Who Is Ron Paul?
I've been hearing a lot about the supposed "media conspiracy" to keep everyone from hearing too much about Ron Paul. I have a hard time believing that anyone in the media would be interested in suppressing a valid presidential candidate, but what do I know?
Then I received an automated polling call. It asked me one multiple choice question: "If the republican primaries were today, who would you vote for?" The choices included Huckabee, McCain, Romney, Guliani, and Thompson.
Is Ron Paul really that far behind? He can't even get a mention on the multiple choice poll? I thought it was odd, but dismissed it.
Then I saw a poll on MSNBC. According to the poll, Ron Paul was winning with a landslide victory - something like 70% of the votes or something. A little later, the "poll" had been "pulled" without explanation.
The plot thickens.
Numerous examples have shown up since then. More online polls that showed Ron Paul as the clear winner on MSNBC were taken down. After finishing second in the South Carolina debate, he was dropped to dead last for candidates likely to win the nomination.
During one debate, Ron Paul was not given the opportunity to speak for over half an hour into the debate. When he finally had his chance, he was only aloud to speak a few times totaling at about 3.5 minutes. Other candidates including Thompson and Huckabee were given much more time - and candidates like Romney were aloud to speak up to 9 separate times.
So is there a media bias against Romney?
Today I saw this:
A Facebook poll has chosen Huckabee! Wow that's amazing. Let's just look at those numbers ... yes at 22% Huckabee has almost half the votes of Ron Paul! I guess he is the clear winner!
Then there was this on CBS:
Huckabee with 31%, Mccain with 12%, Romney with 23%, Thompson with 23%, and blank grey pie piece with unknown per cent. Hmm... ominous blank pie piece is tied with McCain, althought you'd have to do the math yourself. (The actual poll puts Paul at 11%).
I think the fact that Ron Paul has garnered so much support online, that he has nearly set a record for the most funds raised in a single day, and that he simply blasts everyone out of the water on every online poll is newsworthy. Yet he barely ever gets a mention. Meanwhile Huckabee, who came out of nowhere, is winning in the polls (with a hefty 22%)!
I'm really not kidding. Here are NBC's current online poll results:
And the results are similar all the way down the board. The only one Ron Paul isn't winning on is "most rehearsed answer," whatever that means.
But all this, and I talk to people every day who still don't know who Ron Paul is.
One thing I hear a lot is that people wished Ron Paul would win, but they don't think he can do it, so they're going to vote for someone else.
Yes, that's the spirit of democracy! If we vote for whoever the media tells us about the most, then who is really choosing the next president?
That's right little sheep, we've got this election under control. All of our polls show that Huckabee is going to win, so just vote for him. Give up on anyone else and come along with the rest of us. Drink the cool-aid.
Oh, by the way, Ron Paul got more than 3x the votes of Giuliani in the Iowa Caucus. Now watch and see who they still talk about more on the news.





I actually watched the iowa
I actually watched the iowa debates which was originally aired on PBS. They showed the debates on FOX news then talked about it afterwords. Watching the actual debate they must have spoke to Ron Paul about 4 or 5 times while talking to everyone else much, much more than that.
After the actual debates fox news came back on to discuss what they all thought of the candidates. NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON EVEN MENTIONED RON PAUL FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE SHOW.
The reason his internet
The reason his internet polls are so high is that Ron Paul has the highest mobilized internet force but not necessarily the largest. Until recently he hasn't been considered a contender because of his poor fund raising. All that changed when he broke the records for one day fund raising but he is still not in a position to take it all. I think with the 10% he took at the Iowa Caucus I wouldn't be surprised to hear more about him.
Forget the Internet polls,
Forget the Internet polls, the Iowa caucus is the biggest load of crap. Everyone looks and waits for that first official caucus and then it is expected that that will shift the whole primary system in their favor. Why aren't the California primaries more hyped? They are a more diverse state with a slightly higher population than Iowa. Oh, because they're not first. You think a bunch of hicks and farmers represents the whole of America? SHEEP!
Everyone just follows who wins that miniscule precent of American voters then shift their votes accordingly. Why do the candidates spend such a disproportionate amount of time with the small states. Why don't the candidates put their time and money where the population is? The East and West coasts. But hey, that's just my opinion.
That is interesting. As
That is interesting. As recent points have been raised on a CNN show I watched, I really believe Huckabee is being touted by the media because he would be an easy loss against a solid Democrat. I think it's irresponsible if they are not reporting polls properly. If they feel the polls have been tampered with they should redo the poll with some sort of identity verification like an email address. It's been very interesting to see how all of the candidates on both parties have been portrayed. I don't feel real comfortable voting for any republican candidate right now, or any dem either. IF there is manipulation of these stories it's doing a huge disservice to our populous.
I enjoyed this post. Thanks
I enjoyed this post. Thanks for writing it.
In addition to the screenshots, I would have liked to see url references to the pages such as Facebook and MS NBC.
Like your stuff. Added you to my feeds.
Interesting. Only in America
Interesting. Only in America I guess (and other repressed countries like in Africa and Asia). But seriously, can't RP sue or something? That is VERY biased reporting. And what's with all the money thing anyway? Surely it's not about your fund-raising, it's about who is best to lead the country? And I thought Australia was bad.
Post new comment