)
It would be better to admit that you have limited support and then build that support over time. Like Ron Paul did in Iowa. He had double the support of Rudy Giuliani.
Not very true Im afraid, we have evidence of the opposite, the establishment has been the ones manipulating the elections, look up vote fraud, and look at the evidence the mainstream media will not give anyone. did you know that flashable eeproms for 1200 voting systems came up "missing" 3 weeks before the caucus? look it up for yourself!
Paul's people are the ones truly concerned and actively engaged in politics. They go on the internet seeking information about the best choice for America, and they come across these polls. Therefore the results you get are from the people who understand the issues. Then when its caucus time, the sheeple come out in droves to vote for someone who's hair they like!
There is nothing wrong will being concerned and actively engaged. The problem I have is the false claims of major support when that does not exist at this time.
I don't know what planet you're posting from, but NO reputable, serious national poll has ever had Ron Paul at "80%". No reputable national poll ever had ANY presidential candidate at "80%". Who cares about dumb "online polls"? So what? Stop gathering your political info from informal online polling.
I know none of the national polls said that Ron Paul was at 80%. I never claimed that national polls said that. What I said is that the Ron Paul Supporters manipulated the online polls and then claimed that the national polls were not accurate because look at these on-line polls that show so much support for him.
Which is it- he's only polling in low single digits nationally and therefore has no chance, or he got 10% in Iowa from a small percentage of bodies who voted, and it's all the spammers' fault?
Four days, my friend: New Hampshire Primary. I hope you'll be watching.
10% is much better than what I thought he would get, but 10% is what the scientific polls had him at for Iowa. My source for the Polls was Potus 08 on XM Radio.
Also, Iowa is just one state, and it has never been a strong Ron Paul state (online or in the polls). Bill Clinton only got 3% of the vote in the '92 Iowa caucus, yet he became President. So a lot still remains to be seen. Thanks for the articulate discussion.
I thank you for your thoughts. I may turn out to be wrong in the long run. The real lesson that I learned was the non-online polling proved to be correct in Iowa. They had Ron Paul at 10% before the Iowa caucus and that is what he got.
I appreciate the general comments on this video. But it's really not a matter of being moral or immoral. All that the online polls show is that Ron Paul tends to get 80% of the vote from those who vote in online polls. Just because the other candidates don't have the same online support doesn't mean that Ron Paul supporters are to blame for actually voting.
I know on-line polls are not accurate, but the Ron Paul supporters have been saying that they are accurate even when they are using grassroots efforts to stack the numbers.
sabot96, I defy you to offer proof on the following,
1. Polls that are not online etc are scientific.
2. The voting system used over the phone electronically could not be manipulated.
3. The caucus in Iowa represents the opinion nationwide.
4. That Ron Paul supporters are trying to manipulate results... a far cry from your claim of online poll manipulation. Which does not make sense, since others would also have tried to manipulate polls following your logic.
hey sabot, didn't they just pass a law that you people are not allowed to use the internet anymore? better watch your parole officer does not see this
You show some intelligence. Please look up election fraud. Check out who made the voting machines, and who is related to them. Also, people online are younger. How many old people do you know that take part in online polls? Most people are zombies who watch the mass media all day. It is not the Ron Paul supporters, trust me. I have met so many, and they are the most honest and dignified people that I know politically. Broaden your horizons.
Sabot, your brave to tackle any issues on religion are politics, because as you can see from the comments about 50% will not be on your side. There is a lot of manipulation in politics. msNBC and NBC were saying McCain would be 1st or 2nd in Iowa. they are clearly supporting him. Next, did you know that over 20 preachers in Iowa received letters from unknown saying they would go to jail for supporting Huckabee.
How retarded is this douche? The debate is viewed nation wide. So everyone votes, not just people from IOWA. All the polls online showed is that more of Paul's supporters took the time to vote. How is this immoral retard?
One last comment: Though most people understand Ron Paul has no chance of winning the actual presidency, Paul can INFLUENCE both cons & libs alike to get back to their roots of small government & the Constitution. A person like Ron Paul is very liberating. He reminds us that the current republican party is a party of big government (thank you, neo-cons) & has been hijacked by biblical social moralists who place the Bible above the Constitution. Ron Paul is a throwback to authentic conservatism.
Iowa is one state...bad conclusion....do another video after New Hampshire.MSM is manipulating the vote..they are the immoral ones... get off your high horse and open your eyes
I've registered to vote for the first time to vote for Ron Paul, and vote for him I will even If It's writing him In. iowa Is one state full of old, set in thier way corn farmers who are 60% evangelical. Thats the only way the huckster did so well. The Ghoul Is supposed to be a front runner, and Dr Paul destroyed him. He will do much better in the live free or die state. Paul has the money to go the long haul. Huck, Thompson and McCain Is broke. I'm 38 years old, and I support Ron Paul.
Sabot. others: The MSM is not over-estimateing the viability of R.P. Nobody thinks Paul is going to win. But Paul has proved there is a very wide libertarian streak running this country.
And, yes, Iowa IS important. It is one piece in this primary puzzle. Obama has great momentum now. Evangelicals heavily came out for Huckabee (but the NEXT primary in N.H. has very few evangelicals & Huckabee will do poorly).
Also Sabot (again): I re-listened to your vid. You do not seem to have a firm grasp of the political process. Paul supporters "manipulating online polls" (which are not very significant to begin with) does not translate into a "moral" or "immoral" issue. A highly motivated faction of the electorate trying to manipulate or sway opinion is part of the process.
