PDA

View Full Version : Ignoring Ron Paul Has Reached Comic Proportions



[LoD] EE
10-16-2011, 16:04
DONT FORGET! GOP DEBATE ON THE 18th AT 8PM EST!

http://www.newsmax.com/DougWead/ron-paul-rand-straw/2011/10/14/id/414543#

Yesterday, Ron Paul won the Los Angeles County straw poll. He had more votes than Romney and Cain combined. It was a small gathering but a confirmation of Paul's much larger victory in the California State Straw Poll last month.

And like the California Poll, it was virtually ignored by the national media. They prefer to bask in denial and focus on Herman Cain's showing in the recent Florida straw poll whose delegates were actually chosen last summer.

The distorted media coverage or lack of coverage of presidential candidate Ron Paul can sometimes reach comic proportions.

Yesterday the New York Daily News solemnly told its readers that Herman Cain, having just raised $8 million, was third in fundraising in the Republican field, right behind Romney and Perry. Don't they wish.

The truth is that Ron Paul is third and he is the candidate that raised the $8 million, not Herman Cain.

That's all right, Ron Paul supporters say. Keep it up. Nothing angers the "Paulistas" more than the flagrant favoritism and the manipulation of the media. On Oct. 19 the Ron Paul campaign is calling its next fundraiser, "Black This Out" a sarcastic response to debate hosts who purposely exclude him and blatantly promote their own favorites, regardless of the polls.

While he was the only presidential candidate in the last GOP debate to effectively use his question and while that question provoked a misstatement from the current front-runner, Herman Cain, no one seemed to notice.

Ron Paul had asked Cain why, in the past, he had opposed an audit of the Federal Reserve and why he had belittled those who were calling for it. Cain flatly denied he had ever said such a thing.

But here is the exact quote:

Some people say that we ought to audit the Fed. Here's what I do know. The Federal Reserve already has so many internal audits it's ridiculous. I don't know why people think we're gonna learn this great amount of information by auditing the Federal Reserve.

I think a lot of people are calling for this audit of the Federal Reserve because they don't know enough about it. There's no hidden secrets going on in the Federal Reserve to my knowledge.

Ron Paul's subsequent call for an audit won congressional approval and the resultant expose has stunned those who have seen it. In 2008 alone, the Federal Reserve dished out $16 trillion including money to the banks of its own board members and corporations like General Electric, which owns NBC television and the McDonald's hamburger chain.

Consider that the entire nation debt, which took years to amass, is only $14 trillion and you get an idea of why the Federal Reserve has always operated in secret, passing out its money to elitists insiders and corporations all at the expense of the rest of us who pay for it through devalued money.

Television networks no longer follow their own debates with online surveys of a winner. They rely on "Focus Groups" (wink, wink,) where they control the questions and the reporting of the results of those questions that they decide are "newsworthy."

After one recent debate the focus group of 30 people clearly picked Herman Cain as the winner of the debate while the network ignored its own, open, online poll showing Ron Paul the winner.

Why have online surveys at all? Ron Paul will win again and there will be nasty online correspondents ridiculing them for not mentioning it.

This week, one lonely media outlet, The Bedford Patch, a New Hampshire online news service, was brave enough to allow an open poll after Tuesday's Dartmouth Debate. When I voted this morning it was showing Ron Paul winning at 73 percent.

It was Sen. John McCain who first angrily referred to Sen. Rand Paul, the son of the presidential candidate, as a hobbit. The Liberty Movement has taken to the idea.

As J.R.R. Tolkien once said, "The hobbits may be little folk but they are honest and hardy and easily underestimated." So let Lord Sauron, Tolkein's antagonist, and his corporate partners and their media outlets, arm for war against Romney-Perry-Cain.

Ron Paul and the rest of the invisible band will stay on target, moving silently through the marshes, looking to Oct. 19, the next moneybomb fundraiser and a chance to speak with their dollars. Go ahead, they say to the media elites and their robber barons, black this out!

Read more on Newsmax.com: Ignoring Ron Paul Has Reached Comic Proportions
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

MrBungle
10-16-2011, 16:19
I bet he has a big dick.

