By The Right Scoop


Tonight’s debate was a very good debate so it’s time for another ‘who won the debate’ poll:


Why is Ron Paul not on the poll? Because his fans always skew my poll.

I get tons of emails asking me what I mean by skewing the poll. For some reason people think that it only means multiple votes from one person. Actually, I can control that. What I detest is seeing, after every debate and after every poll that I post with Ron Paul’s name on it, is all these websites posting my poll for every Ron Paul fan in the known universe who never even visits TRS to come and vote for Ron Paul. That’s what I mean by skewing the results and that’s why his name will NEVER appear on a TRS poll again.

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop


Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • http://twitter.com/PuritanD71 PuritanD71

    I truly believe that Newt won this hands down and Santorum did very well. Romney was hit fairly hard and stumbled a bit, especially with the income tax return.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_P5IXYRWJZR7X3ZKIBCSSEDJG4E Jeremy Ryan

      Its too bad Santorum and Gingrich failed to get on half the ballots. Gingrich actually paid the fee to get on one of the ballots. The new CNN poll shows Obama would beat Santorum and Gingrich by 7-12 points. Those 2 things make them unelectable. Debate performance is irrelevant if you cant win in the general.

      http://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html

      • Anonymous

        good thing the election isn’t next week then

      • http://www.facebook.com/chuck.werner3 Chuck Werner

        You put Newt Gingrich across from Barrack Obama in a couple debates and see how many people will vote for the Pretender-in-Chief when he’s left weeping in a corner.

      • Anonymous

        You can not even take Polls yet as to who would win between Obama and ? because those polls asking the question are also who would you vote for. The Republicans vote right now is divided between 5 while Obama’s isn’t divided at all. Once the Republicans have a Candidate then everyone will come together. It’s why when people are ask a General Question concerning Obama and an unknown GOP Canada Obama always loses but when a name is put in there Obama wins.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mark-Richardson/100000291729122 Mark Richardson

          Additionally, a third party run is not taken into consideration.
          Republican X Vs. Obama will not happen. It will be Republican X Vs. Independent Y Vs. Libertarian Z Vs. Obama.
          That is a tough calculation, and obviously, Republican X stands to lose the most. There are too many variables especially since none of those Candidates are even identified.

      • Anonymous

        This ad paid for by “Drones for Mitt Romeny”.
        Regan was behind inthe polls as well, and was touted as “unelectable” by establishment hacks, much like yourself. People who don’t have the balls to stand up to Brian Williams and Matt Lauer and confidently defend the conservative position. You can’t because you don’t really believe in it. i would hope mitt would be on the ballots. Hell he’s only been campaigning for president since the last election cycle! Paul to! Luckily we have 47 more states to go through so stop trying to dienfranchise my vote by advocating for a quick primary. Like Newt says, you can support the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Barack Obama last time. Let me know how that turns out.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1497076194 Travis Pierson

          Newt is a historian and knows that “lost to the guy who lost to Obama” comment is silliness. In ’76, Reagan lost to Ford in the primary. I’m not a Romney guy. Not really FOR any of these guys right now. Paul is the only one who is totally unacceptable to me.

          Newt and Santorum have a history of being big government conservatives. Of those two, I currently prefer Gingrich. Santorum needs to ditch the Eeyore vibe if he expects to be competitive. Perry finally showed up last night but, since his “eliminate 3 departments” flame out, he’s been pulling a Fred Thompson and acting like he doesn’t really want to be there. As smarmy as he is, Romney is the only one who has been consistent in his performance despite his lack of any strong, core principles. Ugh.

          • Dennis Kautz

            Like many within the Republican party and throughout the country, the establishment has their laser light pointer and one can’t help but follow it. You forget what the Republicans were founded on and that is: defenders of the Constitution and proponents of limited government, especially at the federal level. There is only one candidate who has these traits and the actions to back them up. That is Ron Paul, the only choice in restoring our civil liberties and the only choice who has a remote grasp of our dire economic situation.

            Go ahead and keep drinking your Kool aid. Just don’t look at the ingredients.

      • Anonymous

        But if one of them was left standing again Maobama, I bet it would be closer to 55% for them, 42% for Maobama. Those are random numbers… my point is, most americans will rally behind our GOP nominee, in all liklihood, no matter who it is.

        Regardless, we HAVE to win the house and the senate too. This has to be a final indictment of Maobama and his sickening pregressives friends. Throw them all out – take out the garbage!

        • StNikao

          Obama could care less who is nominated.

          The Proud One still has 12 Aces (dirty political election-shaping tricks) up his sleeves:
          – Prevent Voter Photo IDs – dead folks get to vote
          – No National Voter Registry allows multiple residency voters vote twice
          – Hurried amnesty (and voting registration) for illegal aliens.
          – OWS/Arab Spring/Union type civil unrest (aka mob violence) Jimmy Hoffa Jr. promised violence at Obama fundraiser last Fall.
          – Voter Intimidation, Coercion by Unions, other groups
          – Media manipulation through programming, words, attitudes of journalists, comedians, etc. (shaping opinion of electorate)
          – Polls – polls and primaries control money and advertising budgets of candidates
          – Aggressive voter registration in Democratic areas (legal, but still a win strategy) especially when combined with the next tactic
          – Paid votes, community team organizers, busses
          – Prisoners – votes for incarcerated felons
          – Vote count fraud – from hacking machines to trunks full of fraudulent votes (this happened last time around)
          – Americans Elect, a third party candidate would split republican vote and GUARANTEE a win for Obama. This organization is already very well funded by unknown donors and has registered in all 50 states.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steve-Hoffman/100000307384917 Steve Hoffman

            Oh he cares alright…. along with the rest of the elite establishment. They are scared as hell of Ron Paul, that is exactly why they are treating him like a step child. They absolutely know he is the only one that can beat Obama and will also put the brakes on One World Order, and start to correct and reverse all of their progress. Lets not forget what happened to JFK for having the same ideas and integrity

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dawn-Larson/100001390500961 Dawn Larson

        Jeremy … not sure where you get your information, but it’s untrue. VA was the only state where ONLY Romney and Paul were certified. Perry and Santorum have ballot issues, but not Newt.

      • Anonymous

        Polls don’t elect candidates, going to the voting booth does. I don’t trust most polls when they can be so different between them. And it’s easy to sit in your jammies and click a dot on the screen, so many of those answering polls won’t even get dressed let alone go out to actually cast an honest vote.

      • Anonymous

        At this stage in 1979, the polls said Reagan would lose by 25 points to Carter…Reagan then won 44 states in the election

        • Anonymous

          Yes. But as much as we are all praying and hoping, the fact remains that NONE of the candidates are ‘Reagan’. Reagan is not running, and those who try to claim and pick up that mantle as ‘working with Reagan’ were simply dragged along with, or were simply present with Reagan. By the same ideal, they are also “Bush Sr. conservatives” and might even be “Clinton Republicans”.

          We as a voting public need to recognize that no candidate in this race is Reagan. The United States electorate is not what it was in the early 80’s, and the society of the United States is certainly not what it was thirty years ago. Above all, any politician who was in government during that period of time is, by definition, a career politician.

          Take all of those facts as you will, but please, please realize that ‘Reagan’ is NOT running. Any labels we or the candidates place on themselves is simply projection of our self-deception; it is a lie.

    • Blake Justice

      I agree that Newt can handle his words well. It’s his actions I fear.

    • Dennis Kautz

      Let me guess… you are a Gingrich supporter? Of course your guy won.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1492030437 Adele McConnell

    I LOVE that I can vote here and know it won’t be utter futility because of the Paul supporters!

    • Anonymous

      Me too! And they can’t even do a “write-in” either. Ha! TRS is the shizzle!!

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000918322047 Tammy Hartman

        No, but I can do a write in on your comment!

        • http://twitter.com/suapril rebecca erickson

          So..what your saying is that it’s not because we are unethical (more than one vote per person) it’s BECAUSE we support our candidate and send it to his supporters? EVERY person who voes on your poll will vote for HIS/HER CANDIDATE. So why does my vote NOT COUNT? That IS just being the BULLY AND changing the RULES so you can announce the outcome you want.
          Here kids…lets ALL line up at the start of the race…but remember crowd…you get no voice to cheer on your little ole man..in fact…if the popular vote wins..YOU don’t even get a voice. So sit there and eat it because it’s my poll and you don’t even get a voice.
          You are a sand lot BULLY…and to everybody who believes in your candidate…get off your butts and support him. Don’t bully me because WE support Ron Paul
          I watched the debate..I watch EVERY debate…as do most Ron Paul supporters. If I haven’t heard about your TRS…I check it out when I vote..isn’t that what you want? People to come CHECK out your site?
          And you thought we had done away with segregation.

          • Anonymous

            I understand both sides. The Ron Paul supporter argument is valid in stating that they should be counted. However, TRS is pointing out that the tactics used by the Paul supporters destroys the validity of the poll itself.

            TRS is not interested in boosting his site at the expense of falsified polls, plus, it seems that the voting Paul supporters don’t stay afterwards, the flood during polls subsides afterwards… implying that the ‘boost’ is artificial with only the goal of promoting Paul with disproportionate results.

            Would you believe a poll that showed results you didn’t favor, especially if you found out that the statistical cross-section was 5% libertarian, 20% republican, and 70% liberal?

            That’s what TRS is saying. The pro-Paul flood may believe, due to their political choice, that their activism and dedication and simple desire means that they should be able to do whatever they want, but that doesn’t change the fact that they have proven all internet polls including Ron Paul to be statistically invalid.