Dude you are an idiot. If you think Iowa means a thing you are crazy... Could you please tell me again how many delegates come from Iowa. You opened your cake hole a little soon.
Nonscientific polls? How do you know this? Who are "they"?Because you trust the caucus results,right? Who doesn't go out and try to change opinions?Your doing it now!Am I to conclude you are dishonest?Watch your video again and find out how many irrational thoughts you espouse. Your logic is flawed terribly. Don't be a parrot and repeat everything you hear!! Think for yourself.How did they "Manipulate" the results in earlier polls?
on-line polls are not scientific because they do not begin with a random sample. I trust the caucus results more than an on-line poll, because these are the real results. No more guessing needed on who is going to show up to vote.
I haven't met a Ron Paul supporter that I would call dishonest in any way. Polls are polls and it depends on where it's conducted (on line or focus group) and how the questions are asked. In fact depending on the day of the week, the same group might poll different from one day to the next. Iowa vote seem to me to be honest and I watched it on CSPAN. I was disapointed but not surprised.
Many candidates that stand out from the rest have been suppressed in the past by the media.
Watch the documentary called spin.
Also, for example you can go to the BBC website (a supposedly public media) and see who´s names come out on the coverage of the presidential election run-up.
I think that´s one piece of proof/evidence versus your null, correct me if I am wrong.
Oh my... Manipulation of the polls? Half of which didn't even have him as a candidate? What about the media who interrupt him, or say he has no chance, and now exclude him in NH?
what if this were happening to whomever you support? What about CNN and Fox having focus groups of 20 people and acting as if they represent the nation? Or about Fox interviewing him with "Paul supported by strippers" running underneath his name? Come off it man.
It does not change the manipulation by whatever means that were used. Grassroots or whatever. If you claim a higher standard you have to live by that.
Why does there have to be manipulation? It's common knowledge that there are more of Dr. Paul's voters online than anyone else. That means, that precentage wise, he would get the most votes, online. No manipulation needed. Oh, and btw, even the media is saying that he did really good for Iowa, better than they expected. Oh and don't forget he beat the person that the media was saying that the "polls" were projecting as the front runner for Iowa! Guess you can't trust any of the polls :)
First of all, your claims are unsubstantiated. You are comparing national online polls to a caucus in rural Iowa, there is no comparison. What voters in 1 state may do is in no way a reflection of people across the nation. My previous post was to point out to you that if you want to talk about manipulation, please keep it real and point out any and all manipulation.
I don't know what polls you are talking about but there is always the possibility of manipulation.
The "major" candidates are taking votes from each other, they are basically the same, this drives up the numbers of the other candidate that stands for real difference. Also, as others have posted, many informed internet users are for Ron Paul the same as people who are polled on land lines tend to lean a different way. Lets remember that polls don't take place via cell that I know of.
I never voted for any poll more than once. Do not question my values! Ron Paul was not expected to win Iowa, but even the media are saying that he did way better than they expected.
Guy its Iowa, The only Manipulation is from Fox Noise in where Ron Paul beat the "former" Media darling rudolf Giuliani. Consider this that only 2 Presidents that win Iowa has ever won the Presidentcy, Overwhileming support FOR Huckabee were from Evangelicals (70%) in were Ron paul was not running the Religious platform. Iowans Spend OUR tax money on Corn Subsidies for which Ron Paul disaproves. All considerd 10% in Iowa is a HUG step forward (Obama scares me though)
Ron Paul has always had about 10% of the republican (& independanr/democratic) base.
Sabot: You got this one wrong. Nobody is being "manipulated". Paul's voters just tend to be more motivated & inspired than with politics-as-usual candidates. There is nothing wrong with getting your message out aggressively.
PS I'm not a Paul supporter. But I see their passion everywhere.
Also: The Paul supporters that come out of the woodwork to flood the online polls & stand on streetcorners with signs & literature are not a sign of "manipulation", but dedication. Remember, did blacks "manipulate" (as you might say) the system in the 1950's by not sitting in the back of the bus? Or were they fighting for change? Sometimes you have to get a little aggressive for change.
I am responding to the claim that Ron Paul supporters have been making that the media is hiding the actual support level for Ron Paul. They would point to these on-line polls that they were manipulating as an example. I am calling them out on their manipulation.
Calling who out? Giuliani only recieved 4% what do you say on that.
If you base your opinions off aminority in Iowa you have lossed all reason. If you think Huckabee really has a shot you have lost all reason. Iowa means nothing. It may have met something for the Democrats who are doing a popularity contest, but it means nothing to republicans who are still searching for the best answer for the Republican nomination. Your logic is flawed. You will see.
Giuliani has been campaigning in Florida and not much in Iowa. His campaign is failing also. The false claims of major support for Ron Paul will be proven in this election.
Do some research before you post such nonsense! Ron Paul simply has a lot of younger supporters that spend a lot of time online, so the online polls reflect that. GOP tallies are much different and have, from what I've seen, estimated much more accurate numbers. Your statement is foolish at best.
Ron Paul has had to fight for every once of media coverage. the media puts him down constantly. down plays every thing he does. the media has spent months calling him and his supporters kooks and other names. his big fund raising days got relegated to back pages. its really sad what we have had to put up with. meanwhile mike huckabee has 50,60,70 reporters with him no matter where he goes. but when the economy crashes we will know who was right. its not over.
