CNN Reports Ron Paul At 0% While CNN Online Poll Shows Him At 75%

Originally posted by kreese
Didn't this sort of thing happen with FOX NEWS a few months ago at a RNC???

Where FOX NEWS edited the coverage of Ron Paul's speech and dubbed the audio with booing and negative feedback from the crowd, when in fact the crowd was actually cheering and applauding?

Can someone please post a link to that video, I cannot find it on Youtube. The ending was hilarious.

actually they used footage of the announcement from a previous year's ceremony, which he had also won. I think it was at a time where most people wanted romney to get it. very deceptive 'reporting' indeed.

Originally posted by MaskedDebater

I'm sure this will be an unpopular opinion but I suspect the enthusiastic followers of Mr. Paul are a bit overzealous in their criticism. I like Mr. Paul btw due to his Anti war stance and I'm not defending CNN but simply striving to honor ATS Mission statement.

I wouldn't call it overzealous as much as super-attentive. Think of all the wrong doing and *ignorance* that would go unacknowledged if it weren't for them and their sleuthing. Their criticism is a justified result of the undeniable media attacks that have always plagued Ronnie

Media is also the name of the grinding material in ball mills.
Is the mill spins or vibrates,the media grinds down the partical size of whatever material it is you want to grind.

The mill is the system
The media is the media
We are the material getting ground down.

Originally posted by WhiteDevil013
This morning I was listening to the radio, surprised that people seemed to think M. Bachmann actually was impressive. Then I saw msn.com and they showed her looking like a crazy witch, totally a Hillary Clinton style face expression.

It cracks me up that the MSM is so blatant with their biased reporting.

Yeah, but msn.com is also showing pictures of Michelle Bachman in a favorable way. Perhaps there is an inner political war in the company. I actually think the main media slant is heavily towards Bachmann. Saying Bachmann did well in the debate is basically an endorsement for her. Certainly up from them talking about whether she should be taken seriously or not.

One of the reasons Ron Paul wasn't taken more seriously last time is because of the pictures used of him weren't airbrushed. That's one of the main reasons people consider voting for him.

I think the main reason Bachmann is getting support is to split the vote between her and Ron Paul. If she decides she wants to go back to the gold standard, that could very well cost him the election.

This is the election scam that has been controlling the election for years; if someone starts to gain traction who has unapproved ideas, they make him look bad in MSM. If that doesn't work, back someone who has similar unapproved political ideas in order to divide the vote. If Bachmann hadn't announced she was thinking of going back to the gold standard, she would've gone up in the polls, but not this much, as she would've gotten a poor media slant.

Will that tactic work in this case? I don't know. I think if Ron Paul can take down Bachmann, the election (if the votes were actually counted properly, as you pointed out) would be his. All the support for Michelle Bachmann would go to him, and he would only continue to gain steam.

How would he do that? I think an actual debate (not in Town Hall format like last night's was), is where Ron Paul could really stand out, especially as we get less and less people. I think the final debates will be Bachmann vs. Gingrich vs. Romney vs. Paul. I think a lot of people would be swayed if they're are actually answering the same question. It will be much easier to compare and see that Ron Paul's ideas can help the country more than his opponent's.

I'm not necessarily saying he's going to win; as you pointed out, that would likely be devastating to TPTB (perhaps they decided it's easier to simply get America in non-interventionist foreign policy to keep America out of World War 3 than to collapse the economy; if the Western world and most of the Christian countries were backing Israel, the war would be over very quickly). But I think that's why Bachmann is gaining so much in the polls.

reply to post by AshleyD


lmaf
'FOX' News has been doing this for 20 some years...maybe im missing the point...not understanding.

104

Originally posted by bacci0909

Originally posted by MaskedDebater

I'm sure this will be an unpopular opinion but I suspect the enthusiastic followers of Mr. Paul are a bit overzealous in their criticism. I like Mr. Paul btw due to his Anti war stance and I'm not defending CNN but simply striving to honor ATS Mission statement.

I wouldn't call it overzealous as much as super-attentive. Think of all the wrong doing and *ignorance* that would go unacknowledged if it weren't for them and their sleuthing. Their criticism is a justified result of the undeniable media attacks that have always plagued Ronnie

Perhaps but in the case of evidence presented in OP, the graphic was CLEARLY labeled. It is my opinion there was no intent to mislead. If they REALLY wanted to steer public persuasion they could have EASILY skewed the on-line poll results. Right?

Post removed. There's no hope.

Ron has a great support, and so far no one in power wants him in power. The question is, will he be killed for such a thing?

If he is killed then that would mean revolution for the entire American people, and civil war II.

ah, this is very scary!
how can we get this information on a major news network?
theyre still after him, they just wont give up will they?..

I wouldn't make too big a deal about what an online or news hour poll shows - they're all meaningless garbage. A conservative show like Hannity will have drastically different poll results than a liberal show like Ed Schultz, based on the political leanings of the viewers of those shows. They give us poll after poll just to fill up their time slots. Even when two polls are taken by the same station, the results can differ based on what show took the poll.