            The poll cross-section is flawed by your ‘support’ and ends up causing every reporter, every pollster, every conservative to ignore the pro-Paul result. It honestly hurts Ron Paul’s support instead of helping it, simply because no one has any idea how big Ron Paul’s real support base really is. It is claimed to be massive in these internet polls, and yet in a general election, his support seems to evaporate. While proving your devotion and support for Ron Paul, it ends up also giving the erroneous impression that Ron Paul supporters don’t vote for Paul in a real election – because the support is expected to be so much higher due to the polls.

            Sorry, but that’s the truth. Your voice should be heard, but I think that TRS might actually be doing Paul supporters an inadvertent favor with this.

      • Blake Justice

        The real question is why isn’t your candidate getting the love on the internet? There are a lot of computer literate people in this country. Why doesn’t your candidate invoke passion, hope and optimism in people who thought the political system was a sham like Dr. Paul does?

        • Anonymous

          Thats not “the real question”. Stop making stuff up. Bye.

          • Blake Justice

            And the purpose of your post was….?

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000918322047 Tammy Hartman

      You avoiding Paul supporters is pure futility……

      • http://www.facebook.com/chuck.werner3 Chuck Werner

        Why, he’ll drop soon.

        • http://www.consequenceofsound.net/author/jhpainter Harry Painter

          hahahahaha. Wishful thinking, to make an understatement. You must not have paid attention in 2008.

    • Anonymous

      It’s more like UN-AMERICAN and UNPATRIOTIC “shits” instead.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_P5IXYRWJZR7X3ZKIBCSSEDJG4E Jeremy Ryan

      I like real polls.No the internet ones. Latest CNN/Opinion research poll. Obama 47% / Romney 48%… Obama 48% / Paul 46%…. Obama 52% / Gingrich 43%.. Obama 51% / Santorum 45%.. Romney and Paul are the only electable one.

      • http://twitter.com/PuritanD71 PuritanD71

        Oh yeah, the CNN/op poll we are talking ROCK SOLID stuff here folks….really we are going to determine our candidate by a CNN poll…please move on

      • Anonymous

        Paul is electable to who? I wouldn’t push the button for him using someone else’s finger.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1497076194 Travis Pierson

          As bad as things would be under a second Obama term, I would vote for him over Paul because he’s slightly more in touch with reality on the foreign policy front. The US economy will eventually recover once Obama is out of office. The potential loss of life here in the states under a President Paul would be far more devastating in the long-term than the jobs and income we are losing under the current regime.

        • MarineRPSupporter

          People who love freedom, people who don’t like the same corrupt government that ran us into the ground, people who want less government not more, people who know the Fed is corrupt and needs to go, people who don’t like sending our soldiers to die or to kill innocent men, women and children, people who are sick of the people you propose we elect who got America to exactly where it is — BROKE and HATED by the world, etc., etc., etc. I’ve served 3 tours for this “peace-loving” nation and I’ve seen who our “enemy” is and I promise you the only terrorist over there comes from over here. I, me, this man has been in the midst of reality while you and your kind 99% of the time sit home believing we need to blow everyone off the face of the earth who isn’t like us. All you see on the news is BULLSH*T!!! It’s all propaganda for God sakes! Wake up because your country is 90% gone and it’s YOUR fault for not seeing it. I bet you fought just as hard to get Clinton or Bush, or Bush Sr. or Obama, etc elected when all they were is Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, etc, one and the same. Ron Paul is the ONLY man running who follows our own Constitution and it is appalling, sick and sad so many dumb Americans STILL can’t see it. When America falls it will be YOUR fault as well as those who think like you. Just wait dipstick, it’s coming. Just look at NDAA. What to the hell do you think that is?!?!/ Have you ANY clue or idea??? Mt GOD this country is pathetic with people like you believing the BS.

        • MarineRPSupporter

          People who love freedom, people who don’t like the same corrupt government that ran us into the ground, people who want less government not more, people who know the Fed is corrupt and needs to go, people who don’t like sending our soldiers to die or to kill innocent men, women and children, people who are sick of the people you propose we elect who got America to exactly where it is — BROKE and HATED by the world, etc., etc., etc. I’ve served 3 tours for this “peace-loving” nation and I’ve seen who our “enemy” is and I promise you the only terrorist over there comes from over here. I, me, this man has been in the midst of reality while you and your kind 99% of the time sit home believing we need to blow everyone off the face of the earth who isn’t like us. All you see on the news is BULLSH*T!!! It’s all propaganda for God sakes! Wake up because your country is 90% gone and it’s YOUR fault for not seeing it. I bet you fought just as hard to get Clinton or Bush, or Bush Sr. or Obama, etc elected when all they were is Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, etc, one and the same. Ron Paul is the ONLY man running who follows our own Constitution and it is appalling, sick and sad so many dumb Americans STILL can’t see it. When America falls it will be YOUR fault as well as those who think like you. Just wait dipstick, it’s coming. Just look at NDAA. What to the hell do you think that is?!?! Have you ANY clue or idea??? My GOD this country is pathetic with people like you believing the BS.

      • Anonymous

        CNN is in the pocket for Obama. Even Paul supporters have come out and identified how CNN skews their Polls. Most likely their Polls are really showing who Obama most wants to run against for an easy victory.

        • http://www.facebook.com/MikeMargraf Mike Margraf

          Which would explain also why Senator Santorum would do so poorly in their polls. He is the most consistent full-spectrum conservative in the field, and as so, draws the biggest contrast with Owebama. With his experience, character, & trustworthiness, he has the best chance of beating BHO in the general. They DON’T want to run against him.

        • Dennis Kautz

          More specifically, the polls show who the establishment would like as Obama’s opponent, which is another establishment guy. Or, anyone not Ron Paul. He scares established folks on both sides of the aisle (assuming one sees an actual division at all of established Dem. or Rep.).

      • Anonymous

        Ron Paul said something last night that, at first, I found absolutely outrageous. His application of “The Golden Rule” to foreign policy and Natl Defense. Do unto others… However, now that I think about it I would like to apply it, but reverse it. Instead of us treating them as we would like to be treated. i say we treat them as they say they want to treat us. I say we do unto them as they would do unto us. Pissing on their dead bodies was a start, now I suggst we cut ‘em up and feed them to dogs of the middle east so they can get a good meal for a change. You have to make the thought of standing up to America such a horrifying concept that they find a dark cave to hide in and never come out!

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_U2ZXNF23XH2Q75TXTHUNZJUHYM Prothink

          Maybe if we’d listen to people like former Army War College Director Dr. Alan Sabrosky, Former Italian President Francisco Cossiga, Former Army Intel Capt Eric May, to name just a few who have put their names and careers on the line to courageously state the ugly truth: Israel did 911. Thats right! That is exactly what these people have said verbatim. Along with others like Former CIA Director of the Bin Laden Unit in the CIA Michael Scheuer who said we need to question why we are fighting Israel’s wars and that 911 was a cover up. Don’t worry though, cowards and traitors who didn’t question these issues and help cover them up will soon be seeing the day of the rope (treason is punishable by death and an easy finding of guilt is assured)…

          Michael Delaney – AKA Prothink

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SS7BKEKJ22VBWEMWSSSGP6OO64 Joseph

      The fact that so many support Ron Paul should not make your vote seem futile. This is a democracy.

      • KenInMontana

        No, it’s a Republic.

        • Blake Justice

          It’s neither. Our country is a corporatocracy/elitist run state.

    • Anonymous

      Lol, once you take out Ron Paul, things change, but like Jon Stewart said, you can’t take out Ron Paul and pretend to be giving an honest assessment, it’s physics, you can’t change reality by pretending he’s not there.

    • Blake Justice

      I agree. Are you coming to the book burning, later?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1492030437 Adele McConnell

    By the way, I believe this was Rick Perry’s night! Perry RULED!

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ricardo-Galvan/100001729378103 Ricardo Galvan

      I wouldn’t say that any one individual “won” the debate, but I will say that Perry and Newt had a good night. Santorum will probably start to decline due to his performance tonight. Hopefully Perry will surge over Newt and regain his top spot.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Calvin-Von-Gurnov/1181255805 Calvin Von Gurnov

        I agree he is heading that way. have a great evening

    • Anonymous

      OMG no. Watching Perry debate is like watching a 15-year old student driver try to drive a car and text at the same time. You know a wreck is coming, you just don’t know how bad it’s going to be.

      In all honesty, I like Perry, I truly do. When he came into the race I was very excited because I had heard good things about him. But after watching him I have to say I get no feeling of confidence whatsoever from Perry. I think he’s a very nice man and very competent. But he’s in over his head on the national stage. I always find myself at the edge of my seat when it’s Perry’s turn, and not in a good way. I do however, think Rick Perry would make a fine VP.

      • http://twitter.com/csouza59 Chris

        Lol not qualified? He has run the one of the largest economy’s successfully for 12 yrs? What more do you need? Its the economy stupid! no one in the race is more qualified than Perry w/ a record to prove it. WOW how stupid do you have to be?

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Calvin-Von-Gurnov/1181255805 Calvin Von Gurnov

          Liberal stupid I guess, Perry has proven over and over his record is the best from all the rest Go Perry Go

        • kcfield

          Chris, why do you feel you need to attack a fellow contributor by name calling rather than just saying you disagree?

        • Anonymous

          Where in my post did I say Perry’s “not qualified”? I said he’s very competent. You need to re-read my post and read what is actually written there.