The Iowa caucus results were tallied in 2004 by a company that is headed by a man whose company was bought by Elron Electronics, the Israeli defense firm. I suspect that it will be the same this year. Don't expect to see any grassroots political activists doing the tally in Iowa. The Israeli defense establishment takes care of that part of the American "democratic" election process
Guy, you're way off. The problem is not "unscientific internet polls". Lol.. did you ever stop to think the owners of the media don't want Ron Paul to win? What is more likely, the corporate media lying, or online folks "hijacking" polls. Haha... get real.
Triburner1 6 months ago
QUESTION:
CAN I MANYPULATE THE ELECTIONS JUST BY VOTING FOR RON PAUL????
I HOPE NOT. BECAUSE ... I AM AN HONEST PERSON.I DONT WANT TO MANIPULATE ANYTHING. I JUST WANT TO VOTE FOR RON PAUL.THAT'S ALL MY INTENTIONS LIKE MANY OTHER OUT THERE.
BY THE WAY...I WILL ACTUALLY CHECK OUT THE VIDEO OF RON PAUL WINING THE POLS OF 2011. THE WINING VIDEO IS FROM LAST YEAR 2010.......WHO TO BLAME? FOX NEWS.
CLEAR EXAMPLE THAT THE MEDIA IS RESPONSIBLE. CHECK IT OUT.
Gioxtream 1 year ago
LOL, dude 2 years later, and we are fucked because of morons like you!
Oh and those the votes are rigged Ron should be president but the powers that be and Fucks like you gave us another puppet!
Cendrellcendrell 1 year ago
1st of all- Could you please tell me when Ron Paul got 80% in something? For my own education I would like to know that.
2nd- So people just never change their minds? People can't change who they're voting for? And I'm pretty sure that once all the other candidates were being shown everywhere on the news while Ron Paul was virtually excluded by the media, yeah, his support goes to candidates who are being shown. Unless you have facts that prove that someone did something, how can you accuse?
vincenz5 3 years ago
nerdball New world order braionwashed agent
jeffmo72 3 years ago
Who wons the polls your saying that are real? Bilderberg owns the media and they own Obama and McCain. Your a brainwashed tool for the new world order and don't even know it. He is a real republican and show your proof of manipulating. LOW point is the people like you that think Associated press or Rueters which is woned by the Rothschilds is fair. Do your homework and I'll pray you see truth because that is what Ron Paul is about!
jeffmo72 3 years ago
wait... let me get this straight. is your argument seriously that ron paul supporters have lax moral standards because of a tendency to vote twice on an arbitrary online polling advertisement?... do you know how fucking retarded your argument is? the irony of course is that libertarianism is as much an ethical philosophy as it is a political position. why is it that i only hear libertarians speak of metaphysics and the moral repercussions of political coercion?
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago 3
If Ron Paul Supporters are claiming that they are different than the system that stuffs ballet boxes, than why are they doing it on-line? You don't get to claim your moral when you act just like everyone else.
sabot96 3 years ago
first of all, i havent stuffed any ballot boxes. i am not even old enough to vote and i don't vote on online polls. second of all, i am not asserting that ron paul occultists who actually participate in political elections are not acting immorally. there is no inherent right to sanction unwarranted aggressions. voting is immoral. but voting multiple times in an arbitrary online gallop poll, as much as you want to believe it is, is not immoral. it's just a waste of time.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
wow you are retarded, that is a statement not a question BTW. Ron Paul is the most moral candidate there is, where as people like you hate the idea that your not voting for him but he still has the most support. people like you are the ones without the morals, wake the fuck up!
cmsgt8hewett 3 years ago
With all due respect Sabot I would suggest your conclusion is incorrect. I was actually polled by phone ( 1st time ever)
I was given these options. If you voted today would you vote for Romney,McCain press #3 for other ,press#4 to not be contacted again. I pressed #3. because Paul was not an option. The recorded response was #4. Hence it was an overtly bias poll. Of the 21 polls I checked RP was not an option on 7. With Diebold voting machines I would suggest ALL results must be questioned.
jeffreytrochelman 3 years ago
I'll be blunt - I believe in freedom and you can't have that with opressive laws period. Try arresting George Washington for the Pot he smoked.
But just because we don't think the same... I gotta give you credit for your respect level sir. quite a bit of excitement (expected when you say something like this about one of the only citizens' candidates) on this subject and you have responded on the issue. Props to you sir.
hotrod189824 3 years ago
All the poll freeping and Paulie still didn't win a single state.
CHARESTHEHAMER 4 years ago
Go back to prison.
SCF101090 4 years ago 2
Yeah manipulated votes is a terrible issue. But I think it's especially terrible when electronic voting machines manipulate votes.
sexwithbozscaggs 4 years ago
It's because Ron Paul supporters know that 80% of Americans are sheep like you, Karl Marx
highroller12208 4 years ago 7
So everyone that does not support Ron Paul supports Karl Marx? I think that is the most ignorant statement yet.
sabot96 4 years ago
No, I'm saying YOU are Karl Marx because you seem to be enamoured with socialist ideals... props on the english comprehension by the way...
highroller12208 4 years ago 5
I want to clear up a few things for you. I don't believe in government total ownership of all business. I don't believe in total collective ownership. I am not socialist or communist. What I believe in is managed Capitalism. I also believe that there is a place for public works projects that do not produce a profit that make life better for individuals and capitalistic business.
sabot96 4 years ago
managed capitalism is a clean word that cloaks the word socialism
highroller12208 4 years ago 6
See you tommorrow when they let you out of your cell again.
webovisionca 4 years ago 3
Wow how did you know?
sabot96 4 years ago
The orange jumpsuit gave it away. Just kiddin'
webovisionca 4 years ago
You can feel the ignorance 1 min in. Nothing was hijacked exept our government and the media. They have had these polls in other elections you idiot. What is the difference. The media censors Ron Paul and he still has a huge following. Look at the NH recount and see what happened with the votes that are hand counted. Most the rest of the country is private computer voting so you will see how much trouble they went through to mess with these votes.
hotrod189824 4 years ago
coultn agree wit u more PAUl has his supportes on a leash they sit an text his name for hours jus so they think other will see he won the debates and vote for him they need to realize all smart people know paul wont win
luke12191 4 years ago
Dumbass, have you ever met his campaign staff?
