Thread: Fox News Ignores/Pulls Post Debate Poll That Ron Paul Won

Fox News Ignores and Pulls Post Debate Poll That Ron Paul Wins

Wake Up 1776
Friday, August 12, 2011
Posted by Wake Up 1776 at 12:18 AM

The Fox News commentator tells everyone who just got done watching the Republican Presidential debate in Iowa to go on FoxNews.com and vote. So then Hannity comes on and brings his hired propagandist Frank Luntz and then interviews several candidates except Ron Paul. I don't even remember Hannity showing a video clip of Ron Paul during the entire show.

The announcement of the poll results was supposed to be done during the hour long Hannity post-debate show. The entire show was a propaganda piece saying nice things about everyone but Ron Paul.

Well, it turns out Ron Paul won the FoxNews.com poll handily. He won it by several thousand votes. Here is a screenshot and a breakdown of the poll results shortly after 12 am ET (after Hannity's show concluded).



1st Place: Paul with 7,796 votes
2nd Place: Gingrich with 4,751 votes
3rd Place: Cain with 2,425 votes
4th Place: Romney (the supposed front-runner) with 1,870 votes
5th Place: Bachmann (the other so-called front-runner) with 1,818 votes
6th Place: Santorum with 835 votes
7th Place: Huntsman with 303 votes
Last Place: Pawlenty with 250 votes

Here is a state breakdown of the poll. Ron Paul takes almost every state in the union except Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, Georgia, and Mississippi.



Shortly after Hannity's show, Fox News pulled the poll off their website:



It was somewhere in the yellow area before it was pulled down.

So what does this mean? This means that Ron Paul got over 7,000 votes in less than an hour from all 50 states from an audience that is mostly conservative that watched Fox News. It also shows that he almost doubled the 2nd place contender's votes. It also shows he won Iowa - the main purpose for the Iowa debate and an early primary state. It shows that Fox News is scared and that Frank Luntz is a liar. It shows that Ron Paul has a real good shot at winning this election.

Source: http://www.wakeup1776.com/2011/08/fox-n ... cause.html

RELATED

Ron Paul could be a surprise victor in Ames straw poll
By Chris Cillizza

http://theerant.yuku.com/topic/43424#.TkZquYLJQlo



Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, greets supporters at a campaign event at a hotel in Des Moines, Iowa, Wednesday, Aug. 10, 2011. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)DES MOINES, Iowa — Texas Rep. Ron Paul has long been regarded as a somewhat entertaining distraction in his two presidential races over the past four years.

But, on the eve of the Ames Straw Poll, the first major organizing test of the 2012 Republican presidential race, there is a strain of thinking that Paul could seriously challenge the likes of Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty for supremacy on Saturday.

“He’s got the supporter passion of a Bachmann with the organization of a Pawlenty,â€

FOX WANTS PERRY.Big money paying FOX.

Like all media Fox has an agenda, the debate was an opportunity to make sound bites via gotcha questions and play it again and again,Fox was so proud of what they did patting themselves on the back constantly, when in fact they and all media undermine the process with there games.

The 24 hour news cycle harms the country IMO, if it were fact based fine but really it's simply theater. O'reilly is my pet peeve, fair and balanced only as it concerns his portfolio.

It shows that Ron Paul has a real good shot at winning this election.

Ron Paul has no shot at winning this election, yet he leads the mainstream Repubs. That tells you whom will be elected.

just like before... the game is rigged from top to bottom

Originally Posted by AirborneSapper7

just like before... the game is rigged from top to bottom

=========================================

All the markings are there.

This is written by our friend Tom Tancredo who is a patriot.

Tom is exposing Ron Paul for what he truly is. He is a friend of La Raza, and NOT a friend of those Americans who are against illegal immigration.

Ron Paul has flip flopped on how he stood on illegal immigration in 2008, and now is in the La Raza camp.

Ron Paul's amnesty with an asterisk

Posted: May 14, 2011
1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

On Thursday, Ron Paul announced he would form an exploratory committee for a run at the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. This is about as unexpected as spring snow melt.

I served with Ron Paul in Congress for 10 years. He was a member of my Immigration Reform Caucus, and I consider him a friend. We didn't see eye to eye on every issue, but he was generally an ally in the fight against illegal immigration. Unfortunately, it appears that Paul's views on immigration have now shifted into the pro-amnesty camp.