        • Anonymous

          As a former Texas resident I suggest you study up on Texas government Chris. The Governor position in TX is one of the weakest positions of all 50 states. The Lieutenant Governor has as much or more power in TX than the Governor. Being Governor of TX does not help much in preparing someone to be President.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1300614068 Shawn McElhinney

            Of course you do not point out that (i) Perry was Lieutenant Governor of Texas under former Governor George Bush and (ii) Perry has to a certain degree consolidated his power as governor to an extent unlike his predecessors. Or as Texas Monthly magazine aptly noted:

            “Texas is not a ‘weak governor’ state. A common misconception. It used to be true, but during his historic governorship, Perry has reinvented the office as a power center. This may be his greatest accomplishment. Yes, our state constitution, written the year before Reconstruction ended, created a weak governor’s office (as did most constitutions of the states of the former Confederacy). We had two-year terms (the Legislature changed it to four-year terms beginning with the 1974 election) and a fragmented executive department with power divided among the governor, the lieutenant governor, the comptroller, the land and agriculture commissioners, the attorney general, and the railroad commission. But Perry has used his appointment power to install political allies in every state agency, effectively establishing a Cabinet form of government and making him vastly more powerful than any of his predecessors. In this regard, the Texas politician he most resembles is LBJ, who, Robert Caro reports, once told an assistant, ‘I do understand power, whatever else may be said about me. I know where to look for it and how to use it.’ Rick Perry, to a tee.”

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1300614068 Shawn McElhinney

            Of course you do not point out that (i) Perry was Lieutenant Governor of Texas under former Governor George Bush and (ii) Perry has to a certain degree consolidated his power as governor to an extent unlike his predecessors. Or as Texas Monthly magazine aptly noted:

            “Texas is not a ‘weak governor’ state. A common misconception. It used to be true, but during his historic governorship, Perry has reinvented the office as a power center. This may be his greatest accomplishment. Yes, our state constitution, written the year before Reconstruction ended, created a weak governor’s office (as did most constitutions of the states of the former Confederacy). We had two-year terms (the Legislature changed it to four-year terms beginning with the 1974 election) and a fragmented executive department with power divided among the governor, the lieutenant governor, the comptroller, the land and agriculture commissioners, the attorney general, and the railroad commission. But Perry has used his appointment power to install political allies in every state agency, effectively establishing a Cabinet form of government and making him vastly more powerful than any of his predecessors. In this regard, the Texas politician he most resembles is LBJ, who, Robert Caro reports, once told an assistant, ‘I do understand power, whatever else may be said about me. I know where to look for it and how to use it.’ Rick Perry, to a tee.”

          • http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe

            Suggest you re read Texas Government 101.

          • Blake Justice

            Wasn’t “W” a Texas governor? I agree that the office doesn’t make you credible, even less now.

      • Anonymous

        I agree. He also is always trying to get that great one-liner as well. He seems to be trying to hard if that makes any sense. Talking about how defense cuts lead to the Desert One mishap in Iran and saying “Never Again!” I kind of scratched my head on that one.

      • Anonymous

        Perry was very well rehearsed tonight. But we need a leader who can think on their feet Like Gingrich. Then you have Ron Paul who is a babbling idiot who keeps changing his thinking on what to do with all those troops he’s going to bring home. Building more bases here? Right! He’ll have to discharge all those troops which he didn’t want to say out loud. You just can’t bring home 1 million troops and have them sit around doing nothing and the Constitution limits what our military can do in the U.S.

        Hell he couldn’t even use the military to build all these new bases because the military can’t build in the U.S. except for training purposes.

        • Blake Justice

          Others are mentioning reductions in future spending, but Paul is the only one talking about any cuts whatsoever. There’s a reason why Ron Paul gets more financial support from military citizens than all the other GOP candidates combined. Think about it for a moment. More people who served this country back Ron Paul with their hard earned money and Ron Paul wants to bring them home. They see first hand what war is about and the senselessness of creating ‘blowback’ for our country.

          • Anonymous

            Paul is always saying he gets the most military support but that has yet to be verified. He was forced to produce his donor list and on it the majority of his military contributions were for the max of $2,300 which I have yet to meet a military person who could afford such a large donation.

            Most of your military personnel don’t even get involved in political debate nor would they donate such large amounts to any candidate.

            Ron Paul’s claim to such donations can not be verified since he does not ask for proof of claim.

            I spend a lot of time with the military I find some Paul supporters and Obama supporters but mostly I find supporters of the other candidates and find Paul supporters being challenged by other military members. He does not have the large support from the military that he claims he does.

            • Dennis Kautz

              I live in southeast NC which is teaming with military personnel -both retired and currently in the service. Overwhelmingly, the people I talk to who have served, support Paul. Granted, most privates don’t have extra money and/or don’t care too much about politics. Many have been affected negatively by our foreign policy and are coming out to support Ron Paul. The support may come in the form of money or volunteering or voicing approval to others. There is more support for him than any other candidate from my real world experience. It’s not even close.

          • KenInMontana

            As of January 6, 2012 , according to available numbers, Paul’s campaign received amounts of, $24,503, $23,335 and $17,432, from donors who listed the US Military as their “employer”, for a total of $65,270. As of September 2011 there was a total of 1,468,364 active duty service members.
            Let’s do a little math.
            First let’s do the equation so that we “give” him the most possible number of supporters;
            If each of them donated $1 that would come to 4.4% of military personnel supporting Ron Paul.
            If they donated $10 each, that’s .44%.
            If they were feeling real generous and gave $100 each, that would make it .044% of military personnel support Paul.

            When I was serving, the majority of us (that were single) found many other things that we would rather spend it on than politicians. Seems very little has changed.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1497076194 Travis Pierson

        I wouldn’t put him in the VP spot. Texas is a lock. Obama will never get those electoral votes. The VP candidate needs to be someone who will shore up at least one swing state and have broad appeal in others, and who will be young enough to be a viable candidate in 8 years. I see West or Rubio getting the nod.

    • Anonymous

      Perry has really stepped up his game. I was impressed with his performance. I don’t support him, but you gotta give due credit.

  • Anonymous

    wheres the ron paul option??

    • http://twitter.com/doorsxp Doors Xp

      It’s in Iran next to the nuclear bomb labs, so don’t worry about it, not our concern.

      • Anonymous

        Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahashahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha…

      • Anonymous

        And the award for reply of the day goes to: “Doors Xp”. (Applause)

        • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

          I’ll second that! Clapping over here!!

          • daan scheerder

            There is no evidence of Iran having nuclear weapons. It’s just empty claims, just as with the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

            • Anonymous

              Not yet at least. And Israel doesn’t seem to think they are headed that way either (sarcasm for those that missed it)

            • Anonymous

              Yea, they said the same thing about Hitler. There was no evidence of Hitler rebuilding the German military either after WWI.

              As for WMD’s in Iraq. Iraq refused to allow inspectors into the country to make sure he was abiding by the rules of his surrender just as Germany did in Post WWI. We ignored Hitler ignoring the inspecting and look what happened.

              Hussein gave us no choice. BTW, there were WMD’s it’s how the Iraqi Generals and their troops where able to escape the country into Syria. They mixed in with the refugees. It’s why the 4th infantry was stopped by Turkey from entering Iraq from the North because they would have ran right into the escaping Iraqi Army. We couldn’t use Air Power because of the civilians and our air born on the ground wasn’t equip to take on armor units so all they could do is watch convoys of military equipment leave Iraq and go into Syria.

              • Blake Justice

                The only WMD’s in Iraq were the 300+ tons of depleted uranium bombs dropped by the US onto Iraq. In many areas, the infant mortality rate has gone up 6x, while the birth defects and cancer rates have gone off the charts. You don’t hear any of this on Fox or CNN. Reports also claim depleted uranium used in Libya too.

                • Anonymous

                  depleted Uranium bombs? That’s just complete B.S. all the way. You are talking to someone that was there and in a position to know. It really amazed me of the mis-information that was reported back here in the states.

                  The reason why you don’t hear any of this from Fox or CNN is because it’s totally untrue.

                  We’ve had over 1 million military personnel come back from Iraq and not one suffered from exposure to Uranium. I toured Iraq with some pretty high up people who would not have gone anywhere near a contaminated area.

                  We have built new schools, water distillation plants, new hospitals and upgraded their medical technology among many other improvements. We did a lot of good in Iraq and the majority of the people there liked us and didn’t want us to leave. I just wish our media was forced to tell the truth and not make up stories for their own personal agenda :-0

                • Blake Justice

                  Just because you were there does not mean you were briefed what was actually going on. The Pentagon has already admitted to using between 315 and 350 tons (not pounds) of depleted uranium in bombs and shells during the first Gulf War. In addition, depleted uranium (DU) munitions, which contain low-level radioactive waste, were used heavily in Fallujah. The Pentagon admits to having used 1,200 tons of DU in Iraq thus far. I am not attacking any of the troops, such as yourself, who served in Iraq or Afghanistan. I am attacking the Pentagon for putting so little value on American and Iraqi lives. Anyone exposed to these weapons is in danger of serious health issues.

                • Anonymous

                  Blake Justice, you do realize that all the munitions that contain depleted uranium are physically handled by everyone and are not harmful in anyway? You are claiming that because of the U.S. using munitions that contain depleted uranium that it’s causing serious health problems when that is totally untrue.

                  The reason why I toured around Iraq with those high up on the food chain was because I was apart of their security detail and was in on a lot of conversation and happening around Iraq.