Obviously not.
And what type of logic are you following? It just show that Ron Paul supporters are enthusiastic and someone like McCain's supporters are old farts who don't care about America.
Go loose some weight and improve you IQ of 65.
paulmarv 4 years ago 2
I have not meet his staff. If they are anything as ignorant as you, I think I will pass. If you claim some type of moral leadership than act like it.
sabot96 4 years ago
You're calling me ignorant? Please excuse me while I fall of my chair in deep gales of laughter.
BTW- I have met his staff, and you haven't, so please be educates before you open your mouth.
Go learn English, moron: 'I have not meet his staff'
rofl
And I don't care how you respond, because your wrong, and I know your wrong... okay?
If you want a communist dictatorship, I suggest you move somewhere else.
carmarv1 4 years ago 2
I will educates as best I can in the future moron. I am not wrong. It is clear from your comment that you have not morale leadership, so go crawl under a rock. While you are under that rock enjoy the thought of me being wrong.
sabot96 4 years ago
ooohhh snap! Karl Marx 1, Ron Paul 0
highroller12208 4 years ago
Ron Paul supporters are the most passionate supporters in the history of America's politics. This is why Ron Paul scores high when only the SELF-motivated have to go online or send an SMS.
Those polls are not statistically significant.
But Polls that do not accept Ron Paul as an option,or don't count properly Ron paul's supporters because that will be a problem to the establishment are even less significant. Please watch "hacking democracy" and a few videos about polls before replying..
burritos06 4 years ago
Ron Paul has a huge presence of online support; a lot of his supporters are active on the internet, comparatively more than his rivals. More supporters online, higher percentage of supporters taking these online polls.
It's tantamount to a Senator's state heavily supporting their representative, only rather than a state, it's the internet.
Even if it's an issue of corruption, it's petty compared to the manipulation done by some of the front runners themselves.
jcastorina 4 years ago
Are you kidding me? NO poll is correct nor scientific. ALL of them are bullshit. PERIOD.
LordBLB 4 years ago
Fine. Then do not dishonestly say that the polls that show Ron Paul way ahead of the pack as correct.
sabot96 4 years ago
Funny, I didn't see that in the statement I made...
"Are you kidding me? NO poll is correct nor scientific. ALL of them are bullshit. PERIOD."
Hmm...never said it did I? And don't tell me what I can and can not do. MmmKay pumpkin?
LordBLB 4 years ago
You are responding to my video where that is the statement that I made. I must assume that is what you are taking issue with. I am asking that Ron Paul Supporters not manipulate polls and call them accurate. That is dishonest! If you claim to have moral leadership, that action does not support it.
sabot96 4 years ago
And as your video stated, within the first 13 seconds of it, "Non-Scientific Polls" as you said. I was commenting on the fact that ALL polls are bullshit. Understand now?
Peace
LordBLB 4 years ago 2
omg you are so blind its the exact diffrent the internet polls are truth the real polls are manipulated!
IAMDOPED 4 years ago
This video is for you. The on-line polls do not match reality. Wake up.
sabot96 4 years ago
Have you finished your resume for Fox News yet? - So, taking our 'manipulation of online/phone polling,' how do you explain what's happening in New Hampshire? wouldn't actual vote tampering be a better topic? rather than your silly assumptions?
contrasvoid 4 years ago
I thought something was wrong in NH, but so far the hand counting is matching the results.
sabot96 4 years ago
Ok. The best reason for the difference of poll numbers from online to the state is because when people vote on the online poll it is ALL TOGETHER. ALL STATES. or anywhere in the world. Then for the state poll it probably would be the same or similar to it if you would add all states together.
sconcaf 4 years ago
I am an avid Ron Paul Supporter and we don't manipulate polls. We vote ONLY once each because you cant vote more than that. We are enthusiastic about our candidate than any other's by far. NONE of our money raised comes from anyone but us. We get off our asses and do something about what most people just sit around and complain about and we are WRONG for that? The first Americans fought against tyranny and were labeled radicals by the British...but guess what they are called now "Fore-Fathers"
leroy86r 4 years ago
You are wrong in claiming that these inflated results are reality for the nation, and the true results are just a conspiracy. Ron Paul has limited support, but he did get second in Nevada:14%. Not too bad at all, but not the 80% that some inflated on-line polls say.
sabot96 4 years ago
I think that the tampering with votes is more of a Government-style tactic since they have the control and access to do it without concequence. It's a proven fact that electoral systems/ballots/polls are not tamper-proof, as such elections/exit polls/primaries could have used those methods for decades.
lifestudentno83 4 years ago
Sabot, what I think is that people like myself are very enthusiastic about Ron Paul's message and, like me, they watch and vote in every debate whereas the other candidates do not have such avid supporters. Just my opinion
jayrod59 4 years ago
Thank you for your comment. Very good point. It is possible that the large numbers are just strong grass roots support on-line.
sabot96 4 years ago
you say this with no proof just say it idiot
msegreto2 4 years ago
what's unethical is how the media has you fooled. ron is not the only one who is getting screwed over.
