CNBC Cans Debate Poll Because Ron Paul Was Leading
CNBC pulled an online poll 25 minutes after last night’s GOP debate, reasoning that “one candidate” was leading by a large margin – that candidate was, of course, Ron Paul.
As the following video shows, Ron Paul was ahead of the pack by a large margin, before the poll was unceremoniously pulled from the CNBC site altogether and replaced with a generic article titled “Who won the debate – Attendees weigh in”
CNBC Managing Editor Allen Wastler issued the following statement explaining the reason the poll was removed:
Gamed Poll…So We Took It Down
We had a poll up from our Republican Presidential Debate asking readers who they thought won. One candidate was leading by such a margin that it became obvious the polling wasn’t so much a reading of our audience, but of the Internet prowess of this particular candidate’s political organization. We have therefore taken the poll down. Yes, we’ve gone through this exercise before.
Wastler included a link to a previous statement from 2007, where exactly the same thing happened.
In an “open letter to the Ron Paul faithful”, Wastler sardonically exclaimed “Congratulations. You folks are obviously well-organized and feel strongly about your candidate and I can’t help but admire that. But you also ruined the purpose of the poll. It was no longer an honest “show of hands” — it suddenly was a platform for beating the Ron Paul drum.” Wastler added.
Of course, CNBC provides no actual proof that the latest poll was “gamed”.
...
As we have previously documented, it seems that a poll is only deemed legitimate by the mainstream media if Ron Paul doesn’t win it. If Paul is successful, the poll is automatically considered null and void.
This is to be expected given the fact that there is an admitted media talking point to ignore Ron Paul’s campaign and try and write him off entirely.
The mainstream media sponsored debates are a prime example. A University of Minnesota study recently confirmed the fact that Ron Paul has been given the least time to speak OUT OF ALL THE CANDIDATES at the debates, despite national polls consistently proving he is a genuine top tier candidate.
------------------ Read my Earthship thread in Totally O/T si vis pacem, para bellum
"The said constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams
What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is so hard to understand?!
This is the kind of stuff he's been dealing with all along. Also notice that whenever Romney or Cain wins a poll its a big deal, throw a party. But let Dr Paul win and suddenly they are meaningless and carry no relevence. I swear they aren't even trying to appear unbiased any more.
The worst part is that the sheeple will eat up everything the mainstream media feeds them. The blatantly partisan politics combined combined with a news sources only trying to push their agendas makes it hard to be proud of America these days.
IP: Logged
11:31 PM
Nov 11th, 2011
Wichita Member
Posts: 20709 From: Wichita, Kansas Registered: Jun 2002
The fact is that Ron Paul bots slam polls. I'm sorry but they do, especially online version where it is easy to slam polls.
When you have professional pollsters conducting them Ron Paul is always behind in the pack. But Online polls shows them always way ahead of ever other candidates. You can call it a conspiracy by the main stream media or whatever, but Ron Paul online polls will NEVER translate to real votes in the Primaries and Caucasus, because they are slammed by his bots.
IP: Logged
12:02 AM
OKflyboy Member
Posts: 6607 From: Not too far from Mexico Registered: Nov 2004
The fact is that Ron Paul bots slam polls. I'm sorry but they do, especially online version where it is easy to slam polls.
When you have professional pollsters conducting them Ron Paul is always behind in the pack. But Online polls shows them always way ahead of ever other candidates. You can call it a conspiracy by the main stream media or whatever, but Ron Paul online polls will NEVER translate to real votes in the Primaries and Caucasus, because they are slammed by his bots.
And the polls that limit an individual IP to one vote? Those are still slammed by paulbots?
IP: Logged
12:08 AM
Wichita Member
Posts: 20709 From: Wichita, Kansas Registered: Jun 2002
The fact is that Ron Paul bots slam polls. I'm sorry but they do, especially online version where it is easy to slam polls.
When you have professional pollsters conducting them Ron Paul is always behind in the pack. But Online polls shows them always way ahead of ever other candidates. You can call it a conspiracy by the main stream media or whatever, but Ron Paul online polls will NEVER translate to real votes in the Primaries and Caucasus, because they are slammed by his bots.