                  You are taking misinformation and spreading it around as fact when it is not. Congratulations, you are now a real time propagandas helping to spread the words that can help turn people against not only the U.S. but also those in uniform and put their lives endanger.

                • Blake Justice

                  While they may not be harmful inside the shell casings, bombs and shells are made to use. And when you use them, they explode. When they explode they are extremely harmful. This is not fringe information.

                  What is disinformation is suggesting that the truth is dangerous because it supports our enemies. Dubya would be proud of you. The “war on terror” commences.

                • KenInMontana

                  Apparently you do not know much about munitions either. Depleted Uranium is not used in “bombs”, it is used in Armor Piercing ammunition. In other words AP rounds fired by the M-1 Tank, A-10 “Warthog”, and various chainguns and light auto-cannons like those used in the Bradley AFV and we certainly aren’t the only nation that makes use of it, Britain, Russia and China all use it (just to name a few).

                  How common is uranium?
                  “The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) for the Department of Health and Human Services estimates there are an average of 4 tons of uranium in the top foot of soil in every square mile of land. A heavy metal similar to tungsten and lead, uranium occurs in soils in typical concentrations of a few parts per million (equivalent to about half a teaspoon of uranium in a typical 8-cubic yard dump truck-load of dirt).”
                  http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/du.htm

                • Anonymous

                  KenInMontana. Not sure if you were replying to me or Blake Justice

                  Blake Justice was saying the only WMD’s that were found, was those the U.S. DROPPED (not fired) by the U.S. The depleted uranium used in those munitions are harmless (Before exploding of course) and would not cause health concerns in new born’s or anyone else who was around them. Last I checked depleted uranium from our munitions aren’t WMD’s.

                  I can see how for those unaware of depleted uranium and how it’s used would be easily manipulated by the anti American media into believing that the U.S. has done nothing but hurt the Iraqi people when just the opposite is true.

                • Blake Justice

                  So by “harmless”, you mean completely the opposite?

                  Dr. Doug Rokke, on the other hand, former director of the U.S. Army’s Depleted Uranium Project, is very willing to talk about the effects of DU. Rokke was involved in the “clean up” of 34 Abrams tanks and Bradley armored vehicles hit by friendly fire during the 1991 Gulf War. Today he suffers from the ill effects of DU in his body.

                  “A flying rod of solid uranium 18-inches long and three-quarters of an inch in diameter,” is what becomes of a DU tank round after it is fired, Rokke said. Because Uranium-238 is pyrophoric, meaning it burns on contact with air, DU rounds are burning as they fly.

                  When the DU penetrator hits an object it breaks up and causes secondary explosions, Rokke said. “It’s way beyond a dirty bomb,” Rokke said, referring to the terror weapon that uses conventional explosives to spread radioactive material.

                • Blake Justice

                  If depleted uranium is not used in bombs, then why did the Pentagon admit to doing so? I should have said bombs and shells, yes.

                  By your assessment of uranium, we were actually doing Iraq a favor by giving them the needed uranium their bodies crave like magnesium or calcium? It is misinformation or disinformation to compare naturally occurring elements with uranium which is a byproduct of nuclear enrichment and you know it.

                • Anonymous

                  First off Blake Justice, the depleted uranium round fired out of a tank doesn’t burn or explode. It’s designed to penetrate armor whole. The percussion/shock wave from the hit is what destroys the tank after it‘s narrow stronger then steel service penetrates the Tanks armor. Just as a .223 round (22 cal) round does when fired from an M16/M4 service weapon. It’s not the round itself that does the damage but the shock wave it produces inside the body. The depleted uranium round acts in the same matter which is also why it’s not used in bombs because it’s the velocity of the projectile which causes all the damage. Velocity which would not be in existence if dropped and not fired.

                  I don’t know what you are reading or who is admitting what. Maybe you should read what KenInMontana posted. Here, I’ll repost it for you,

                  How common is uranium?
                  “The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) for the Department of Health and Human Services estimates there are an average of 4 tons of uranium in the top foot of soil in every square mile of land. A heavy metal similar to tungsten and lead, uranium occurs in soils in typical concentrations of a few parts per million (equivalent to about half a teaspoon of uranium in a typical 8-cubic yard dump truck-load of dirt).”
                  http://www.globalsecurity.org/

                  Now I will admit, I’m not a munitions expert. I know how munitions are used and what happens when they hit. Depleted uranium is one of the hardest materials on earth which is why it’s used in armored piecing rounds. It would make little sense for it to be used in bombs which are made to exploded and cause an entirely different type of damage. Because of the lack of velocity, using depleted uranium as flack type projectiles which is the only reason why they would be used in bombs would not do anymore damage then just using basic metal objects.

                • Blake Justice

                  Let me post a comment I made in response to the poster you quoted so you may understand my perspective.

                  If depleted uranium is not used in bombs, then why did the Pentagon admit to doing so? I should have said bombs and shells, yes.

                  By your assessment of uranium, we were actually doing Iraq a favor by giving them the needed uranium their bodies crave like magnesium or calcium? It is misinformation or disinformation to compare naturally occurring elements with uranium which is a byproduct of nuclear enrichment and you know it.

                • Blake Justice

                  It should also be mentioned that depleted uranium weaponry usage is illegal under all international treaties, agreement and conventions, as well as under US military law.

                • Blake Justice

                  Let me repost this:

                  …Rokke said. Because Uranium-238 is pyrophoric, meaning it burns on contact with air, DU rounds are burning as they fly.

                  pyrophoric [ˌpaɪrəʊˈfɒrɪk]
                  adj
                  1. (Chemistry) (of a chemical) igniting spontaneously on contact with air

                • Blake Justice

                  “Uranium-238 is pyrophoric, meaning it burns on contact with air”. It becomes a poisonous gas. Uranium is also very heavy and will go deep in the ground and pollutes the water table. When ingested, it destroys kidneys and livers. Look it up in the Geneva Convention.

                  Also, the US military did a study on the clean up of DU weapons and concluded in 1991 that anyone involved in the clean up should be wearing a full biohazard suit and all clothing afterwords should be destroyed. The tanks that were brought back from Kuwait hit with friendly fire DU rounds were disposed of in radioactive dumps. That tells me they knew of the dangers.

                • Blake Justice

                  Where’d you go. You seemed pretty adamant about my posts and arrogant as though your experience proves you are right. I’d love to hear a rebuttal.

                • Blake Justice

                  “Dr. Doug Rokke, the ex-director of the Pentagon’s Depleted Uranium Project, says that there is no way to totally decontaminate an area hit with uranium, an element that has a half-life of 4.5 billion years and has thus earned the title “the silent killer that will never stop killing.” Rokke today says he was told by the government to lie about the effects of uranium and that most of the crew he worked with is now dead.”

                  Maybe you can plant some in your garden?

                • KenInMontana

                  I have uranium in my garden, everyone does, it is a naturally occurring element, as I pointed out. DU (depleted uranium) is a different animal. So either you or whoever you are quoting, misquoted Dr. Rokke. I would surmise the quote was published by the likes of Alex Jones or George Noory, based on its content. Which would give me great pause in considering its veracity.

      • Anonymous

        Lulz…

      • Anonymous

        I wish I could “like” your comment a million times!

        • PFFV

          That was awesome…lmao!

        • Anonymous

          That still won’t put your candidate over PAUL. Paul= Truth

      • Anonymous

        still doesnt change the fact ron paul debated and is missing from the list of options. i dont understand why i’m being beaten up by pointing out the obvious? a lot of you guys are very immature. Dr. Paul is the only guy up there w/ military experience. wtf???

        • Anonymous

          Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha… I.R.O.N.Y!!!

          A guy accuses another for being ‘immature’ and ends his statement with “what the f*ck?”

          Like I said… Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha…

          • Anonymous

            wow.. hotair has become a cross breed btwn fark.com and littlegreenfootballs. i weep for the future.

            • Anonymous

              not hotair, i meant rightscoop.

            • Anonymous

              I would weep for the future if Wrong Paul got anywhere near the White House. Thank goodness he will be going home after SC

              • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=503181465 Matt Kenny

                Haha. I like your optimism, but you are wrong. Only Paul and Romney are on the Virginia ballot, so he’ll at least make it to Super Tuesday. Not to mention, others are dropping like flies. He will be picking up support from former supporters of the drop outs because most of them cannot stand Romney.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Calvin-Von-Gurnov/1181255805 Calvin Von Gurnov

          What ever , Rick Perry was a pilot while Paul was peeling the potatoes for chow time.

          • Anonymous

            haters gonna hate.

        • Anonymous

          Paul supporters will dominate online polls. I am a Paul supporter, but have to admit that it is not reflective of real numbers when they dominate with their support and organization. Although it seems to me that people could just disregard the votes and look at the others, so it wouldn’t really skew anything, it would just make some people think that he has massive support, which is why Paul supporters do it. They have had some success, as many of the online polls have been reported on news reports.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Larry-Mann/663774247 Larry Mann

          Not True. Rick Perry served in the Air Force in Turkey during the cold war. You have to be correct with the facts to be fair.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1666032837 Julia Francine Dixon

          HELLLO— Paul was drafted as a doctor. Perry joined on his own while Viet Nam was still going, but Nixon ended it before he had to go and so, neither went into Nam. Perry honorable discharged as a Captain after 5 years. Instead of joining the airlines, which he was offereed, he went home to help his father. And BTW—A GOV is the CIC of his state’s troops and also oversees the National Guard/Reserves…Paul has not…

        • Anonymous

          Perry served in the air force as a pilot.

