Ron Paul Dominates Non-partisan Straw Poll

TransWorldNews ^ | 8/27/2007 | staff

[SJackson]

Ron Paul obviously got a bunch of his followers to load-up this poll - Was there a link to it on "Nutjob.com?" Actually, SJackson posted an earlier copy of the same poll when Kucinich was holding the lead by a small margin. SJackson wanted everyone to believe Kucinich actually had more support than Ron Paul. Then, apparently, the Paulian Horde noticed it.

Interesting, GWB from Ron Paul central skipping threads.

No, it was a response to a suggestion I support Dennis.

As I noted, these internet polls are bogus, and those who believe them are morons, yes GWB, you are a political moron.

But let's see your response to this now "legitimate" poll when King Ron was only up 3-1, in post 74

Asterisk-Free Libertarianism--The Constitution For Dummies (i.e. Ron Paul Supporters)

Posted by George W. Bush to SJackson; DreamsofPolycarp; The_Eaglet; Irontank; Gamecock; elkfersupper; dcwusmc; gnarledmaw; ...
On News/Activism 08/26/2007 12:32:50 PM CDT · 74 of 152

I thought I should repost SJackson's post and my own response and flag all of you to it.

SJackson, Post #39

Since we're discussing moonbat candidates, that makes sense. After all, like Paul, Dennis is winning the moonbat vote. Dennis Kucinich Beating Ron Paul in Online Poll http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?storyid=21531&ret=Default.aspx Washington D.C. 8/25/2007 9:59 AM GMT (FINDITT) USAElectionPolls.com is currently holding an online straw poll on the front page of its website. The questions is worded "Who do you want to see as president? (Reps and Dems)". Dennis Kucinich is leading the Democrats by a 3:1 margin over Barack Obama. Ron Paul has a commanding 5:1 lead over Mitt Romney. If it was a head to head bout, Dennis Kucinich would be beating Internet Phenom Ron Paul. Go to http://www.usaelectionpolls.com.

Notice how SJackson posts a false and misleading result from an obscure website. Although providing a link to the real online poll page, SJackson relies on the laziness of FReepers to fall for her little trick.

Here's the real online poll result:

---

Who do you want to see as president? (Reps and Dems)

Rudy Giuliani 2% (38)
Fred Thompson 1% (18)
Mitt Romney 3% (68)
John McCain 0% (7)
Newt Gingrich 0% (10)
Mike Huckabee 1% (30)
Ron Paul 52% (1152)
Tom Tancredo 0% (3)
Sam Brownback 0% (3)
Duncan Hunter 0% (4)
Barack Obama 9% (203)
John Edwards 2% (40)
Hillary Clinton 4% (90)
Bill Richardson 1% (18)
Dennis Kucinich 20% (448)
Joe Biden 1% (15)
Mike Gravel 1% (17)
Chris Dodd 0% (5)
Al Gore 2% (40)

---

I thought it was worth pointing out how SJackson and the other Paul-haters routinely use misleading quotes from obscure websites to trash Ron Paul. It shows how desperate and dishonest they really are. Well, if the malicious keyword spamming they engage in isn't enough to tip readers off to begin with.

As usual, when her trick is exposed (as she has been so many times before), SJackson will feign indignant righteousness, pretending that she didn't know and click through. Of course, when someone like SJackson has done this exact same trick dozens of times on countless threads with her little crew of Paul-haters, the denials become pretty hard to believe. Any ordinary person who examines such a post would conclude that SJackson is a deliberate smearer who has no interest in the truth.

It doesn't get much more dishonest than this. But I'm sure the Paul-haters are just waiting for another chance to smear Ron Paul as they have done so many times before. This is part and parcel of the tactics of the Paul-haters, hence my flag to the rest of you.

George W. Bush's characterization of me and those who have the audacity not to support Paul as follows in post .

blatantly dishonest article from you.

your entire little ongoing trollfest

How ignorant and malicious can you be?

Your posts are systematic in their use of innuendo and third-party misquotes

Your own news threads are all suspect when you have established such a history of deliberate dishonesty.

As usual, when her trick is exposed (as she has been so many times before), SJackson will feign indignant righteousness, pretending that she didn't know and click through

her little crew of Paul-haters

It doesn't get much more dishonest than this

This is part and parcel of the tactics of the Paul-haters, hence my flag to the rest of you.

They attempt to get someone to say someone about 9/11 Trutherism or something antisemitic so they all hit Abuse.

This is an organized disinformation effort by the Paul-haters, likely coordinated via FRmail if you notice the pattern of how they appear on these threads.

I thought that due to the repeated dishonest posting and baiting tactics the Paul-haters use, we need to start pointing it out.

see exactly how the Paul-haters operate, who they are, who some of them truly support, the anti-FReeper forums some of them belong to, etc.

Many of the Paul-haters are not what they appear to be. They are FUDsters and rely on people's laziness to believe their lies and distortions. I think everyone needs to know about it before they waste their time responding to such obvious trollish and baiting posts.

The fact of the matter is that George W. Bush is full of *rap. He pontificates, but can't back up anything. A characteristic many of his fellow Paul supporters share. They do their candidate no favors.

Anyway, he's got 2,000 plus votes out ther George, can't do much better than that.