Last week, Rep. Paul released his latest book, "Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom." One of those 50 issues is immigration, and Paul gives a more detailed explanation of his views in the book than I have ever seen before.

The result is not pretty. Paul's book misrepresents the views of immigration-control advocates and then insults their motivations. He insinuates that patriotic Americans who oppose mass immigration are lazy and motivated by race. He says that immigrants "have a work ethic superior to many of our own citizens who have grown dependent on welfare and unemployment benefits. This anger may reflect embarrassment as much as anything." He also claims, "It's hard to hide the fact that resentment toward a Hispanic immigrant is more common than toward a European illegal immigrant."

Concerned about the impact of illegal aliens on the United States? Don't miss Tom Tancredo's book, "In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America's Border and Security" -- now just $9.95!

The immigration website refutes both of these assertions. They note that 77 percent of illegal aliens are Hispanic, while less than 5 percent of illegal and 10 percent of legal immigrants are European – so the idea that we are treating Europeans specially is specious. VDARE also points to a Center for Immigration Studies report that shows immigrants are much more likely to be on welfare than native-born American citizens.

In addition to insulting the motives of the critics of uncontrolled immigration, he argues against policies that we don't support. According to Paul, immigration-control advocates want to "use the U.S. Army, round them up, ship them home." In my decades fighting this battle, I have not once heard anyone advocate using the military for deportations.

Paul says deporting illegal immigrants will require "splitting up families and deporting some who have lived here for decades." Of course, there is nothing keeping the children of illegal immigrants from going home for their parents. If we got rid of birthright citizenship, which Paul says he supports, that would not be an issue to begin with.

As for the illegals here for decades, why should we reward them for breaking the law longer than others? Some crimes have a statute of limitation, but unlawful entry into our country does not.

According to Paul, deporting such people would be "incompatible with human rights." That is an off argument for any true libertarian to make, since the protection of true human rights begins with the U.S. Constitution and our ability to enforce the rule of law.

The truth is that we do not need to deport all illegal aliens to make them go home. If we simply prevent employers from hiring illegal aliens by using E-Verify and step up interior enforcement as Arizona, Oklahoma and other states have done, most illegal aliens will go home on their own.

Paul comes out against both these policies. He not only opposes the E-Verify program, he even comes out against all laws that prohibit employers from hiring illegal aliens. To make his point even more dramatic, he absurdly calls the idea of fining employers for hiring illegal aliens "involuntary servitude."

Paul comes out against Arizona's popular SB 1070 law using absurd arguments of the type normally heard only from America-hating leftists: "Arizona-type immigration legislation can turn out to be harmful. Being able to stop any American citizen under the vague charge of 'suspicion' is dangerous even more so in the age of secret prisons and a stated position of assassinating American citizens if deemed a 'threat,' without charges ever being made."

I am still scratching my head trying to figure out what supposed secret prisons and political assassinations have to do with enforcing our immigration laws. The Arizona law's definition of 
"reasonable suspicion" is the same standard that applies for federal immigration officials and local law enforcement for non-immigration violations, so the law does not expand police powers.

So if we can't enforce the law, what does Paul want to do with the 12 million illegal aliens here in this country? While he says he opposes amnesty, he argues, "Maybe a 'green card' with an asterisk could be issued." This "asterisk" would deny them welfare and not grant them immediate "automatic citizenship." Both these qualifications are meaningless because every amnesty proposal makes illegal aliens jump through some symbolic hoops before they get amnesty.

I have no idea why he has changed his position on illegal immigration, but one thing is clear: Asterisk or not, Ron Paul now supports amnesty.


Read more: Ron Paul's amnesty with an asterisk http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=298 ... z1V0soCt62

I was very disappointed to hear Congressman Paul's comments, among others, in reference to illegal immigration, from the debate. I also went through the Presidential grading provided by NumbersUSA. So many "F" and "D" scores for candidates.

Hebrews 11:1

Originally Posted by GeorgiaPeach

I was very disappointed to hear Congressman Paul's comments, among others, in reference to illegal immigration, from the debate. I also went through the Presidential grading provided by NumbersUSA. So many "F" and "D" scores for candidates.

Hebrews 11:1

============================================

I completely agree. Michelle Bachmann gets NumbersUSA highest score, and now she is under total liberal bombardment for not supporting gay and lesbian marriage.

Put a fork in America?