Ragnarok Delrhe
10-16-2011, 17:05
Ron Paul is obviously a racist. Black this out! It should be named Afro-american this out to not be racist.

Jimmyhat
10-16-2011, 18:01
I'm sure he's glad you internet freedom fighters have his back.

Kinsari
10-16-2011, 18:45
I think I'm going to start ignoring Ron Paul as well just because his army of internet warriors is so irritating.

Silverhandorder
10-16-2011, 18:46
I think I'm going to start ignoring Ron Paul as well just because his army of internet warriors is so irritating.

Good won't be seeing you in the future threads then.

zato`1
10-16-2011, 19:02
if you dont vote ron paul in 2012 you do not have your own best interests at heart.

real talk, true story.

deny it if you'd like but any vote for another candidate is like bending over for the government to ram their stimulus and bailout bullshit right up your fuckin corn hole.

Mazrak
10-16-2011, 23:38
if you dont vote ron paul in 2012 you do not have your own best interests at heart.

real talk, true story.

deny it if you'd like but any vote for another candidate is like bending over for the government to ram their stimulus and bailout bullshit right up your fuckin corn hole.

^^ Man speaks the truth.

bongloads
10-17-2011, 00:37
I think I'm going to start ignoring Ron Paul as well just because his army of internet warriors is so irritating.

Durrr

I'm annoyed by people trying to fix shit, so I'm going to be part of the problem just to spite them.

Hurdurr

Apex Vertigo
10-17-2011, 00:41
I want RP to win just so when he fails to change anything you all shut the fuck up.

bongloads
10-17-2011, 01:57
http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j138/_JD_2006/6a00d83451c45669e20154360a2cab970c-550wi.jpg

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j138/_JD_2006/images.jpg

Forker
10-17-2011, 02:04
I think I'm going to start ignoring Ron Paul as well just because his army of internet warriors is so irritating.

Who do you support in the upcoming election?

Emolas
10-17-2011, 03:16
Your entire media is conservative, I don't see you complaining when they're demonising socialism.

Reckun
10-17-2011, 03:33
Its because Ron doesn't support the corporate corrupt status quo seeing as he's libertarian

Spades911
10-17-2011, 03:36
I want RP to win just so when he fails to change anything you all shut the fuck up.

Because his voting record for the past 20 years really shows that right?

Man... Ron totally caves into corporate and special interests...

Marrik
10-17-2011, 03:48
his refusal to cave to corporate interests is precisely why he will NEVER get the Republican nomination

Apex Vertigo
10-17-2011, 06:10
Because his voting record for the past 20 years really shows that right?

Man... Ron totally caves into corporate and special interests...

No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that even with RP as President the entire system doesn't go into overhaul mode. You still have the entire legislator dominated by these guys and the President is barely even effective when he is part of one of the parties. How effective do you think he's really going to be when he can't even get support from his own party?

You guys have a serious problem of not thinking critically. Stop making so many damn assumptions, if you don't understand what I said, ask me to clarify. Don't make some childish bullshit sarcastic comment that is based on a completely wrong assumption.

Falokis
10-17-2011, 06:51
No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that even with RP as President the entire system doesn't go into overhaul mode.This is true, but I really believe he will actually start vetoing every bill that crosses his desk. That will bend them to his will (slightly) or it will unite the other branch against him. Either way, it will be fun to watch.

MrBungle
10-17-2011, 14:24
This is true, but I really believe he will actually start vetoing every bill that crosses his desk. That will bend them to his will (slightly) or it will unite the other branch against him. Either way, it will be fun to watch.

Or until... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbXI0WSlTGw&feature=related)

Marilio
10-17-2011, 22:18
I want RP to win just so when he fails to change anything you all shut the fuck up.

lol this

bongloads
10-18-2011, 00:17
if you dont vote ron paul in 2012 you do not have your own best interests at heart.

real talk, true story.

deny it if you'd like but any vote for another candidate is like bending over for the government to ram their stimulus and bailout bullshit right up your fuckin corn hole.