And any time you care to attempt to back up those accusations, feel free to ping me.

If you care to ping me thread to thread like this, that's ok too, you're not a particularly competant troll.

BTW, what's with the she stuff.

The only time I've been called a she was a few years ago on either libertypost or libertyforum, a thread about the conspiracy at FR. Did you make that up, or in your extensive reasearch on google about me and other Freepers (you did admit that GWB) did you read something a banned freeper posted and take it for fact?

Or do you think as a female my opinion is less important?

[concretebob]

Thats the ticket..
I'd trust that poll over anything from the left.

and may I say, that is one heck of a profile page.
That took some time.

[the_Watchman]

What do I say?!?

I say I want someone who is willing to protect the U.S. from Islamofascists and who recognizes that we are at war!!

Ron Paul needs to get a grip on reality.

[chesty_puller]

Let's see, one who desires an abrupt end to U.S. troops being needlessly killed and wounded is one who doesn't support them?

John Kerry comes to mind. Sheehan, Murtha, etc. Paul has some good allies.

[listenhillary]

I can barely update my profile page any more. My browser times out when I hit the update key.

[George W. Bush]

My original point stands, despite your denials.

You took a post on an obscure forum that claimed Kucinich was the winner. In fact, Paul was already leading at the actual online poll.

And why didn't you just post the poll results directly? Obviously, that didn't suit your purpose.

It's not the first time you've used these same sorts of tactics.

[John D]

So who thinks morons.org will support Ron Paul?

They are the only ones who would support a white flag waving coward like cut and run.

[SJackson]

No answers I see, like most trolls.

Been there, done that, you're not even creative.

[Petronski]

Paulbearer HQ cannot afford Kool-aid, just that Wylers crap.

[George W. Bush]

George W. Bush's characterization of me and those who have the audacity not to support Paul as follows in post...

Since you are engaging in your usual wronged innocence act, I'll point out that my descriptions are accurate but do not apply to all those who don't support Ron Paul.

They do accurately describe a certain small and persistent group of Paul-bashers whose presence on a thread is generally indicated by the libelous keyword spamming that is typical of your group, strangely enough, just like a certain group of now-departed ex-FReepers. Repeatedly posting discredited information as spam is also a favorite tactic.

After dozens of threads like that, did you think we didn't notice?

[elhombrelibre]

Yeah, just because Ron Paul and his supporters associate with unsavory people, doesn’t mean that’s their fault or his.

[Bob J]

This article is a press release put out by this polling website....which is minutely small.

Pay no attention.

[George W. Bush]

BTW this poll is a waste of time.

Like all online polls. And like all the libmedia phone polls too!

You know, during the Xlinton era, every last FReeper knew that all these polls are nothing but a libmedia propaganda tool designed to move public opinion, particularly if the public holds an opinion but not strongly.

These polls constantly probe weaknesses in the public mind. Further polls can then be constructed to prove that "the public thinks X" where X is the favored libmedia outcome.

I really do wish that every last FReeper still knew that these polls are bad for us conservatives and Republicans. They are the honed tools of our enemies who have no intention of fairness or accuracy. Their standard for truth is "false but accurate" as the Rather incident demonstrated so graphically.

[SJackson]

They do accurately describe a certain small and persistent group of Paul-bashers whose presence on a thread is generally indicated by the libelous keyword spamming that is typical of your group, strangely enough, just like a certain group of now-departed ex-FReepers. Repeatedly posting discredited information as spam is also a favorite tactic....After dozens of threads like that, did you think we didn't notice?

Bozo, you pinged a large number of Paul supporters to your Bull *hit, not a one responded.

My suggestion as I've noted before, if you don't want me here make your accusations.

As to the keyword accusations of "my group", I don't have a group and you're a liar.

Admin Moderator, feel free to weigh in.

If you can't, particularly on the keyword issue, I'll understand.

[Lovebloggers]

Hmmm, that’s funny because I voted, cleared my cookies and then voted again.

So easy, even a caveman can vote several times in it.

[Chi-townChief]

LOL

[Grunthor]

“If a Conservative like Ron Paul”

Quite sure I’m not the first to tell you but Ron Paul is no conservative. He’s a libertarian. FYI I spelled libertarian with the small “l” on purpose. I will give him props as a Republican, but not a conservative, a libertarian Republican.

[Grunthor]

“We don’t need some empty suit!!! (Fred Thompson)”

Opinion (on the empty suit quip)

We don’t need a Baby Killer! (Rudy Giuliani)

You are correct.

We don’t need some cult religious kook! (you-know-who!)

Mormonism is not a cult. Cults don’t let you leave.

“We need a Tall, Strong, Handsome, Muscle Bound Texan to Kick Hillary’s Ass!”

When one gets in the race, ping me.

[magellan]

"Debunked millions of times on existing Paul threads."

The facts speak for themselves:

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/allpolitics/0706/popup.congress.earmarks/pdfs/tx.14.paul.pdf

What's $400 million between friends?

And I love Ron Paul's truly Kerryesque explanation: I voted for the earmarks before I voted against them.

You gotta be kidding me.

[Grunthor]

“Straw polls mean nothing!”

Online Straw Polls such as this, mean even less than that.