The problem with any of these online or television polls is that it's nearly impossible to get that perfect cross-grain of American society. The bias of the show presenting the poll is going to carry over to the poll itself.

The problem Ron Paul has is that his own party will NEVER nominate him or even allow him to be treated fairly in polls or debate results. The GOP is doing everything they can to position Romney to be their man, and it's no secret Paul (or for that matter, Palin) are not at all well liked by Fox News (Karl Rove and Roger Aires - who have both stated they think Palin and Paul are bad for their brand of conservatism) Rove went to great length to imply truthers, birthers, 911 deniers, and bush bashers were Paul supporters. Also Karl Rove Goes After Ron Paul

This is ultimately the problem Ron Paul has, Karl Rove and roger Ailes will never let him be nominated. They'll convince the public he has no chance of winning. They'll make the public believe he is in fact losing.

At the end of the day, news channels that don't have a staunch conservative viewership will have polls that favor the least bashed/assailed/maligned/controversial conservative candidate, which at this point is Romney - as it was engineered by the same team that gave us two terms of Bush, Rove and Ailes.

reply to post by nekawa


Agreed! Rob Paul will lead us into the future! I love how that website's poll has Paul at 67% and every other candidate was at 5% or so.

reply to post by OptimusSubprime


Palin scares me too, the woman is an idiot, I've yet to hear her form a coherent sentence outside of a planned speech. "British you won't take our gun!!!" My 6 year old corrected the clip on the radio....When my 6 year old is correcting Politicians we're in trouble.

Nice find op, this is a shambles.

reply to post by AshleyD


A few things, AshleyD.

"Online polls" are, well, worthless. Do you know how simple it is to game them? Seriously, if you can crank out free email accounts, you can crank out poll results in most of them. Many others allow multiple votes from a given IP address. And it's never a random sample. If it were ONLY the people who come to the site for the site's content, maybe that part could be reliable, but that doesn't happen. Rather someone notices a poll and posts to some mass forum like this one, or DemocraticUnderground, or FreeRepublic, and says "Guys! We need to vote on this! INTERNET POLLS ARE SRS BZNS!"

Of course Ron Paul wins the online poll. And I'll bet you a stack of ten donuts that most of the voters are 15 year olds who have some variant of a Guy Fawkes mask in the avatar / signature of whatever forum they post on. This isn't to belittle the Ron Paul fans (really, I can do that anytime) but rather to just point out that online polls are about as meaningful as those "CLICK HERE TO CLAIM YOUR FREE PRIZE!" advertisements.[

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Yeah ok, online polls are worthless. Thanks, but that isn't the point here, at ALL. The point is, CNN used a poll (not even their own!) with only 54 votes to spin it in a way that fit their agenda. They twisted the "poll numbers" and blatantly lied about the results. It's pretty damn clear what is going on here, so let's not try and cover it up anymore. K?

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by AshleyD

 

because the left and the liberal media are SCARED TO DEATH of Palin and Ron Paul.

Exactly, that's the only reason. Now we have to thank CNN to highlight the right candidate. I can imagine those biased media bosses in the next morning meeting calling stupid each other.

www.youtube.com...

interesting.....

Wow because I saw him win online too:

politics.newsvine.com... ast_1


What a bunch of crock at CNN

reply to post by OptimusSubprime


I could certainly understand why they would be afraid of Ron Paul, he seems to be at odds with both parties' agendas and he's gaining popularity despite their best efforts to sweep him under the rug. If there really is a shadowy cabal that's secretly running this country, then they wouldn't want someone who knows the system like Mr. Paul getting into power and attempting to change things without their approval.

Sarah Palin on the other hand is a complete joke and one half of a dream ticket for the democrats. She couldn't even handle softball questions like "what newspapers do you read" during the '08 election. Like others have mentioned in this thread, Obama is a terrible president but at least he can conduct himself in a debate. He'll also have almost four years experience as president under his belt compared to Palin who quit her post as governor and spent the last few years as a reality star. If they can actually convince her to give up her fame and fortune and go back to work, and she actually gets the GOP nomination, then you'll have no one to blame but yourself and other Palin supporters for Obama's reelection in 2012.

reply to post by Wookiep


So here's the conundrum.

Either

1) you're an optimist and can count on people not being swayed by dumbassed polls from the MSM from the first debate of what's likely to be a long, long (long, long, LONG) campaign season. in this case, CNN's "efforts" are wasted and it's a non-issue.

Or

2) you can be the pessimist, and believe that whoever stares at the screen is going to just be swayed by whatever the last think they heard was. You have two options here. Either you wouldn't want these lemmings to vote anyway (isn't there a cliff in Labrador waiting for them?) or they're just going to vote according to whatever the last poll they see before hitting the voting booth. In either case, this thing still doesn't matter. What matters is whether Romney looks screwable to the millions of bored voting housewives. (Thankfully even they think he looks like Zombie Apocalypse ken doll)

Also you're missing the big picture here.

All the candidates were complete morons who would probably fail at breathing if any of them believed in biology. Really I get that ATS has a serious bromance for Ron Paul but, well... Well, all this poll means is that he's the smallest (or largest) turd in the pool filter.