I don't see how anyone can dispute this, nor conscionably vote for a corporate puppet. Are there that many 1%'s around?

We're at a point where that government/corporation hybrid/entity that controls us has become so powerful, corrupt, and ignorant of the plight of the average person, that confronting it and fixing it is by far the largest priority of our nation. To choose another candidate because of their stance on an issue other than this is foolish and shortsighted.

Milo Hobgoblin
10-18-2011, 02:23
No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that even with RP as President the entire system doesn't go into overhaul mode. You still have the entire legislator dominated by these guys and the President is barely even effective when he is part of one of the parties. How effective do you think he's really going to be when he can't even get support from his own party?

You guys have a serious problem of not thinking critically. Stop making so many damn assumptions, if you don't understand what I said, ask me to clarify. Don't make some childish bullshit sarcastic comment that is based on a completely wrong assumption.

As much as I hate to say it.. Apex is pretty much dead on here. While the president does create a political environment that eventually allows people on the fence to vote with him.. he's pretty extreme in the eyes of mainstream Repugs and Dems. Both parties suck corporate dick like a 10 dollar crack whore.. no way in hell they are getting off that gravy train.

The reality is.. he's an outsider. Its going to take years of third party voting outside the executive branch to start moving in the direction RP is heading.

PirateGlen
10-18-2011, 03:05
As much as I hate to say it.. Apex is pretty much dead on here. While the president does create a political environment that eventually allows people on the fence to vote with him.. he's pretty extreme in the eyes of mainstream Repugs and Dems. Both parties suck corporate dick like a 10 dollar crack whore.. no way in hell they are getting off that gravy train.

The reality is.. he's an outsider. Its going to take years of third party voting outside the executive branch to start moving in the direction RP is heading.

You don't really need different politicians. Politicians will vote any way they think will get them re-elected. If their constituents wanted what Paul wanted the legislators would jump ship on whatever they voted for in the past in a heartbeat.

I think Paul is both philosophically and practically incorrect in his policy preferences. While his consistency is admirable, it's still less than doing what ought to be done. It seems like his policies even when given national attention are not terribly popular.

Mad Knight
10-18-2011, 04:15
You don't really need different politicians. Politicians will vote any way they think will get them re-elected. If their constituents wanted what Paul wanted the legislators would jump ship on whatever they voted for in the past in a heartbeat.

I think Paul is both philosophically and practically incorrect in his policy preferences. While his consistency is admirable, it's still less than doing what ought to be done. It seems like his policies even when given national attention are not terribly popular.

Your first statement is correct, however. In your opinion what ought to be done to fix this country? And given a bias national attention by CNN, foxnews, etc followed by a bias report on how popular his policies are. Any poll that Ron Paul does win is either A. Not even mentioned. B. According to the media has been corrupted by fraud voting. C. According to the media was a fluke win and doesn't even matter.. Do you think the mainstream media has ever reported on how much military donations Ron Paul receives compared to Obama and all the other GOP candidates combined? Or, from May 2 to October 9, Paul appeared as the ‘primary newsmaker in only 2% of all election stories.” Or possibly Ron Paul only being given 18 minutes and 47 seconds in the last three GOP debates.. that is the lowest of all the GOP candidates. Not to mention the absurd questions they ask him on the debates.

[LoD] EE
10-18-2011, 04:24
Your first statement is correct, however. In your opinion what ought to be done to fix this country? And given a bias national attention by CNN, foxnews, etc followed by a bias report on how popular his policies are. Any poll that Ron Paul does win is either A. Not even mentioned. B. According to the media has been corrupted by fraud voting. C. According to the media was a fluke win and doesn't even matter.. Do you think the mainstream media has ever reported on how much military donations Ron Paul receives compared to Obama and all the other GOP candidates combined? Or, from May 2 to October 9, Paul appeared as the ‘primary newsmaker in only 2% of all election stories.” Or possibly Ron Paul only being given 18 minutes and 47 seconds in the last three GOP debates.. that is the lowest of all the GOP candidates. Not to mention the absurd questions they ask him on the debates.

Please dont point out facts, thanks.