ahowell71 4 years ago
It is actually the other way around you crazy bastard, ron paul supporters are ethical, intelligent, and moral people. It is the media that is manipulating the polls not ron paul supporters!!! Quit trying to spread propoganda about ron paul and his campain.
and by the way HOW are they manipulating the polls? maybe if you can come up with a somewhat intelligent response to that question i will be more respectful on my next post.
etheric101 4 years ago
I am not spreading propaganda. When you see on-line polls that show crazy levels of support for Ron Paul, there is obviously a coordinated effort to boost the level of support. This becomes unethical when claims are made that they are accurate and not manipulated.
sabot96 4 years ago
are you jewish...because the jew owners of the five media companies don't cover paul maybe your in leauge with the jew censors?
msegreto2 4 years ago
you should do the world a BIG favor and put a pistol in your mouth and pull the trigger you childish slob
etheric101 4 years ago
Fuck you. You peace of living shit. Once you pull your head out of your boy friends asshole, maybe you will have something valuable to say.
sabot96 4 years ago
NOT YOU AGAIN! this guy is more of the type of person that probably has some childish grudge against the RP supporters, and i bet most likely he would agree with RP himself with a lot of issues
AnyeongF91 4 years ago
Oh yes me again.
sabot96 4 years ago
You Tool!
UnderseaCaveman 4 years ago
False jocularity, smooth delivery, ignoring the `facts', ad hominum attacks - Yep: we have a paid liar and/or psychopath.
Febrile1 4 years ago
I am not paid, and I am not lying. This video is my opinion.
sabot96 4 years ago
you should work for Fox
devknob 4 years ago
how is casting a vote in an online poll "manipulating" anything? what a moron
thatguybrian 4 years ago 2
how can you say that? Where is your proof? I would like to see it. I dare you :)
Did you know that you can only vote once per phone? I have looked into using the text polls for my business. (see next comment as well)
wakeup2change 4 years ago
It is a really good way to get clear results because you can set it up to only text once. Now if this was set up to text more than once you need to send a video to Fox news and ask them why they are trying to manipulate the vote. I am sure that you will not respond to this, I know you can not prove otherwise.
wakeup2change 4 years ago
gentile slave of jewish media. this is treason. this is a future spy for isreal. keep an eye on him
williampierce2 4 years ago
This is rich: you are accusing the only grassroots entity of this election of "manipulating" the polls.
The mainstream corporate news media really has created a legion of sheep who have completely lost their way.
001bf 4 years ago 2
The real issue is when you manipulate the on-line polls and claim that they are correct. When they are obviously manipulated.
SabotEffect 4 years ago
what proves they are obviously manipulated. Are you a software programmer? A web-site editor? How can you say this? This is most likely your own opinion and not fact. Websites/text message polls allow you to vote only once from one IP Address or one phone number.
Pprovo1 4 years ago
These programmers aren't stupid, they know how to prevent people manipulating and messing with their polls. You just need to realize how many people actually do agree with Ron Paul's message. I know you want an easy excuse like poll manipulation, but thats just untrue.
Pprovo1 4 years ago
So the polls that say Ron Paul has 80% support are not manipulated? No one has 80% support. On-line polls can be manipulated just by having a lot of friends all go and vote who normally don't go to a site. The key to a statistically accurate poll is a random sample.
sabot96 4 years ago
Yeah but why could they not vote for Ron Paul? isn't it moral to gon and vote for the candidate you want, that's the only thing. If other candidates supporters do not vote on these polls, it's not RP supporters fault, aren't the other supporters moraly wrong not to vote on the online polls? Your rethoric is stupid! And random sample... look at the P&T vid on F. Luntz!
expatdk 4 years ago
Or maybe you can say the election's result is a fraud and cheat?
abn233 4 years ago
And BTW, what is the matter with being politically involved - if more people in this country got involved the politicians would have to listen, but instead our civil liberties are being lost..
RP 2008
kroms001 4 years ago
OOOhhhhhh... you watch TV, the media... sorry, your argument is invalid - you have been manipulated... The media has swayed you, you have been sheepified.
kroms001 4 years ago
You should check out the Florida straw poll that Romney's supporters rigged.
txnwinterbride 4 years ago
I know that not many people know about Ron Paul yet, but those people don't care about any of the other candidates, so they don't bother to vote online or anywhere else, only Ron Paul's supporters actually believe in their candidate and truly care about the results, that is why he always wins the polls, not because of some conspiracy.
n8glenn 4 years ago
We just vote on ron paul when we see polls. How is that manipulating results? We have as much right to vote in an online poll as you do. By the way, making conclusions about what all of america thinks based on Iowa seems a bit of a stretch to me. Iowa is one state out of fifty. If you look at the straw polls, Ron Paul has absolutely dominated them, and historically straw polls have been the best indicator of who will win.
n8glenn 4 years ago 2
I have no problem with Ron Paul supporters voting in on-line Polls. Just don't claim that the media is covering up the true massive support for Ron Paul when you are just a minority. Ron Paul Supporters do not make up 80% of the population.
sabot96 4 years ago
Of course not, we don't claim to be. We just make the claim that there are many of us out there and we are very passionate in our support for Ron Paul because it is guided by a support for our constitution and our freedom. We claim that the media covers Ron Paul less than any other candidate, and that they constantly imply that voting for him is useless, which subverts democracy.
n8glenn 4 years ago 2
I know you don't like Ron Paul supporters but if you could get past your distaste for us for a minute and do some research on Dr. Paul you might see why we are so fanatical, you might not change your mind, but you might understand us a little better.
n8glenn 4 years ago 2
Ron Paul is the modern day Ross Perot. No, I don't mean idealogically, just in terms of his viability as a candidate. (Wow, I never noticed, even their initials are the same!)