This may or may not be true, but the fact is that Paul has won straw polls all over the country, and many were legitimate polls, not just internet polls. When he does, the media ignores it, or claim that they are meaningless. But if Romney or Cain win a poll, then they mean everything and it's a great shot in the arm for that particular camp. Paul won by a W-I-D-E margin here in Ohio, (an in-person hand ballot poll) and there was barely a word spoken. Whenever something happens politically in Ohio, it's hailed as some kind of bellwether for the rest of the country. But Paul kicks everyone's ass in the straw poll here, and it's meaningless? It's like I said before, the media isn't even pretending to be unbiased any more.
Ron Paul supporters tweet, FB and everything about an online poll and ask them to vote for Ron. Most never even watch the CNBC debate for instance or listen to Bill O'Reily's townehall straw poll for which he disqualified Ron Paul's votes also.
IP: Logged
11:38 AM
OKflyboy Member
Posts: 6607 From: Not too far from Mexico Registered: Nov 2004
Ron Paul supporters tweet, FB and everything about an online poll and ask them to vote for Ron. Most never even watch the CNBC debate for instance or listen to Bill O'Reily's townehall straw poll for which he disqualified Ron Paul's votes also.
So my question to you is - if a poll limits a voter to one vote per IP, and assuming that means that a person can and doesonly vote once, how is a paulbot "slamming" the poll enough to invalidate the results? Isn't a "paulbot slam" a result in and of itself. It speaks to the organization of Dr. Paul's supporters, no?
I've voted in these types of polls, and it usually goes something like this - Online poll created, Paul supporter votes, then posts of Facebook to let his fellow Paul supporters know that they should vote too. Paul supporters, being very dedicated to their candidate vote, then spread the work further ad up go Paul's votes. Isn't word of mouth considered an effective medium any longer? How is spreading the word to your like-minded voters that they, too, should vote in this poll cause for invalidation?
So Dr Paul's supporters are better organized. How is this any different then how an actual election works? Should we, as Americans, be allowed invalidate Obama simply because Obama ran a very well organized campaign and therefore more Obama supporters turned up at the polls? Boy that's unfair, isn't it? I mean, those Obama supporters shouldn't be allowed to skew the results of an election simply by <gasp> voting for their candidate of choice! To modify CNBC Wastler's words “Congratulations [Obama Supporters]. You folks are obviously well-organized and feel strongly about your candidate and I can’t help but admire that. But you also ruined the purpose of the [election]. It was no longer an honest “show of hands” — it suddenly was a platform for beating the [Barack Obama] drum”?
[This message has been edited by OKflyboy (edited 11-11-2011).]
So my question to you is - if a poll limits a voter to one vote per IP, and assuming that means that a person can and doesonly vote once, how is a paulbot "slamming" the poll enough to invalidate the results? Isn't a "paulbot slam" a result in and of itself. It speaks to the organization of Dr. Paul's supporters, no?
I've voted in these types of polls, and it usually goes something like this - Online poll created, Paul supporter votes, then posts of Facebook to let his fellow Paul supporters know that they should vote too. Paul supporters, being very dedicated to their candidate vote, then spread the work further ad up go Paul's votes. Isn't word of mouth considered an effective medium any longer? How is spreading the word to your like-minded voters that they, too, should vote in this poll cause for invalidation?
So Dr Paul's supporters are better organized. How is this any different then how an actual election works? Should we, as Americans, be allowed invalidate Obama simply because Obama ran a very well organized campaign and therefore more Obama supporters turned up at the polls? Boy that's unfair, isn't it? I mean, those Obama supporters shouldn't be allowed to skew the results of an election simply by <gasp> voting for their candidate of choice! To modify CNBC Wastler's words “Congratulations [Obama Supporters]. You folks are obviously well-organized and feel strongly about your candidate and I can’t help but admire that. But you also ruined the purpose of the [election]. It was no longer an honest “show of hands” — it suddenly was a platform for beating the [Barack Obama] drum”?