Ron Paul 2012

PirateGlen
10-18-2011, 04:38
Your first statement is correct, however. In your opinion what ought to be done to fix this country?
I think there's several mainstream directions that will better help the country but that's practically an essay in itself. So for now it will suffice to say that I think Paul is incorrect.


And given a bias national attention by CNN, foxnews, etc followed by a bias report on how popular his policies are. Any poll that Ron Paul does win is either A. Not even mentioned. B. According to the media has been corrupted by fraud voting. C. According to the media was a fluke win and doesn't even matter.. Do you think the mainstream media has ever reported on how much military donations Ron Paul receives compared to Obama and all the other GOP candidates combined? Or, from May 2 to October 9, Paul appeared as the ‘primary newsmaker in only 2% of all election stories.” Or possibly Ron Paul only being given 18 minutes and 47 seconds in the last three GOP debates.. that is the lowest of all the GOP candidates. Not to mention the absurd questions they ask him on the debates.

I think the media is like a dog who chases cars. It wants the shiny one that's easy to catch. It's kinda embarrassing, but hardly as sinister as conspiracy theorists think. It follows a (potentially inevitable) model in media that forces them to dumb down coverage due to market competition. But I suppose your version suits the Paulite's victimhood complex.

Hypothetically, like any up and comer, what little time they got would garner popularity that would force the media's hand (to meet public demand). But when Paul gets time he often says things that people simply don't want.

Here's the scientific basis for Paul's unpopularity.
http://www.politico.com/2012-election/presidential-polls/#mainContent

Mad Knight
10-18-2011, 04:50
I think the 276 facebook likes on your politico polls page shows just how much nobody gives a shit about it. Heres a link that I find much more useful.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/index.html

Notice the Ron Paul "likes" compared to everyone else.

And way to basically dodge everything I said.

PirateGlen
10-18-2011, 04:55
I think the 276 facebook likes on your politico polls page shows just how much nobody gives a shit about it. Heres a link that I find much more useful.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/index.html

Notice the Ron Paul "likes" compared to everyone else.

And way to basically dodge everything I said.

I think anyone who thinks facebook likes are indicative of national voting preferences is a moron. What was dodged?

Emolas
10-18-2011, 05:09
Ron Paul is an internet phenomenon. He wins the online polls because every time there is one, 4chan storms to the Paul button.

Mad Knight
10-18-2011, 05:14
I think anyone who thinks facebook likes are indicative of national voting preferences is a moron. What was dodged?

Facebook is a pretty big deal nowadays (Just over 50% of Americans have Facebook accounts and 86% of Americans ages 18-44 have Facebook accounts) .. I guess you missed that.. and I'm sorry for you :(

"I think there's several mainstream directions that will better help the country but that's practically an essay in itself. So for now it will suffice to say that I think Paul is incorrect."

Simply stating that Ron Paul is incorrect, and you don't feel like writing an essay, is a dodge.

And you are saying that Ron Paul isn't popular, so the media doesn't cover him. Yet my military donations "fact" that I just showed you, begs to differ. You are also stating that "When Ron Paul gets time he often says things that people simply don't want ". Again, another fact. "From May 2 to October 9, Paul appeared as the ‘primary newsmaker in only 2% of all election stories.” Or possibly Ron Paul only being given 18 minutes and 47 seconds in the last three GOP debates.. that is the lowest of all the GOP candidates.

You see, what you said makes no sense. He is given no time. And is asked unfair, biased questions.

PirateGlen
10-18-2011, 06:58
Facebook is a pretty big deal nowadays (Just over 50% of Americans have Facebook accounts and 86% of Americans ages 18-44 have Facebook accounts) .. I guess you missed that.. and I'm sorry for you :(
Science is a pretty big deal nowadays. You're taking a population, cutting it in half, and then further cutting it based on participation in a single webpage. And yet you still don't understand how this would yield misleading results. You never took statistics. I feel sorry for you. :(


"I think there's several mainstream directions that will better help the country but that's practically an essay in itself. So for now it will suffice to say that I think Paul is incorrect."