NorCalCorsello 4 years ago
You're shifty.
Stop making videos if you're going to be a dumbass
Rantandreason 4 years ago
It is kind of hard to be shifty when I state my opinion so clearly.
sabot96 4 years ago
I guess it would have ben better if we Ron Paul Suppporters would have been a big coorporation, so we could me "moral' when we vote in a poll.
RP..08
RundoeTX
rundoetx 4 years ago 4
It would be better to admit that you have limited support and then build that support over time. Like Ron Paul did in Iowa. He had double the support of Rudy Giuliani.
sabot96 4 years ago
we are growing every day
RP..08
RundoeTX
rundoetx 4 years ago 2
Not very true Im afraid, we have evidence of the opposite, the establishment has been the ones manipulating the elections, look up vote fraud, and look at the evidence the mainstream media will not give anyone. did you know that flashable eeproms for 1200 voting systems came up "missing" 3 weeks before the caucus? look it up for yourself!
terrac1de 4 years ago 2
Almost no computers used in Iowa. Sorry that theory does not work in this case.
sabot96 4 years ago
Paul's people are the ones truly concerned and actively engaged in politics. They go on the internet seeking information about the best choice for America, and they come across these polls. Therefore the results you get are from the people who understand the issues. Then when its caucus time, the sheeple come out in droves to vote for someone who's hair they like!
RonPaulMall 4 years ago 2
There is nothing wrong will being concerned and actively engaged. The problem I have is the false claims of major support when that does not exist at this time.
sabot96 4 years ago
Sabot:
I don't know what planet you're posting from, but NO reputable, serious national poll has ever had Ron Paul at "80%". No reputable national poll ever had ANY presidential candidate at "80%". Who cares about dumb "online polls"? So what? Stop gathering your political info from informal online polling.
willtom27 4 years ago
I know none of the national polls said that Ron Paul was at 80%. I never claimed that national polls said that. What I said is that the Ron Paul Supporters manipulated the online polls and then claimed that the national polls were not accurate because look at these on-line polls that show so much support for him.
sabot96 4 years ago
just cause ron paul supporters are enthusiastic and actually vote online in the polls doesn't mean that they manipulated them
illicon 4 years ago 3
Which is it- he's only polling in low single digits nationally and therefore has no chance, or he got 10% in Iowa from a small percentage of bodies who voted, and it's all the spammers' fault?
Four days, my friend: New Hampshire Primary. I hope you'll be watching.
Schmauey 4 years ago
10% is much better than what I thought he would get, but 10% is what the scientific polls had him at for Iowa. My source for the Polls was Potus 08 on XM Radio.
sabot96 4 years ago
Also, Iowa is just one state, and it has never been a strong Ron Paul state (online or in the polls). Bill Clinton only got 3% of the vote in the '92 Iowa caucus, yet he became President. So a lot still remains to be seen. Thanks for the articulate discussion.
FlamRatamacues 4 years ago
I thank you for your thoughts. I may turn out to be wrong in the long run. The real lesson that I learned was the non-online polling proved to be correct in Iowa. They had Ron Paul at 10% before the Iowa caucus and that is what he got.
sabot96 4 years ago
I appreciate the general comments on this video. But it's really not a matter of being moral or immoral. All that the online polls show is that Ron Paul tends to get 80% of the vote from those who vote in online polls. Just because the other candidates don't have the same online support doesn't mean that Ron Paul supporters are to blame for actually voting.
FlamRatamacues 4 years ago
I know on-line polls are not accurate, but the Ron Paul supporters have been saying that they are accurate even when they are using grassroots efforts to stack the numbers.
sabot96 4 years ago
sabot96, I defy you to offer proof on the following,
1. Polls that are not online etc are scientific.
2. The voting system used over the phone electronically could not be manipulated.
3. The caucus in Iowa represents the opinion nationwide.
4. That Ron Paul supporters are trying to manipulate results... a far cry from your claim of online poll manipulation. Which does not make sense, since others would also have tried to manipulate polls following your logic.
divinacomedias 4 years ago
1. Most non-online Polls are required to give their statistical accuracy. On-line polls are not because they are not accurate.
2. They can be, but they start with a random sample.
3. The caucus does represent Iowa.
4. The difference is Ron Paul Supporters have been saying that true support is being covered up, and it is not.
sabot96 4 years ago
hey sabot, didn't they just pass a law that you people are not allowed to use the internet anymore? better watch your parole officer does not see this
sig147 4 years ago
I cleared it with him first. :)
sabot96 4 years ago
Are you crazy?!?!?! Manipulate? I think you mean try to win. So does that mean that if Huckabee doesn't win New Hampshire, then he manipulated Iowa?
dingusmungus 4 years ago 2
check mate :)
wakeup2change 4 years ago 2
I think you mean win through making false claims.
sabot96 4 years ago
lose some weight fat ass nazi faggot
joes805 4 years ago
I will get right on that.
sabot96 4 years ago
Or maybe not all of Ron Paul's supporters are registered Republican? Say manipulate a few more times. Fool.
onilim 4 years ago 2
I call it like I see it.
sabot96 4 years ago
You show some intelligence. Please look up election fraud. Check out who made the voting machines, and who is related to them. Also, people online are younger. How many old people do you know that take part in online polls? Most people are zombies who watch the mass media all day. It is not the Ron Paul supporters, trust me. I have met so many, and they are the most honest and dignified people that I know politically. Broaden your horizons.