        • Anonymous

          Paul is wrong Period!

        • Anonymous

          First you should know that Ron Paul isn’t the only one with military experience. Perry was an actual line officer unlike Paul who was just a flight surgeon who had NO leadership requirements other then those concerning medical matters.

          He could have been the most senior rank on the air craft but when it would come to anything that wasn’t a medical concern a junior officer or NCO would be in-charged.

          Also he’s not up there because he isn’t important enough to be up there. This is all about the Republican nominee and Paul is a Libertarian by his own words which just proves how phony he really is.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Calvin-Von-Gurnov/1181255805 Calvin Von Gurnov

        Yeah watching the Lucy show on Iranian tv

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Larry-Mann/663774247 Larry Mann

          Hey Calvin when you going to enlist? Make sure you sign up for the MOS 11B. Then lets see in 4 years if you have the same attitude. Freedom is not free unless you are not willing to make the sacrafice. I made it, How about you?

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Larry-Mann/663774247 Larry Mann

        Well doesn’t this make a veteran proud to have served to protect your right to come off with a comment that is so childish that it belongs on the grade school playground. You should be so proud of yourself. Keep drinking the kool-aid kids. Just a few quick questions. How many politicians have lied to you in the past when it came to campaign promises? How many times have you heard a politician tell you someting that you wanted to hear only to forget it once he gained office? How many times have the candidates running for the GOP nomination changed their opinion on any issue when it became popular to do so? How can you trust anything the others have said in light of these facts? It’s your decision but it will affect the future any way you go.

      • Anonymous

        I like how you’re joking about the thousands of Ameicans who
        you want to die in a war without evidence for nuclear weapons or threat.

        • Anonymous

          A person joins the military to fight for his country for what ever his country says he should fight for w/o question. If you didn’t know this before raising your hand then maybe you should have done more research on the matter.

          Many of us joined knowing what was expected of us. Knew we were or could be going to war. I’ve found that most of those who join and now support Paul are nothing but a bunch of cry babies who found out that war wasn’t fun like it was on their game system. Too bad! War is hell. Do your time and get out. What did you enlist for in the first place? What the hell were you expecting?

          There are those men and women who have gotten wounded and are fighting the military to go back and fight again despite their injuries and then there are those who come back crying about how unjust the war and how hard they had it there.

          It’s disgraceful and you shame all us who came before you and proudly wore the uniform of the United States military.

          • Anonymous

            “A person joins the military to fight for his country for what ever his country says he should fight for w/o question”

            Did I question the commitment of the troops in my comment?

            “I’ve found that most of those who join and now support Paul are nothing but a bunch of cry babies who found out that war wasn’t fun like it was on their game system.”

            Fallacy of extrapolation

            “It’s disgraceful and you shame all us who came before you and proudly wore the uniform of the United States military. ”

            I shame you by saying the war is unnecessary? Are you so traumatized that you can’t think logically? You’re suggesting that anyone who questions a war, no matter how unnecessary it is, is insulting the troops. The troops and the war are two very different things.

    • Linky1

      Hiding under the tinfoil hat.

      • http://www.facebook.com/STGRAFIX Sharla Ripplinger Evans

        I’ll say it again Ron Paul 2012! Woot!

        • Anonymous

          I’ll say it again. Wrong Paul is wrong, Period!

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=503181465 Matt Kenny

            What is he wrong about?

            • Anonymous

              Wrong_Paul is an operative who is paid to infiltrate conservative websites and spread lies about Ron Paul on comments sections. give him a break. the guy needs food on his table and keep his student loans current.

            • Anonymous

              What is he wrong about? Just about everything he talks about. Bring all our troops home? That would leave us defenseless. Any attack on the U.S. with all our troops at home would be a success. A defense can only hold off a well plan attack for a short time. To repel a well planned attack you need outside forces to do. Paul isn’t aware of this probably because he has little to no military leadership experience and neither do those in the military who support him.

              You only have to go back to the post WWI time period when there were several top officials who felt the way Paul does now. Who brought all our troops home after WWI and believed we should stay out of everyone else’s business.

              We weren’t concerned about Hitler he was Europe’s problem. We weren’t concerned about Japan invading China because that was China’s problem. Nope the idea back then was to only look out for ourselves and not be concerned with what was happening in other parts of the world.

              Thank GOD, Japan attacked us when they did. If we hadn’t gotten involved in WWII when we did Germany would have defeated Britain and Russia. Since Japan developed the nuclear bomb before we did but just didn’t have the means to deliver it but Germany did. Those 2 countries would have launched an attack on us and we would have been easily defeated. The only real question would have been what language we’d all be speaking now. German or Japanese? All because some dim wits who knew little about human nature had control over our military forces and here we are again with some dim wit wanting to try those ways all over again. It’s simply WRONG!

              • Blake Justice

                That is isolationism not non-interventionalism that was prominent before WWII. What Ron Paul understands is “blowback”. Look it up. It is a very useful word in understanding our current foreign policy. The CIA has warned us about blowback. Whether you want to believe it or not, we are creating more enemies than we are making friends overseas, much more. Exactly how is that protection? Once you take of your red, white and blue glasses you were issued, only then can you see the world more objectively. Or you can just go on thinking that those that hate us, do so because we are so frickin’ awesome! High five, yeah. “You’re either with us or you’re against us”. Another high five!

          • Anonymous

            you’re just an operative who is paid to infiltrate conservative websites and spread lies about Ron Paul on comments sections. i dont blame you tho, a guy needs food on his table and keep his student loans current.

    • http://www.lisagraas.com Lisa Graas

      It’s over at Think Progress.

    • Anonymous

      Read the bottom. Ron Paul is out because his supporters take over every single thing out there. Only way to get half a fair chance. Bots take over everything

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1015375844 Joel Bowen

        We are real people… bots would be weeded out with IP security

        • K-Bob

          It’s not normative, it’s more “descriptive.” Perjorative, too.

          Be glad that you’re not
          A Shiny Robot

      • http://www.facebook.com/DanontheMoon Dan Voluntarist Lyons

        Freedom haters gonna hate

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1168404204 Nickole Pharo Beck

        You people just can’t handle the fact that Ron Paul has the most support!! Good luck living life in hell with out him!

        • Anonymous

          Come on man. You aren’t doing Paul any good with statements like that. I try to use the same tone that Paul would. I agree that this country will end up in a financial collapse and a full blown police state if we don’t listen to his advice, but I try to refrain from statements like that. Online polls don’t reflect real support when Paul wins by 40 points.

          • Anonymous

            We finally got a smart paul supporter. Wise words and we appreciate your words of wisdom

        • Anonymous

          And you talk just like a paulbot. You can’t say a complete sentence without a foul mouth. Turns a lot of people off. He is going home after SC Primaries. I can’t wait.

          • Anonymous

            Better having a foul mouth and preaching freedom and peace than speaking calmly about the complicit mirder of American soldiers and indefinite detention without trial.

      • http://www.facebook.com/STGRAFIX Sharla Ripplinger Evans

        yes we know, that oughta tell you all something, we will do the same come caucus time, don’t you notice we are the ones who will vote no matter what, period. We will stand in the rain for hours to promote Ron Paul and guess what people it is working.

        • Anonymous

          He is going down in SC. I can’t wait!

          • http://twitter.com/captureit22 Jerrika Cobb

            LOL you keep saying he’s going home after SC but he’s not. Please stop repeating yourself, you sound like broken record and you’re getting no where with your statement.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1497076194 Travis Pierson

            He will lose in SC, but he won’t quit. He will then go on to lose all over the south and midwest and the west, but he won’t quit. Why? Because he’s as delusional as his sycophantic followers.

  • Anonymous

    Perry had a good night but Newt……..what can I say, 2 standing O’s!

    • http://twitter.com/Susie1117 Susie

      Newt’s been in Washington forever so he knows how to debate and that is all. He keeps saying that HE balanced the budget for 4 years but politiFact says it’s a stretch to credit Gingrich alone because there were many forces and people at work in bringing the government to a balanced budget.

      The primary one: a booming economy.

      “The budget ended up balancing faster than either party expected simply because economic growth was so strong,” said Chris Edwards, an economist at the libertarian Cato Institute. “I don’t think either party had much to do with that.”

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1666032837 Julia Francine Dixon

        not only that, but he only balanced the budget TWO years because he was kicked out, then the house balanced it the next two years…also, when they had the “surplus” they added in SS which was solvent then—funny math used to pump up their numbers…

    • PFFV

      Yes, Newt ruled no question about it. He should get a huge bump from this. He looked to me to be the best leader on the stage.

    • Anonymous

      Romney really took the ad issue and outperformed Newt. I just wish that someone would have called Newt out on the “balanced budget” comments. It would be nice to have real debates rather than this media circus garbage. They don’t allow for intelligent neutral debate.

      • Anonymous

        Mitt added nothing new except the same stuff he says over and over again. Getting old fast

  • http://twitter.com/doorsxp Doors Xp

    Newt won by a landslide. The contrast with Obam…I mean…Romney couldn’t have been clearer. That was one of the best performances of any candidate in this race. Just awesome!

    • Anonymous

      Again I’ll say it – Newt’s reply to “I Juanna call you a raacist” Williams was truly a thing of beauty.

    • http://twitter.com/csouza59 Chris

      Good debate does not =winner. Newt has a lot of baggage. Perry has record of leadership.