Simply stating that Ron Paul is incorrect, and you don't feel like writing an essay, is a dodge.
The ways in which I personally disagree with Paul is irrelevant to his popularity or the "conspiracy" against him.


And you are saying that Ron Paul isn't popular, so the media doesn't cover him. Yet my military donations "fact" that I just showed you, begs to differ. You are also stating that "When Ron Paul gets time he often says things that people simply don't want ". Again, another fact. "From May 2 to October 9, Paul appeared as the ‘primary newsmaker in only 2% of all election stories.” Or possibly Ron Paul only being given 18 minutes and 47 seconds in the last three GOP debates.. that is the lowest of all the GOP candidates.

You see, what you said makes no sense. He is given no time. And is asked unfair, biased questions.

Great he gets a lot of donations from group composing less than 1% of the population. It would be more statistically relevant to tell me he's popular amongst the "Johns" of the population. If he were as popular as you want to believe he'd do much better than ~9% in scientific polls. Like I said... this would break your victimhood narrative.

"Cain was virtually ignored by the media from May through August, generating less coverage than any other candidate in those four months—including Ron Paul."

Well I guess it is impossible for Cain to surge in the polls or get any coverage, right? Not that matters, either. Cain will likely fade just as Bachmann did.

Esudar
10-18-2011, 10:59
Science is a pretty big deal nowadays. You're taking a population, cutting it in half, and then further cutting it based on participation in a single webpage. And yet you still don't understand how this would yield misleading results. You never took statistics. I feel sorry for you. :(


50% of all is still 50% and 86% of all 18-44 is still 86% lol
you have no point

PirateGlen
10-18-2011, 11:31
50% of all is still 50% and 86% of all 18-44 is still 86% lol
you have no point
You didn't take statistics either. :(

Esudar
10-18-2011, 11:59
You didn't take statistics either. :(

advanced ones

-
i guess you are afraid ur fellow retarded ameritards might think the "18-44 year olds of all facebook users" might be too difficult and misleading... but its not.

hes not even splitting it up. its 50% of all americans and 86% of all americans with said age..

Mad Knight
10-18-2011, 12:58
PirateGlen, you clearly don't understand whats going on. Cain, the former FED Chairman, who won't even think about auditing the FED, whom wants to replace Bernanke with someone "like Alan Greenspan". Cain was allowed into these debates before Gary Johnson, the former NM Governor.. whom still is rarely allowed in. Of course the media loves Cain. They will hype him up all they can. That is why he is surging in the polls. Our government doesn't want Paul as president because he will end all the bullshit. And I can't believe you are so stupid as to think that someone who is running for president and is anywhere from 1st to 4th in all polls, online and straw, is the least covered candidate in all news and the one with the least amount of debate time. The facts are right there and they don't match up. Santorum and Huntsman get more time then Paul. NOBODY gives 2 shits about them. Explain that. You are so ignorant with no common sense it amazes me. So here is my question. Why does Santorum and Huntsman get more media attention than Ron Paul? According to the polls, Paul is more popular than both of them put together.

PirateGlen
10-18-2011, 13:41
advanced ones

-
i guess you are afraid ur fellow retarded ameritards might think the "18-44 year olds of all facebook users" might be too difficult and misleading... but its not.

hes not even splitting it up. its 50% of all americans and 86% of all americans with said age..

Well then I suppose you're just stupid, then. You don't even have a BASIC idea of the problem. I'll educate you, because I feel sorry for ignorant euros like yourself.

He's asserting facebook users to be representative of voters (it's not) and he's asserting the facebook users who went to the page and elected to vote are representative of voters. He went so far as to discredit the page I linked which offered multiple scientific national polls which give relatively reliable results based on how many dumbasses on facebook liked it.

The truly preferable choice, according to him, is the nonscientific online facebook poll which doesn't even poll all facebook users. This, which neither of you morons realize, makes the representativeness of facebook vs the voters irrelevant regardless of any alignment between the two populations. So even if facebook WAS representative population of voters, the 50% vs 86% numbers are both meaningless because the voters on the site he links is neither of those populations. A fact any dipshit with a basic understanding of statistics ought to realize.