funkalishous 4 years ago 3
They did not use election machines in Iowa. Ron Paul supporters may be young, but if they don't vote it really does not matter who they are.
sabot96 4 years ago
Sabot, your brave to tackle any issues on religion are politics, because as you can see from the comments about 50% will not be on your side. There is a lot of manipulation in politics. msNBC and NBC were saying McCain would be 1st or 2nd in Iowa. they are clearly supporting him. Next, did you know that over 20 preachers in Iowa received letters from unknown saying they would go to jail for supporting Huckabee.
dragonarmy86 4 years ago
I heard that someone was sending the wrong directions to the caucuses to Huckabee supporters. Politics is one tough thing. Nice to hear from you!
sabot96 4 years ago
How retarded is this douche? The debate is viewed nation wide. So everyone votes, not just people from IOWA. All the polls online showed is that more of Paul's supporters took the time to vote. How is this immoral retard?
nothingtoliveupto 4 years ago 2
No it shows that with the first vote of this election process, Ron Paul is not at an 80% support level.
sabot96 4 years ago
One last comment: Though most people understand Ron Paul has no chance of winning the actual presidency, Paul can INFLUENCE both cons & libs alike to get back to their roots of small government & the Constitution. A person like Ron Paul is very liberating. He reminds us that the current republican party is a party of big government (thank you, neo-cons) & has been hijacked by biblical social moralists who place the Bible above the Constitution. Ron Paul is a throwback to authentic conservatism.
willtom27 4 years ago 3
Iowa is one state...bad conclusion....do another video after New Hampshire.MSM is manipulating the vote..they are the immoral ones... get off your high horse and open your eyes
mike6459 4 years ago 3
Are you kidding me!?! Dude it was just iowa. How can you conclude manipulation from one caucus results.
Neicco 4 years ago 3
I've registered to vote for the first time to vote for Ron Paul, and vote for him I will even If It's writing him In. iowa Is one state full of old, set in thier way corn farmers who are 60% evangelical. Thats the only way the huckster did so well. The Ghoul Is supposed to be a front runner, and Dr Paul destroyed him. He will do much better in the live free or die state. Paul has the money to go the long haul. Huck, Thompson and McCain Is broke. I'm 38 years old, and I support Ron Paul.
dsteenbock 4 years ago 4
All very true statements.
sabot96 4 years ago
Sabot. others: The MSM is not over-estimateing the viability of R.P. Nobody thinks Paul is going to win. But Paul has proved there is a very wide libertarian streak running this country.
And, yes, Iowa IS important. It is one piece in this primary puzzle. Obama has great momentum now. Evangelicals heavily came out for Huckabee (but the NEXT primary in N.H. has very few evangelicals & Huckabee will do poorly).
willtom27 4 years ago
Also Sabot (again): I re-listened to your vid. You do not seem to have a firm grasp of the political process. Paul supporters "manipulating online polls" (which are not very significant to begin with) does not translate into a "moral" or "immoral" issue. A highly motivated faction of the electorate trying to manipulate or sway opinion is part of the process.
willtom27 4 years ago 2
It is not moral to boost a poll through what ever means are used and than claim that they are accurate.
sabot96 4 years ago
Yeah so which polls are the accurate ones?
Why would Ron Paul supporters boost a poll, and others not?
Wild alegations, and then making a much more serious one based on those without any foundations.
The validity of any voting system must verifiable and verified.
divinacomedias 4 years ago
Dude you are an idiot. If you think Iowa means a thing you are crazy... Could you please tell me again how many delegates come from Iowa. You opened your cake hole a little soon.
Are Rudy Guilianis numbers manipulated? 4%?
BrockTee 4 years ago
Guiliani is a failing candidate.
sabot96 4 years ago
Nonscientific polls? How do you know this? Who are "they"?Because you trust the caucus results,right? Who doesn't go out and try to change opinions?Your doing it now!Am I to conclude you are dishonest?Watch your video again and find out how many irrational thoughts you espouse. Your logic is flawed terribly. Don't be a parrot and repeat everything you hear!! Think for yourself.How did they "Manipulate" the results in earlier polls?
cryptoenigmatist 4 years ago 2
on-line polls are not scientific because they do not begin with a random sample. I trust the caucus results more than an on-line poll, because these are the real results. No more guessing needed on who is going to show up to vote.
sabot96 4 years ago
Well, the on-line polls don´t make any claims as to being scientific.
Please read my question again, prove what you imply by your claim that:
Polls that are not online etc are scientific.
divinacomedias 4 years ago 2
I haven't met a Ron Paul supporter that I would call dishonest in any way. Polls are polls and it depends on where it's conducted (on line or focus group) and how the questions are asked. In fact depending on the day of the week, the same group might poll different from one day to the next. Iowa vote seem to me to be honest and I watched it on CSPAN. I was disapointed but not surprised.
Boomer1949 4 years ago
The main thing I am addressing is the claims that Ron Paul has this major support that is being suppressed. That does not seem to be the case.
sabot96 4 years ago
"Ron Paul has this major support that is being suppressed"
Who made this claim?
divinacomedias 4 years ago
Many candidates that stand out from the rest have been suppressed in the past by the media.
Watch the documentary called spin.
Also, for example you can go to the BBC website (a supposedly public media) and see who´s names come out on the coverage of the presidential election run-up.