      • Anonymous

        I wish that people would really do some research on Newt’s history.

        • Anonymous

          I know Newt’s history. I was an adult when he was there in the 80’s and 90’s. I am not who I was at 20, 30, or even 40. People change and if anyone has to take on Obama, it needs to be him.

          • Anonymous

            People can change, but Newt defends his record. This has nothing to do with his marriages or personal issues.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

    1st – Gingrich
    2nd – Santorum
    3rd – Perry
    4th – Romney
    5th – Paul

    • http://twitter.com/csouza59 Chris

      Santorum not even close 2nd.

      • Anonymous

        Not sure bout that Chris. Would say him and Perry tied for second.

        • http://twitter.com/csouza59 Chris

          Perry was far and away 2nd to santorum 3rd

        • PFFV

          All were at least a distant 2nd from Newt. He clearly showed his superior leadership in this debate, in my opinion :)

      • Anonymous

        I was surprised to hear him come out against the NDAA. I personally tend to think that he was pandering, and would have signed it if he was the one in that position. His reasoning was flawed, but he sure sounded principled.

    • http://twitter.com/PuritanD71 PuritanD71

      Steven,

      Agree!!!

    • Anonymous

      1st – GINGRICH!!
      2nd – Santorum

      The rest is just sorting turds.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1666032837 Julia Francine Dixon

      Newt, Perry…santorum comes off so needy, like the most stereotypical middle child (I am one so get mad) that it’s hard to see him being a good leader

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1497076194 Travis Pierson

      Agreed. Spots 2-4 were really close, though. All well behind Gingrich and well ahead of Paul.

  • http://twitter.com/csouza59 Chris

    It is really unfair to announce a winner. It is bias and obvious some candidates get more time to answer. Funny Romney ALWAYS get most time. It is pathetic! Perry starts doing well then gets no questions for ages. Really just BS.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1723201108 Bob Sparks

      Perry far outpreformed Santorum but they just kept going to Santorum trying to give him something he could handle.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ricardo-Galvan/100001729378103 Ricardo Galvan

        They were milking the candidates for soundbytes they could repeat on their normal news cycle. That’s what drives most of their questions, and why Perry got so few. To them, he’s a non-factor at this point. To us, Perry might be on the verge of a new surge.

    • Anonymous

      Agreed. These are not real debates. They are for the purpose of having the media try to control the focus. Romney is obviously the media bias recipient. Apparently the corporate globalist media is pushing him.

    • Anonymous

      I do have to agree. It often seems like Mitt is in a debate with himself.

  • Anonymous

    No lying now folks; Newt won that, hands down. But that doesn’t matter; Santorum is still the more conservative. There’s a difference between being more persuasive in speech and actually being the business though you don’t have the speech. (Ask many down the years… you might want to start with a guy called Moses.) Bottom line is that Santy is substantively more the business than Newt, though Newt can really hand down a whopping when he wants to.

    But we’ve been here before haven’t we folks? To choose the man most principled when it comes to TRUE CONSERVATISM? Or to choose the one more capable in oration? Ive made the mistake of going with the latter before. I’m not doing it a second time. Santorum’s still my man.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_V2DBN3EEUPJPKG3ZYM6YSQGRIM John Bohler

      Amen!

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1723201108 Bob Sparks

      If you want TRUE CONSERVATISM then your choice is Perry. He has never voted to raise the debt ceiling like Santorum.

      • http://twitter.com/PuritanD71 PuritanD71

        And yet, Perry signed bill allowing illegal immigrants in-state tuition rates…

        • http://twitter.com/csouza59 Chris

          Have you listen to any thing Perry has said about illegals?

          • http://twitter.com/PuritanD71 PuritanD71

            Yes, cannot do fence to expensive, put boots on the ground, giving illegals better college benefits than citizens who do not claim TX as home, and a lack of interest to oppose sanctuary cities in TX. Am I missing anything?

            • Reuben Andreessen

              Actually yes – you are not mentioning the vaccine he forced school girls to get.

              • http://twitter.com/PuritanD71 PuritanD71

                I was answering the question on illegals not other aspects of Perry’s issues.

          • Reuben Andreessen

            Rather than listen to rhetoric, one should examine the record. Facts are stubborn things.

        • Anonymous

          The constant drumbeat over in-state tuition rates for illegal immigrants seems to never end. The law was passed in the Texas legislature by a veto proof majority.

          • Reuben Andreessen

            Governor Perry is honest about supporting in state tuition rates for illegals so it isn’t fair to pin all the blame on the legislature.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Calvin-Von-Gurnov/1181255805 Calvin Von Gurnov

          you must not know the truth, if the federal Gov was doing the job to protect the border then there would not be this happening, it was better than the kids living on the street

          Heartless jerk

      • http://twitter.com/csouza59 Chris

        Amen Santorum social conservative. Perry fiscal, social and constitutional conservative!

        • Reuben Andreessen

          Rick Santorum is a solid conservative on economic issues as well. In Congress he voted for the Balanced Budget Amendment. He sponsored the bill which cut welfare rolls in half. Senator Santorum supported the Social Security partial privitization plan of President Bush as well.

    • Anonymous

      I hear Santorum may have actually won in Iowa… as long as Romney doesn’t tell them to stop counting while he’s still ahead (an Al Frankin reference).

      http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/york-final-count-could-show-romney-lost-iowa/316366

      • Anonymous

        Lets hope this is true!

    • http://www.facebook.com/STGRAFIX Sharla Ripplinger Evans

      You know, I favor Ron Paul, but I will give this much to Santorum at least he thinks there is a problem with the NDAA and that is important! All you Romney supporters had better READ the details of this bill for yourself and then go and READ our constitution b4 you so carelessly give up your rights along with the rights of your children!

    • Anonymous

      I am from PA, and trust me, Santorum has is flaws and isn’t liked much here. Too be honest, I do like most of him; however, he is too far right and no compromise. We need a realist not a purist

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1497076194 Travis Pierson

      I just can’t get behind Santorum until he shows me he believes in himself. I want to like him, but he needs to drop the whole, “Oh, shucks, guys. Play fair!” act, grow a pair, smile once in a while (conservatives are the happy ones, liberals are the angry ones) and compete!

      He is consistently “conservative” in the modern Republican party definition of the word, but that isn’t good enough anymore. GWB governed to the left of JFK but he (W) was a radical right-wing nutjob by most accounts. I don’t find any of these guys to be across-the-board conservatives. For me, Perry most closely fits the conservative bill, but he wants to compete even less than Santorum does.

  • http://twitter.com/Winston80 Winston

    Gingrich had a good night but he can’t be trusted.

    • Anonymous

      What kind of statement is this “can’t be trusted” – how long did it take for you to come up with this?

      • Anonymous

        Watch this, then pick the next guy you want to support.

        • Anonymous

          Don’t even look at a paulbot link. I want Newt

          • Anonymous

            It has nothing to do with Paul. It us just good information that everyone should have.

      • Anonymous

        Watch this, then pick the next guy you want to support.

    • Anonymous

      I trust him 100%. People change. I am not who I was at 20, 30, or even 40. Are you from Canada?

  • Reuben Andreessen

    The three conservatives Santorum, Gingrich, and Perry all had a good night. Mitt Romney was on the defensive the entire night. Ron Paul as usual was wacky on foreign policy.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

      dang, i heard Ron Paul at one time slobber one of his answers

      • Anonymous

        Paul’s a living walking talking TROLL if I’ve ever seen one. What a waste of studio space tonight…embarrasing himself as usual with his nutty stance on foreign policy. And yes, I heard him slobber too… but it wasn’t ‘one time’, it was ALL THE TIME!!

        • Anonymous

          Paul never gives a solution… he just goes on and on about how wroooooong we are and war is helllllllll!

          • Anonymous

            I agree deb54. Same thing over and over again. They should actually let him talk more so he can fall over the edge. He goes bonkers once he starts going. What a loony

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Calvin-Von-Gurnov/1181255805 Calvin Von Gurnov

          That was really mean, but again so true

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Calvin-Von-Gurnov/1181255805 Calvin Von Gurnov

        that is mean but true Lol

    • Anonymous

      I thought letting Uncle Crabbypants ramble on and on and on was brilliant strategy on the part of the moderators. Let’s show everyone that Grandpa needs to be put in a home.

      • Anonymous

        Uncle crabbypants! You guys are really killing me tonight..lol

      • Anonymous

        Age has nothing to do with Ron Paul being a moron. He’s been that way for years and years and years. A true loon if ever there was one!

        • Anonymous

          Guys make sure not to miss Fox and Friends in the morning and then get ready for the FIVE, and stay tuned for The oreilly factor, and after that Hannity. That is how you stay informed. LMAO. This website is for loons and trolls.

  • http://twitter.com/doorsxp Doors Xp

    Romney’s answer regarding releasing his tax return has gotta be one of the weasel-iest I’ve ever heard.

    • Anonymous

      But Mitt said he’d release it in April…. he just didn’t say *which* April.

      • Anonymous

        He said “possibly” in April.

      • Anonymous

        He said “possibly” in April.

    • poljunkie

      I agree, and he knew it was coming so he should have been prepared for the answer and also for having the returns “acceptable” for public viewing.

    • Anonymous

      so true….santorum and perry really challenged him tonight…and his answers were as slippery as ever.

    • Anonymous

      Like someone after the debate said, after Saturday’s election!

  • Anonymous

    And by the way, Romney should be dead in the water after this. He got torn two new ones both ways by Santorum and Newt! I luuurve tagteam!