The polls were about who they thought won the debate. If you didn't watch it then you shouldn't vote. Most of the people who voted for Ron on the online poll were not watching the debate.
Yes, you are right that many Ron Paul supporters are much more loyal and dedicated to his candidacy than other candidates. But they still constitute a fraction of the Republican electorate. So when it comes to professional polling, he may get in 4th place behind Newt and Perry. Basically he doesn't really have a chance.
Dennis Kucinich is the Democrat version of Ron Paul. He also has loyal supporters that come out in droves and vote on online polls and are organized. But then at the end, Dennis is still a fringe candidate.
I understand you Paul lovers are very dedicated and passionate. Barry Brats (Own Wall Street) are also very dedicated and passionate, but your candidate doesn't stand a chance to win.
What gets me is why you guys are. I like Ron Paul, don't get me wrong. Hell, I'm a Libertarian and agree with a lot what he says. But I NEVER dedicate my life to anybody else nor put passion behind anybody. I don't suck male chicken, ok! And when you go about saying that Ron Paul is being lambasted in the media and is winning straw polls and the media is pulling a conspiracy to take him down and that Ron Paul is actually the leading candidate in the Republican field and that Ron Paul will be the winner, to me you are disillusioned or sucking male chicken.
Think for yourselves and never give a person that much loyalty or faith. Be real!
[This message has been edited by Wichita (edited 11-11-2011).]
IP: Logged
09:40 PM
OKflyboy Member
Posts: 6607 From: Not too far from Mexico Registered: Nov 2004
The polls were about who they thought won the debate. If you didn't watch it then you shouldn't vote. Most of the people who voted for Ron on the online poll were not watching the debate.
Yes, you are right that many Ron Paul supporters are much more loyal and dedicated to his candidacy than other candidates. But they still constitute a fraction of the Republican electorate. So when it comes to professional polling, he may get in 4th place behind Newt and Perry. Basically he doesn't really have a chance.
Dennis Kucinich is the Democrat version of Ron Paul. He also has loyal supporters that come out in droves and vote on online polls and are organized. But then at the end, Dennis is still a fringe candidate.
I understand you Paul lovers are very dedicated and passionate. Barry Brats (Own Wall Street) are also very dedicated and passionate, but your candidate doesn't stand a chance to win.
What gets me is why you guys are. I like Ron Paul, don't get me wrong. Hell, I'm a Libertarian and agree with a lot what he says. But I NEVER dedicate my life to anybody else nor put passion behind anybody. I don't suck male chicken, ok! And when you go about saying that Ron Paul is being lambasted in the media and is winning straw polls and the media is pulling a conspiracy to take him down and that Ron Paul is actually the leading candidate in the Republican field and that Ron Paul will be the winner, to me you are disillusioned or sucking male chicken.
Think for yourselves and never give a person that much loyalty or faith. Be real!
Ahem... sucking male chicken... interesting way of putting it. anyway...
"Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance" is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is those of you who continue to beat that drum that make it so. It is the media with their Overton Window that enforce that notion. (Yes, I am aware that there is novel by the same name by a certain conservative talk radio host, don't let that cloud your judgement, the Overton window was around a long time before he wrote any books). You may label it a conspiracy if you wish, but it does not make it any less true. Control the language, control to debate. Say at least 10 times a day on each network that Ron Paul is unelectable and the numbers he's showing are all a result of cheating fanboys, the masses will repeat it and believe it.
You say you don't know why I would support the man as fervently as I do. I'll make it clear, its real and it has nothing to do with male chickens.
He is the ONLY CANDIDATE that supports the Constitution. I want a return to our founding document as the law of the land. I want a president who runs EVERY action through a Constitutional filter. EVERY action. Dr. Paul has pledged to do just that. He is the only one. If Perry or Romney could make that claim I would support them equally, unfortunately charts like this show us where the Constitution stands with the other candidates:
[This message has been edited by OKflyboy (edited 11-11-2011).]
