Paultards crack me up. After the debate tonight I checked the online MSNBC poll and voted. When I got the results I totally laughed. RP, who can only manage 4% in national polls, wins all the online polls?? Ha, just shows what a joke online polling is. RP had the lowest amount of questions and face time tonight, yet he stood out? Puhleeease. RP had the best one-liner??? He didn't even have a one liner all night. Go ahead, keep drinking the Kool-aide. RP did nothing again tonight and just cried his 1000 rivers about being the only conservative of the group. Yeah yeah, cry me a river RP. Overall, Mitt stood out the best tonight with McCain/Huck tied for second. Giuliani is dead meat. Nice slap at the end with the perfectly timed NY Times endorsement of McCain and slanderous accusations against Rudy. I'm sure the NY Times guys are saying "all too easy..."
Meh, the internet is a very libertarian place, and that is the leaning of many of its heavy users. Not so much BS and spamming as much as a different demographic. If you only polled people who read the newspaper for news, it would be different results, if you only polled the South. It's all demographics, not spamming. Get over it.
Nice RP bashing post GTech. Doh!!! It's not GT but his doppleganger and latest Crazy Gang member LMFAO
Okay, I'm not a Ron Paul supporter... don't agree with his views to be honest. However, just because someone received little air time during a debate doesn't mean he's "un-worthy" of a high rating on online polls. Look at Kucinich and how he polled after the debates! Also, I would more suspect poll spamming with numbers like the following: Who had the best one-liner? * 21278 responses Rudy Giuliani 0.1% Mike Huckabee 0.1% John McCain 0.1% Ron Paul 99.6% Mitt Romney 0.1% than the actual polling percentages as you've stated above: Who had the best one-liner? * 21278 responses Rudy Giuliani 3.9% Mike Huckabee 26% John McCain 7.6% Ron Paul 42% Mitt Romney 21% By saying "RP had the lowest amount of questions and face time tonight, yet he stood out? Puhleeease," you're conceding that candidates with more air time are more deserving of higher poll outcomes. You bash people for having a positive opinion of their candidate Ron Paul and how he performed in the debates, by calling them "Paultards," yet you state your opinion, "Mitt stood out the best tonight." If your opinion is so much greater, why aren't the online polls showing this?
RP was virtually ignored and when he was asked a question, our favorite crazy uncle just did his anti-Empire building rant. I'm being objective that RP brought nothing to the table again and was virtually ignored, yet the Paultards scammed the poll to make it look like RP won the debate. What I'm bashing is blind allegiance. If I actually thought RP won the debate, even though he is a loon, I'd say so. What I can't stand is when RP clearly brings nothing to the table in the debate and then the RP autobots just say he won, he had the best one-liner, etc. They made him win in every category! And yes, that does get a "Puhleease!". These Ronbots that claim we are all just sheeple can't even admit that RP did NOT make the best impression or have the best one-liner (he didn't even try a one-liner!!!!). It's about intellectual honesty. What is pathetic is that Paultards want to make it appear that RP has more support than he does. When Paultards are reduced to being dishonest and scamming polls, they betray the very fact that RP is unelectable and their only hope in winning is to rig the vote. Thank God the American people can see through the poll scamming and hand Ron Paul a resounding 4% vote in National Polls.
Who stood out from the pack? Whether you like Ron Paul or not the idea that any one but him stands out from the pack is absolutely absurd. Get real. The warmonger candidates are basically interchangeable. Paul is the only one who truly says anything different on almost any topic that is brought up.
So standing out from the pack means blabbering Demo-quaeda talking points? RP comes across as an angry, bitter old man. He uses his precious few minutes of national air time to scold the other candidates and when he talks on foreign policy, his approval ratings fall off the chart negative. Yet, Paultards want Americans to think he won the debate. An objective assessment of the debate could not possibly give RP a win last night.
Perhaps not. But that you call his supporters 'Tards, and complain that he has not support, when his fund raising clearly backs up his online polling, well, then I think you're just trying to harass and coerce. As far as scamming NBC polls, it's already been proven that the polls are not scammed, but dominated. One of the CNBC editors owned up to that several debates back, after making false accusations that Paulunteers were somehow cheating the system. As far as contributing, you need to go back 6 or 7 debates, and see how each of the candidates has taken a portion of Paul's platform, and incorporated those bits into their own. Not to mention, the GOP is hemorrhaging members, and Paul is the only one driving new registrations in the party. Dare I say, without Ron Paul and his growth of the base, and fund raising records, this election could be the end of the Republican party. Read the papers. No one (even in the party) is enthusiastic about Romney, McCain or Giuliani.
Ron Paul supporters are not scamming online polls or any other polls, they are just far more dedicated than the supporters of the other candidates who just don't bother to participate in such polls, just like they don't bother to send them any money. Looking at Ron Paul's fund raising you can see that he has more dedicated supporters than the other Republican candidates by far. The other Republican candidates do not inspire anyone, not even their biggest supporters, how could they? They represent nothing. Certainly so many people vote for candidates based on the most trivial/superficial notions such as "electability" and "appearing presidential" that it's difficult to overcome the mainstream candidates in the elections but these sorts of people who may vote in the elections may also not be interested enough to take part in these sorts of debate polls, or be excited enough to actually send money in. As far as how Ron Paul comes across, that's your opinion and you have every right to it. Certainly that's not how I see it. I see it as the other candidates all being for an extremely unpopular war and then somehow people make the claim that they are more electable? I don't see how any pro-war candidate is going to have a chance in the general election. I see Ron Paul as the only Republican with any real answers to the problems facing this country. The other candidates say as little as they possibly can with as many words as they can possibly use. They represent nothing but politics as usual.