  • http://www.lisagraas.com Lisa Graas

    Rick Santorum has been my candidate since May and he has yet to disappoint me. We’re waiting for the Iowa results to be certified and there’s a 50/50 chance that he actually won Iowa. In Iowa, Santorum spent about $30,000 and potentially won. In New Hampshire, he spent almost no money at all and he far exceeded expectations by beating both Newt and Perry who had spent a lot of money there and who are the other two who are considered to be conservatives. In the debate tonight, Santorum did a very good job of explaining that Newt wants to create a new entitlement with Social Security, borrowing money from China to pay for benefits rather than doing a serious and effective reform. I realize a lot of people like Newt. So do I. But Santorum is more conservative and has beaten Newt in both Iowa and New Hampshire spending less money by far. Rick Santorum is the candidate that, once you get to know him, you see who he really is and you know he is a true believer. That’s why he has done so well by spending so little but going out and actually meeting people in person in these states and making his case directly instead of through the media filter, which we all know is biased against him.

    • http://twitter.com/PuritanD71 PuritanD71

      I have enjoyed Santorum’s positions and reading his website. For me, it was the three: Bachmann, Santorum, or Perry. With Michelle dropping out, Santorum stands out as the best for the conservative vote.

      Newt is great and I think would make a great VP or even Press Sect. I just cannot support him when Teddy Roosevelt is a hero

      • http://www.lisagraas.com Lisa Graas

        I think Teddy Roosevelt would have been fun to have as a next door neighbor. President, not so much.

  • http://twitter.com/Jest_Sayin Zorek Richards

    Thanks. I’m so tired of Wrong Paul and His Paulistinians. Can we make a trade with Mexico and keep the illegal immigrants in exchange for that group????

    • Anonymous

      Careful with what you say, you don’t want to upset your republican anti-immigration friends

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1723201108 Bob Sparks

    Newt won but only because Perry was ignored 80% of the time. The answers Perry got to give appeared to be as well recieved as Gingrich.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

      Gingrich did tonight what Perry had done at the Huckabee Forum, he won audience on his side. I agree Perry seemed to get ignored in this debate Mitt Romney pretty much sucks the life(time) from everyone and Perry was a victim of that I think, but I loved Rick Perry challenging Mitt Romney on his tax returns!!

  • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

    I think Newt won this round. Santorum did very well and managed a couple of slapdowns on mittens. Perry did well. Mittens did horrible, was his usual self, although he didn’t look so orange tonight. Paul, well, he was his usual too.

    • Anonymous

      So true about Mittens.

    • Anonymous

      orange! lol

  • http://twitter.com/verbumveritatis Joe Potillor, Jr.

    Santorum and Gingrich get A’s, everyone else, F’s

    • http://twitter.com/csouza59 Chris

      Did you watch the debate. Utter BS Santorum flat and heading down.

    • Anonymous

      Santorum= Fail
      Newt= Unelectable!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TDVXO54EY7ZYK7BD5W4FFKOIZU jim

    your poll is worthless as is your site.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ricardo-Galvan/100001729378103 Ricardo Galvan

      Your life is worthless, that’s why you don’t post your last name.

      • Anonymous

        :O

      • Anonymous

        :)

      • Anonymous

        :(

      • Anonymous

        I don’t think that troll is coming back anytime soon. A bit heavy handed in your reply but … we’re not all perfect now are we… :)

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ricardo-Galvan/100001729378103 Ricardo Galvan

          If you don’t smack ‘em good, they might start up again later.

          • Anonymous

            OP=RIGHT ON!

    • Anonymous

      Geeze, those Paulbots are nearly as crabby as Paul is.

    • Anonymous

      Come on, Jim. You should learn a bit from Paul, and have a little class. You won’t win anyone over with that kind of statement.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1060104361 David R Cunningham

    purposely not including Ron Paul is smart. his supporters are dope smoking computer geeks that are bent on pretending he is a viable candidate. He was booed and if Rick Perry had gotten his wish, gonged off the stage. Newt got the only standing ovation I’ve ever seen in a debate and his answer to Juan Williams regarding jobs and poverty was an absolute perfect home run. If Newt overcomes romeny’s money and superpac, he should choose Allen West and put obama at the end of the unemployement line.

    • http://www.lisagraas.com Lisa Graas

      Santorum is my candidate but a big hats off to Perry for the gong remark.

    • Anonymous

      I’m sad to see that you have a group mentality that equally insults and diminishes all Paul supporters. If you have a cause, it won’t do it any good.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1497076194 Travis Pierson

        Paul supporters have the same origination point as those on the left. You assume that everyone who disagrees with you is stupid or uninformed when, in fact, the opposite is true. You are just to blinded by your admiration to see it.

        Some candidates have low levels of support because people don’t know them. Ron Paul will lose every caucus and primary for precisely the opposite reason – people know him. We know what he’s for and against, and we have judged him to be an unacceptable candidate.

        After last night’s debate performance, I look for his support to drop considerably. I think his recent poll surge could be attributed to uneducated people who liked his position on fiscal issues. I like that about him as do most who comment here. As his new supporters learn about his unrealistic and insane foreign policy ideas, they will quickly and completely abandon the Paul bandwagon.

        • Anonymous

          Paul informs people about reality. Then they go out and find out that what he is saying is true. Then they support Paul. If people think that our currency will survive for ten or twenty more years, they are sorely mistaken. Therefor, cutting one months worth of debt spending per year is inadequate to save our currency.

          What happens when our currency fails? We won’t just band together and get through it. We are dependent on debt spending, and have no food reserves. The wars won’t matter when this happens. It will happen.

          You can call me a blind groupie that thinks I am smarter than everyone else, but when you understand why something like this will happen, and nobody else wants to face realty, maybe you do know something that others don’t. If this sound conceited, then so be it.

          America will likely keep fighting wars, and starting more in the middle east, while debt spending here at home. Therefor, you will likely get your wish. This is why I am preparing for a collapse.

  • http://paper.li/EveGem/1326087824 Eve

    Newt won the debate, strongest answers. Perry did great, he really stepped up. Santorum didn’t seem to get much time it seemed, but did well. I tried to be unbiased with Mitt, it failed, he remained the same. Overall, it was a good debate, with better questions and moderators.

    • Anonymous

      Perry did an awesome job..I was so proud of him. Newt kicked it in the stratosphere though.

    • Anonymous

      Newt ALWAYS replies with a solution. I love listening to him speak.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1723201108 Bob Sparks

    Anyone that says that the citizens of this country have no “right to privacy” is not only not conservative enough for me but he should read a document called the Declaration of Independence. Santorum has no right to try to trample my “unalienable” rights!

    • Reuben Andreessen

      The right to privacy in question is when the Supreme Court invented this right in connection with the abortion issue. The court’s justification in Roe v. Wade is that the constitution guarantees a right to abortion because of the right to privacy.Even if one supports abortion rights, a reasonable person must admit that Roe v. Wade makes no sense. If one supports abortion, fight the battle democratically in the state legislatures don’t distort the constitution.

    • Anonymous

      Our current government has the right to do it, because they give themselves the right without any real protest from the citizens. Santorum said that he wouldn’t have signed the NDAA because he doesn’t support the use of indefinite detention without trial for Americans. He doesn’t believe in the premise behind the declaration and bill of rights, because he doesn’t believe that all men were created equal. All men, means “all men”. This is respect for humanity that he apparently does not possess. The founders knew this, and I suspect that they knew that it would eventually be used to argue against slavery.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1497076194 Travis Pierson

        Check Allen West’s rebuttal of this misinformation on the NDAA that came out this weekend. It’s available here on TRS.

        • Anonymous

          I saw Allen West’s rebuttals. I don’t believe them. Though I have not read the bill, I have heard many people talk about specific aspects of it, and how they will effect the concerns that many people have. The news reports the same, and nobody in the debates is denying that these things are true. It is hundreds of pages, and likely would require a lawyer to interpret it. Obama requested that the section that excluded US citizens be removed. The senate removed it. There is other wording in the bill that negates any wording that excludes US citizens.

          West is just wrong.

    • Anonymous

      I’m tired of libertarians who say we should respect the Constitution, but don’t know anything about it. The “right to privacy” refers an invented right used by the courts to take power away from the states on several issues. Abortion, birth control, etc. were left to the states until the court ruled on this. Ron Paul disagrees with the courts on this also.

      • KenInMontana

        I’m tired of people who cannot read a document that was written so that a “dirt farmer” could read it. People who have obviously not done their research, on the US Constitution or important legal decisions.

        We will address the Constitution first, I give you the Fourth Amendment;

        The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

        That reads like a right to privacy to me. But don’t just take my word for it, here are the words of another learned man on the subject.

        1895. This provision seems indispensable to the full enjoyment of the rights of personal security, personal liberty, and private property. It is little more than the affirmance of a great constitutional doctrine of the common law. And its introduction into the amendments was doubtless occasioned by the strong sensibility excited, both in England and America, upon the subject of general warrants almost upon the eve of the American Revolution. Although special warrants upon complaints under oath, stating the crime, and the party by name, against whom the accusation is made, are the only legal warrants, upon which an arrest can be made according to the law of England; yet a practice had obtained in the secretaries’ office ever since the restoration, (grounded on some clauses in the acts for regulating the press) of issuing general warrants to take up, without naming any persons in particular, the authors, printers, and publishers of such obscene, or seditious libels, as were particularly specified in the warrant. When these acts expired, in 1694, the same practice was continued in every reign, and under every administration, except the four last years of Queen Anne’s reign, down to the year 1763. The general warrants, so issued, in general terms authorized the officers to apprehend all persons suspected, without naming, or describing any person in special. In the year 1763, the legality of these general warrants was brought before the King’s Bench for solemn decision; and they were adjudged to be illegal and void for uncertainty.
        A warrant and the complaint, on which the same is founded, to be legal, must not only state the name of the party, but also the time, and place, and nature of the offence with reasonable certainty. ~ Justice Joseph Story; Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Volume 3.