IP: Logged
10:41 PM
Wichita Member
Posts: 20709 From: Wichita, Kansas Registered: Jun 2002
He is the ONLY CANDIDATE that supports the Constitution. I want a return to our founding document as the law of the land. I want a president who runs EVERY action through a Constitutional filter. EVERY action. Dr. Paul has pledged to do just that. He is the only one.
That is your opinion.
The founding documents, the Constitution is the law of the land as you say. You do know that the Constitution has been amended 27 times, with the last one back in 1992.
There is differences in the interpretation of the Constitution, so that is where it is in our government system. Every President in the history of the United States, included Barack (who is a Constitutional Lawyer) has ran everything through a Constitutional filter.
Ron Paul has views that have nothing to do with the Constitution, such as Non-intervention.
Plus Ron Paul disagrees with the Constitution and has propose that an amendment be ratified in order to change it. (So much for founding documents). What I'm talking about is in particular that people born in the USA from illegal aliens be given automatic citizenship. That is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT! But Ron Paul wants to change it.
Paul also introduced the Flag Desecration Constitutional Amendment, because he believes that the desecration of the Flag of the United States of America should be a criminal act (so much for Free Speech).
Paul also believes that Juries should be allowed to interpret the laws along with just judging the facts, basically wants to get rid of the judicial system (a contrary to our Constitution.)
So he isn't your peach! Or perfect person who is the ONLY person who backs the founding documents, most all Presidential candidates do.
IP: Logged
11:16 PM
PFF
System Bot
OKflyboy Member
Posts: 6607 From: Not too far from Mexico Registered: Nov 2004
The founding documents, the Constitution is the law of the land as you say. You do know that the Constitution has been amended 27 times, with the last one back in 1992.
There is differences in the interpretation of the Constitution, so that is where it is in our government system. Every President in the history of the United States, included Barack (who is a Constitutional Lawyer) has ran everything through a Constitutional filter.
Ron Paul has views that have nothing to do with the Constitution, such as Non-intervention.
Plus Ron Paul disagrees with the Constitution and has propose that an amendment be ratified in order to change it. (So much for founding documents). What I'm talking about is in particular that people born in the USA from illegal aliens be given automatic citizenship. That is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT! But Ron Paul wants to change it.
Paul also introduced the Flag Desecration Constitutional Amendment, because he believes that the desecration of the Flag of the United States of America should be a criminal act (so much for Free Speech).
Paul also believes that Juries should be allowed to interpret the laws along with just judging the facts, basically wants to get rid of the judicial system (a contrary to our Constitution.)
So he isn't your peach! Or perfect person who is the ONLY person who backs the founding documents, most all Presidential candidates do.
You like knocking down strawmen, don't you? How about you debate me instead of the strawman you've setup in my place?
Yes, I DO know the Constitution has been amended multiple times. Good, as it should. Had it not women and African-Americans would still be second class citizens. But if you (figurative you) want to do something that is contrary to the Constitution, fine, the Constitution was made to BE amended. Amend it! Don't just pretend like it doesn't exist. MY peach would amend the Constitution, not ignore it.
[This message has been edited by OKflyboy (edited 11-12-2011).]
IP: Logged
11:21 PM
Wichita Member
Posts: 20709 From: Wichita, Kansas Registered: Jun 2002
You like knocking down strawmen, don't you? How about you debate me instead of the strawman you've setup in my place?
Yes, I DO know the Constitution has been amended multiple times. Good, as it should. Had it not women and African-Americans would still be second class citizens. But if you (figurative you) want to do something that is contrary to the Constitution, fine, the Constitution was made to BE amended. Amend it! Don't just pretend like it doesn't against. MY peach would amend the Constitution, not ignore it.
Again! Who is ignoring the Constitution? That is so easy to say when you have nothing to show for it or any specifics. I provided specifics. It's time for you to step up or get the out of the ring, because it isn't for amateurs, dreamers and prison bitches.