Esudar
10-18-2011, 13:59
you missed that i didnt write a thing about voters and political stuff.
of course its not representative.
still tools like facebook are heavily used by economy and science alike for research, marketing, pr .......
another reason why all of u social media haters have no future

PirateGlen
10-18-2011, 14:02
PirateGlen, you clearly don't understand whats going on. Cain, the former FED Chairman, who won't even think about auditing the FED, whom wants to replace Bernanke with someone "like Alan Greenspan". Cain was allowed into these debates before Gary Johnson, the former NM Governor.. whom still is rarely allowed in. Of course the media loves Cain. They will hype him up all they can. That is why he is surging in the polls. Our government doesn't want Paul as president because he will end all the bullshit. And I can't believe you are so stupid as to think that someone who is running for president and is anywhere from 1st to 4th in all polls, online and straw, is the least covered candidate in all news and the one with the least amount of debate time. The facts are right there and they don't match up. Santorum and Huntsman get more time then Paul. NOBODY gives 2 shits about them. Explain that. You are so ignorant with no common sense it amazes me. So here is my question. Why does Santorum and Huntsman get more media attention than Ron Paul? According to the polls, Paul is more popular than both of them put together.

Great, you're arguing what I've already agreed: the media is pretty shitty. I called it a dog that chases the shinies. You don't need to convince me that the media is pretty shitty. I've asserted them to be hypocrites for pretending straw polls mean anything... but like I also said: they're looking for cheap content so dogs will be dogs. It also depends on when you look:http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/0811/Study_Ron_Pauls_news_coverage_lags.html

Here he beats Santorum and Cain in coverage. If Cain is such a special candidate as you want to pretend, why did he get ignored for so long by the media with coverage even lower than Paul?

I get it, you're an ignorant moron, so you'll cling to your Paul bullshit and pretend that the world is out to get you because how else could people possibly disagree? Must be a secret media conspiracy! A more likely scenario is far more mundane. He holds a strong support of a vocal minority but wont win the Republican nomination for the same reasons the media saw in 2008: his policies are not what most Republicans want.

This is supported by his familiarity level of 52% in polls (much higher than most other candidates):
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/mid/1508/articleId/840/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/Default.aspx

PirateGlen
10-18-2011, 14:04
you missed that i didnt write a thing about voters and political stuff.
of course its not representative.
still tools like facebook are heavily used by economy and science alike for research, marketing, pr .......
another reason why all of u social media haters have no future

Oh so you were really just saying I have no point because you are a dumb fuck who can't understand what I said.

Esudar
10-18-2011, 14:05
Oh so you were really just saying I have no point because you are a dumb fuck who can't understand what I said.

no bc ur a retarded dumbfuck twat getting all mad

what i said is still true.
read again kid

PirateGlen
10-18-2011, 14:13
no bc ur a retarded dumbfuck twat getting all mad

what i said is still true.
read again kid
I'm not mad at all. You basically said X is X and said I didn't have a point. A point I've made so painfully obvious it's pathetic you're even trying to dispute it still. Please continue. I enjoy it when people make fools of themselves.

Khorsy
10-18-2011, 14:37
I enjoy it when people make fools of themselves.

Yes you do..

mmmmmmh. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DBuk91phkI&feature=related)

Esudar
10-18-2011, 15:04
Please continue. I enjoy it when people make fools of themselves.

nobody is better at it than ur retarded self

PirateGlen
10-18-2011, 15:42
nobody is better at it than ur retarded self

So we're done defending your indefensible posts?

[LoD] EE
10-18-2011, 15:48
no bc ur a retarded dumbfuck twat getting all mad

what i said is still true.
read again kid


nobody is better at it than ur retarded self

You should not be calling others retarded or kid when you can't use a shift key or spell like an adult.

Just saying.

StainlessSteelRat
10-18-2011, 15:56
Here's the scientific basis for Paul's unpopularity.
http://www.politico.com/2012-election/presidential-polls/#mainContent

I've always been skeptical of national polls w/ a sample size of 433....... Their 'science' may be perfect, but people aren't scientific.