I think that´s one piece of proof/evidence versus your null, correct me if I am wrong.
divinacomedias 4 years ago
Oh my... Manipulation of the polls? Half of which didn't even have him as a candidate? What about the media who interrupt him, or say he has no chance, and now exclude him in NH?
what if this were happening to whomever you support? What about CNN and Fox having focus groups of 20 people and acting as if they represent the nation? Or about Fox interviewing him with "Paul supported by strippers" running underneath his name? Come off it man.
hmfmi 4 years ago 2
It does not change the manipulation by whatever means that were used. Grassroots or whatever. If you claim a higher standard you have to live by that.
sabot96 4 years ago
Why does there have to be manipulation? It's common knowledge that there are more of Dr. Paul's voters online than anyone else. That means, that precentage wise, he would get the most votes, online. No manipulation needed. Oh, and btw, even the media is saying that he did really good for Iowa, better than they expected. Oh and don't forget he beat the person that the media was saying that the "polls" were projecting as the front runner for Iowa! Guess you can't trust any of the polls :)
wakeup2change 4 years ago
First of all, your claims are unsubstantiated. You are comparing national online polls to a caucus in rural Iowa, there is no comparison. What voters in 1 state may do is in no way a reflection of people across the nation. My previous post was to point out to you that if you want to talk about manipulation, please keep it real and point out any and all manipulation.
hmfmi 4 years ago
Even the major candidates are not pulling in an 80% rating, so it is quite obvious that the on-line polls are manipulated.
sabot96 4 years ago
I don't know what polls you are talking about but there is always the possibility of manipulation.
The "major" candidates are taking votes from each other, they are basically the same, this drives up the numbers of the other candidate that stands for real difference. Also, as others have posted, many informed internet users are for Ron Paul the same as people who are polled on land lines tend to lean a different way. Lets remember that polls don't take place via cell that I know of.
hmfmi 4 years ago
I never voted for any poll more than once. Do not question my values! Ron Paul was not expected to win Iowa, but even the media are saying that he did way better than they expected.
wakeup2change 4 years ago 4
I question the false claims of Ron Paul supporters that the on-line polls that showed him leading were accurate and not manipulated.
sabot96 4 years ago
Guy its Iowa, The only Manipulation is from Fox Noise in where Ron Paul beat the "former" Media darling rudolf Giuliani. Consider this that only 2 Presidents that win Iowa has ever won the Presidentcy, Overwhileming support FOR Huckabee were from Evangelicals (70%) in were Ron paul was not running the Religious platform. Iowans Spend OUR tax money on Corn Subsidies for which Ron Paul disaproves. All considerd 10% in Iowa is a HUG step forward (Obama scares me though)
memelito 4 years ago
Ron Paul has always had about 10% of the republican (& independanr/democratic) base.
Sabot: You got this one wrong. Nobody is being "manipulated". Paul's voters just tend to be more motivated & inspired than with politics-as-usual candidates. There is nothing wrong with getting your message out aggressively.
PS I'm not a Paul supporter. But I see their passion everywhere.
willtom27 4 years ago
Also: The Paul supporters that come out of the woodwork to flood the online polls & stand on streetcorners with signs & literature are not a sign of "manipulation", but dedication. Remember, did blacks "manipulate" (as you might say) the system in the 1950's by not sitting in the back of the bus? Or were they fighting for change? Sometimes you have to get a little aggressive for change.
willtom27 4 years ago 2
I am responding to the claim that Ron Paul supporters have been making that the media is hiding the actual support level for Ron Paul. They would point to these on-line polls that they were manipulating as an example. I am calling them out on their manipulation.
sabot96 4 years ago
Calling who out? Giuliani only recieved 4% what do you say on that.
If you base your opinions off aminority in Iowa you have lossed all reason. If you think Huckabee really has a shot you have lost all reason. Iowa means nothing. It may have met something for the Democrats who are doing a popularity contest, but it means nothing to republicans who are still searching for the best answer for the Republican nomination. Your logic is flawed. You will see.
BrockTee 4 years ago 3
Giuliani has been campaigning in Florida and not much in Iowa. His campaign is failing also. The false claims of major support for Ron Paul will be proven in this election.
sabot96 4 years ago
Do some research before you post such nonsense! Ron Paul simply has a lot of younger supporters that spend a lot of time online, so the online polls reflect that. GOP tallies are much different and have, from what I've seen, estimated much more accurate numbers. Your statement is foolish at best.
robrrash 4 years ago 5
Ron Paul has had to fight for every once of media coverage. the media puts him down constantly. down plays every thing he does. the media has spent months calling him and his supporters kooks and other names. his big fund raising days got relegated to back pages. its really sad what we have had to put up with. meanwhile mike huckabee has 50,60,70 reporters with him no matter where he goes. but when the economy crashes we will know who was right. its not over.
infundadiform 4 years ago 5
Ron Paul is a minor candidate. He receives the media coverage his 10% earns him.
sabot96 4 years ago
Dude its just Iowa
boooshi 4 years ago 6
Ha ha ha. Good point.
sabot96 4 years ago
where have you seen these polls cause I not noticed any such bullshit
SPACE3200 4 years ago 2
Ron Paul ended up with 10% of the vote. CBS took down polls that had Ron Paul at 80%. There were many other on-line polls that had the same issue.
sabot96 4 years ago
The Iowa caucus results were tallied in 2004 by a company that is headed by a man whose company was bought by Elron Electronics, the Israeli defense firm. I suspect that it will be the same this year. Don't expect to see any grassroots political activists doing the tally in Iowa. The Israeli defense establishment takes care of that part of the American "democratic" election process
SPACE3200 4 years ago