IP: Logged
11:25 PM
Nov 12th, 2011
OKflyboy Member
Posts: 6607 From: Not too far from Mexico Registered: Nov 2004
Again! Who is ignoring the Constitution? That is so easy to say when you have nothing to show for it or any specifics. I provided specifics. It's time for you to step up or get the out of the ring, because it isn't for amateurs, dreamers and prison bitches.
Yes, thank you, you've provided specifics of my candidate attempting to legally amend the Constitution, not ignore it. That kinda proves my point. But to the rest -
Ahem...
Undeclared wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya - Supported by all other Republican Hopefuls - UNCONSTITUTIONAL
The Patriot Act - the most sweeping loss of personal freedom in the history of our nation - Supported by all other Republican Hopefuls - UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Obamacare - modeled after Romneycare - UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Mandatory STD Vaccination for pre-teen girls in Texas - UNCONSTITUTIONAL
[This message has been edited by OKflyboy (edited 11-12-2011).]
We are lucky the leftist do not give us Ron paul the biggest liar sack o sheet there is a colosal liar only moronic idiots are fooled by Paul,,the News guys have been wise to him for years research Ron Paul,, this is the only real white racist in congress Paul can quit his house seat to run for president, because he now has 80% support in his district,,because he is the pork master,,no one riped off the tax payers like Paul this POS likes Iran,,he hates the Jews the Chinese would really control us if paul has his way,,Paul should be a democrat.. you stupid moronic idiot paul supporters should go to a Ron Paul conference and talk to the paulbots ..I was a paulistinian at one time,,Only the stupid racist & some goldbugs continue with this guy Paul liar,paul,liar they go together like ham & eggs,salt & pepper
Why do you think he has no real support in the U.S.Congress?? huh?? why?? do you think I make myself unpopular over paul because he has some small flaws?? he can still re-elect Obama,,pay attention to what he says,, there is no more devious Liar in Congress
you stupid moronic idiot paul supporters should go to a Ron Paul conference and talk to the paulbots ..I was a paulistinian at one time,,Only the stupid racist & some goldbugs continue with this guy
Stan, I support you in in most of your comments, but can't agree with your stance on Ron Paul.
I was at a Ron Paul conference in St. Cloud not too long ago. I didn't notice any blatant racists, and most of those that I talked with were supporting him due to his stance on upholding the constitution.
Not sure what you mean by goldbug, could you elaborate?
IP: Logged
01:21 AM
Wichita Member
Posts: 20709 From: Wichita, Kansas Registered: Jun 2002
Yes, thank you, you've provided specifics of my candidate attempting to legally amend the Constitution, not ignore it. That kinda proves my point. But to the rest -
Ahem...
Undeclared wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya - Supported by all other Republican Hopefuls - UNCONSTITUTIONAL
The Patriot Act - the most sweeping loss of personal freedom in the history of our nation - Supported by all other Republican Hopefuls - UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Obamacare - modeled after Romneycare - UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Mandatory STD Vaccination for pre-teen girls in Texas - UNCONSTITUTIONAL
So far they have not be proven to be unconstitutional in the courts. Mandatory Vaccinations in Texas is a State matter, it isn't a federal matter. What loss of personal freedoms were lost under the Patriot Act? Do you have specifics? Obamacare has not been proven to be unconstitutional as of yet.
The War Powers are shared. It doesn't vest solely with the Congress. Congress has the power to declare war, but the President can also veto that declaration.
Under the United States Constitution, war powers are divided. Congress has the power to declare war, raise and support the armed forces, control the war funding (Article I, Section 8), and has "Power … to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution … all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof", while the President is commander-in-chief of the military (Article II, Section 2). It is generally agreed that the commander-in-chief role gives the President power to repel attacks against the United States and makes the President responsible for leading the armed forces.
So what did Congress do under the "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution"? They made a War Powers Resolution.
a federal law intended to check the power of the President in committing the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
So what was the war in Iraq? The Congress VOTED in a joint resolution (both House and Senate) authorizing the use of Military Force in Iraq. The President may have requested it, but the President cannot do anything unless Congress approves it.