I doubt the findings even more when the field is as large as it is now.

Esudar
10-18-2011, 16:45
EE;5187833']You should not be calling others retarded or kid when you can't use a shift key or spell like an adult.

Just saying.

what do you need a shift key for?
for the first letter of every sentence rofl :lmao:

Apex Vertigo
10-18-2011, 19:00
you missed that i didnt write a thing about voters and political stuff.
of course its not representative.
still tools like facebook are heavily used by economy and science alike for research, marketing, pr .......
another reason why all of u social media haters have no future

Except facebook isn't limited to America so it is likely a good portion of that number weren't even citizens of this country and thus completely and utterly irrelevant. You people are fucking dense.


I've always been skeptical of national polls w/ a sample size of 433....... Their 'science' may be perfect, but people aren't scientific.

Lmfao what?

Esudar
10-18-2011, 19:12
Except facebook isn't limited to America so it is likely a good portion of that number weren't even citizens of this country and thus completely and utterly irrelevant. You people are fucking dense.



congratulations that you found one of the about 47 reasons why you cant take facebook as source for 100% representative surveys

now get your high-five from your buttbuddy glen and you can talk about that beginners statistics holiday course you took together.

Makestro
10-18-2011, 19:13
I want RP to win just so when he fails to change anything you all shut the fuck up.

I guess when he ends the wars he can say he did more for this country than Obama did.

StainlessSteelRat
10-18-2011, 19:26
Lmfao what?

Why would something you don't understand (whether my fault or yours) result in you lyfao? Interesting phenomenon.

You can apply statistics to polling results. There is nothing that obligates people to follow statistical guidelines.

You do know that these pollsters speak to very few and then make the assumption that each demographic group (of their choosing) among the sample is representative of that entire demographic group.

Well, it may be mostly accurate to assume that since all black male respondents opted for Obama that all black males will vote for Obama but the same can not be said for, let's say, all white males.

And when you have a field as large as the GOP primary field, I think the variations within a demographic will be much greater and at the same time, easier to miss w/ a small sample size.

They are more prediction than poll.

bongloads
10-18-2011, 22:53
what do you need a shift key for?
for the first letter of every sentence rofl :lmao:

that's worse than a popsicle stick joke

PirateGlen
10-19-2011, 03:58
I've always been skeptical of national polls w/ a sample size of 433....... Their 'science' may be perfect, but people aren't scientific.

I doubt the findings even more when the field is as large as it is now.

The sample size definitely impacts the margin for error... but it is still infinitely more accurate than the only polls being offered.

PirateGlen
10-19-2011, 04:01
congratulations that you found one of the about 47 reasons why you cant take facebook as source for 100% representative surveys

now get your high-five from your buttbuddy glen and you can talk about that beginners statistics holiday course you took together.

Thanks for admitting your mistake. I accept your apology.

Esudar
10-19-2011, 11:43
Thanks for admitting your mistake. I accept your apology.

i didnt make a mistake. you try to claim i mentioned stuff i never did while looking more and more like a retard.
scientific works looks different

PirateGlen
10-19-2011, 12:27
i didnt make a mistake. you try to claim i mentioned stuff i never did while looking more and more like a retard.
scientific works looks different
I made no such claim. YOU claimed I have no point. Now you're degenerating to save face.

Khorsy
10-19-2011, 12:44
Break (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1e4L_qXCso)

Esudar
10-19-2011, 14:00
I made no such claim. YOU claimed I have no point. Now you're degenerating to save face.

you claimed, you looked retarded and you still do

PirateGlen
10-20-2011, 04:13
you claimed, you looked retarded and you still do

Do you suppose repeating a lie will make it true? Perhaps you could show where I made such a claim.

StainlessSteelRat
10-20-2011, 15:14
The sample size definitely impacts the margin for error... but it is still infinitely more accurate than the only polls being offered.

Sure, online polls have no controls in place to allow for the application of statistic modeling.

And a poll of 433 people might be more accurate if those 433 were able to represent most voting groups. I don't think it can. I think there are many demographics out there that are not represented in these more scientific polls.