Congress can vote to end it also. So I don't see what the issue is that people say it is unconstitutional. I think people are all hung up on the Declaration of War bit. You don't have to Declare War to use the military or to allow the President to use military action. Congress can even FORCE the President to use Military Action.
Even in World War II when people sometimes say was the last time Congress Declared War... What they did was pass a resolution that said, "A State of War Exist". Basically there is not a specific format for which Congress has to use or has to even have the exact title on paper saying "DECLARATION OF WAR". Congress has since after WWII has use "Authorization to use Military Force". And that is exactly what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. War was declared. Maybe not exactly like you think it should be worded, but it is fully legit Declaration of War.
So you Paul bots better have your crap together. You can't just keep saying "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" and have nothing to show for it. The Iraq War was completely and utterly Constitutionally legal.
You Paulites aren't impressing me much. You can Rick Perry it all day long, but you are just flat out so wrong on many levels.
Why Ron Paul has a strong opinion on it is because he knows his supporters are ignorant. He doesn't like war and he is an isolationist, so it is just his own personal ideology and has nothing to do with his legal ability and know how on the matter.
[This message has been edited by Wichita (edited 11-12-2011).]
Ahem... sucking male chicken... interesting way of putting it. anyway...
"Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance" is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is those of you who continue to beat that drum that make it so. It is the media with their Overton Window that enforce that notion. (Yes, I am aware that there is novel by the same name by a certain conservative talk radio host, don't let that cloud your judgement, the Overton window was around a long time before he wrote any books). You may label it a conspiracy if you wish, but it does not make it any less true. Control the language, control to debate. Say at least 10 times a day on each network that Ron Paul is unelectable and the numbers he's showing are all a result of cheating fanboys, the masses will repeat it and believe it.
You say you don't know why I would support the man as fervently as I do. I'll make it clear, its real and it has nothing to do with male chickens.
He is the ONLY CANDIDATE that supports the Constitution. I want a return to our founding document as the law of the land. I want a president who runs EVERY action through a Constitutional filter. EVERY action. Dr. Paul has pledged to do just that. He is the only one. If Perry or Romney could make that claim I would support them equally, unfortunately charts like this show us where the Constitution stands with the other candidates:
That was awesome, I couldn't have said it better.
Frankly, also part of what Wichita says is also true, but to him I would say that it's about priorities.
My approval of Ron Paul is based solely on priorities. I'm not a one-issue voter. There are things I don't like about him, I don't like his pro-life stance or his same sex marriage stance. (I'm a fiscal conservative/social liberal) There are other issues as well, but the fact is they are all minor compared to the big things. As far as they go (budget, health care reform, war, immigration laws etc., those are the things I care about. And yes, there's nothing in the constitution about interventionism, but that's the problem, too many politicians believe if it's not in there then it's OK. That's like keeping your dog outside the fence. Ron Paul regards the constitution as a guiding document, limiting government powers, or keeping the dog inside the fence. THAT'S what I like about him. He doesn't believe that we work for the government, he believes that the government works for us, and does not grant us our freedom or power or have any right to our wealth. Too many peope have become comfortable with the concept that the freedoms they have are what the government ALLOWS us to have. I don't believe that, and neither does Dr. Paul.
Additionally, I don't want a president who is going to drag the constitution through the court system to determine of there's some other power grab that can be made. The constitution is not a "living document"....there is nothing written in it that says it should be a living document. That term has been coined by those who like to manipulate it and twist it in order to accomplish some agenda. I don't "believe" that Dr. Paul has any such agenda, and as such is not looking to EXPAND governments' role in our lives, but rather to reduce it, minimize it, and bring it within the CONSTRAINS of the constitution. Not seek ways and legal precedent to confiscate more freedom and money from the population. That's why I like him, look at the graphic, it's not a tough call to me. Hell, throw out the whole argument about "sticking to the constitution", if you want. Look at his voting record and his position on those items in the graphic, that's what I want for a president, period.
[This message has been edited by Taijiguy (edited 11-12-2011).]
...IMHO.
Its in the Obamatution.