        As to Roe v. Wade, it is quite clear from your statement you have not read the decision in this case, most likely you read someone’s summary of it (and it seems whoever they were, they missed it as well). The decision did not decide on the legality or illegality of abortion, it struck down a Texas state law that the SCOTUS held the opinion was too vague to be enforceable. No where in the decision does the court state that a state cannot outlaw abortion. Only that the Texas law was too vague in its language to be constitutionally enforceable. Look up the decision and read it, the complete decision, not somebody’s “Cliff Notes” summary.

        Oh and before you try to hang that label on me, I am a Constitutionalist, a strict one. I am not a member of any political party, I am not a Republican, or a Libertarian and if you try to hang a “libtard” sign on me you’ll have to grovel to Scoop for a month to get your posting privileges back. I will also add, at this point I have yet to decide who I will support, if I decide to compromise my principles and register as a Republican. I am considering it because I feel this is the first time in my life that the situation in this Republic warrants it.

        • Anonymous

          How is it obvious to you that I haven’t done my research? There are plenty of Constitutional scholars that agree with my assessment. There are several sitting right nowon the Supreme Court.

          Roe v. Wade did establish certain situations in which laws on abortion would be Unconstitutional; nothing I said came *close* to implying that all possible laws on abortion were taken out of the hands of the states.

          And the argument limiting laws was framed it in terms of the right to privacy, something which isn’t obviously there. Extracting an abstract right to privacy from a set of more specific rights is doing more than reading the text as a “dirt farmer” would read it. Stating that there’s a “right to privacy” where its not explicitly stated is adding an layer of interpretation on top of the text.

          Further, the Fourth Amendment only applies to the federal government, so you have to make a case that starts from the Fourteenth Amendment. The argument for using the Fourteenth to establish a right to privacy is based on a conception of substantive due process which is questionable.

          Frankly, your outrage at my comment was completely and totally unwarranted. The “right to privacy” has a very short history. The right as a concept was invented by the court. Its not obvious to a “dirt farmer” that its there. And Roe v. Wade did take certain law making powers out of the hands of the states, that they had before.

          • KenInMontana

            You do understand the Supremacy Recital, do you not? It boils down to this, If it is covered by the US Constitution, then that is how it is. Just like the right to free speech, it (the US Constitution) trumps any law to the contrary, whether it be federal, state or local. What is “recent” or what has a “short history” is the use of legal precedence in attempting to “interpret” the Constitution, the document was not intended or written to need lawyers to translate it; it was written to be taken, exactly as it was written, by the “common man”. By your line of reasoning, the State in which you live has the authority to take your right to free speech, along with any other it so chooses. You strike me as one of those “living document” types. What the first clause (or section, if you prefer) of the 14th Amendment does, is to reinforce the 4th through 9th Amendments, it actually restates the 9th, and reaffirms the right of “due process”, for all citizens. The “driving force” behind that first section of the 14th was to confirm and set down that former slaves and their children were indeed US Citizens, entitled to all the rights expressed in the US Constitution. Nor, was it written to endow the children of illegal immigrants with the status of US Citizen, as many, that exhibit your flawed line of reasoning on the document maintain.

            The decision in Roe v. Wade only “raised the bar” on how a law needed to be written, it sent a message to anyone writing a law that they had better make their laws less ambiguous. To make it clear, concise and constitutionally enforceable.

            What you label “outrage”, was in my eyes indeed warranted, whether or not you believe that is of no consequence. I “extracted” nothing, I “read” the document as written, assigning no “extraordinary gloss” or “recondite meaning”.

            • Anonymous

              Before the Fourteenth Amendment, it was in fact commonly recognized that the states had the authority to have laws on speech. The Bill of Rights, as Madison said after all, was a redundancy, because the government was only limited to the powers that were enumerated to it, anyway. According to him, the Constitution didn’t give the Congress the authority to regulate speech or religion in the first place. It was only passed as a way to reassure anti-Federalists who were worried that the Constitution would be misinterpreted. And just as the federal government had the powers enumerated to it by the US Constitution, the states had the powers that were enumerated to them by their own particular state constitutions.

              The question on this particular issue is what limits the Fourteenth Amendment imposed on the state governments and what it didn’t. There’s a long history of disagreement by jurists on this. Some people today continue to argue that incorporation of rights that are handled by substantive due process should be handled by the rights and privileges clause.

              In any case, we know what the writers of the Fourteenth Amendment had in mind. And it would be very hard to make an argument that the people who wrote it had abortion laws in mind when they were writing it, and would have agreed for it to be used that way. There were, by that time, laws in many states banning abortion from the moment of “quickening”, a completely different standard than viability. I would personally argue because there’s no broad doctrine of privacy outlined in the Fourteenth Amendment, and only a listing of quite specific, enumerated rights, transforming it into such a broad doctrine — and using it in cases that would go against the intent of the writers — would be going beyond both the letter and the spirit of the law.

              Regardless of interpretation, though, you still haven’t been very convincing on the idea that a “dirt farmer” or a “common man” would find any of this obvious. I think a common man might say that the law says what it says and nothing more. There’s nothing in original text of the Constitution, or in the Fourteenth Amendment, that says anything a common man would see and immediately recognize as a limit on the way abortion laws could be written.

              • KenInMontana

                What Madison “opposed” was the inclusion of the Bill of Rights within the text of the Constitution proper, which is why the Bill of Rights was presented and ratified as the first ten Amendments.

                You could argue that there is “no broad doctrine of privacy outlined in the Fourteenth Amendment”, that is if you like arguing with yourself. It is laid out in the Fourth, what I stated is that the Fourteenth did was to reinforce the rights of due process, found in the 4th through 8th, as well as reaffirming the concept expressed in the 9th. I don’t recall arguing that the 14th Amendment had anything to do with the Abortion issue, I did state how Roe v. Wade did however. Separate points there.

                As to the “common man” or “dirt farmer” (the bulk of the colonists were ordinary farmers) and the concept of the document being penned so that all could grasp it. Bear in mind that the 14th was passed in 1866 and ratified in 1868, so while a bit more “complex” it is only just a bit and can be understood quite easily if one does not read it with a mind predisposed to the extrapolation of absent intent. As to understanding, the original Constitution and its first Ten Amendments, I give you the following, from the youngest jurist ever appointed to the Supreme Court (by then President Madison) and the first Dane Professor of Law at Harvard University;

                451. XV. In the first place, then, every word employed in the constitution is to be expounded in its plain, obvious, and common sense, unless the context furnishes some ground to control, qualify, or enlarge it. Constitutions are not designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties, for niceties of expression, for critical propriety, for elaborate shades of meaning, or for the exercise of philosophical acuteness, or judicial research. They are instruments of a practical nature, founded on the common business of human life, adapted for common wants, designed for common use, and fitted for common understandings. The people make them; the people adopt them; the people must be supposed to read them, with the help of common sense; and cannot be presumed to admit in them any recondite meaning, or any extraordinary gloss.~ Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the US Constitution: Volume III

                • Anonymous

                  I thought what we were discussing was how the text of the Constitution was used in Roe v. Wade to strike down abortion laws?

                  According to the court, it was based on a right to privacy. And Justice Blackmun, in the Roe decision, recognized, “The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy.” So, the justices fully acknowledged that they were reading something there that was not explicitly stated.

                  The question is whether the judges were correct in doing that.

                  As for my comment about the Bill of Rights,

                  This was Hamilton’s argument.
                  “I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?”

                  Madison agreed with Hamilton, but eventually changed his mind only because he saw that states that did not have a Bill of Rights ended up going beyond their stated powers anyway.

                • KenInMontana

                  Blackmun flip-flopped so much, he makes Romney look like an amateur, do a little research on Blackmun. While your at it, take a look at one of his professors at Harvard Law, Felix Frankfurter (that is the man’s name, no joke), then think about what he wrote about the right to privacy and it will all make sense, especially if you have a conservative bone in your body. I’ll give you a little hint, “progressive”.

                • Anonymous

                  I haven’t read Frankfurter, but I think a right to privacy is implicity guaranteed with respect to federal law, just because I agree with Hamilton and Madison’s assessment. The Constitution doesn’t give the Congress any power to violate a persons right to privacy, so it doesn’t have that power to begin with. As everyone (I hope) acknowledges, the federal government doesn’t have the power to write abortion law of any kind.

                  The question for state law, in my view, is two-fold. First, how does the constitution of any particular state limit its power? And second, what *extra* restrictions does the Fourteenth Amendment put on them?

                  The Fourteenth Amendment requires due process rights to be followed, but in my view, that means only a guarantee that the state can’t subvert its own constitution, just as it can’t subvert the rest of the rule of law. If a state’s own constitution doesn’t give it the ability to write first-term abortion laws, then the state can’t do that.

                  I never said I was a conservative. I am conservative on some issues. I also happen to agree with standard established in Roe v Wade (I don’t think first trimester abortions should be illegal). But that doesn’t mean that I want the courts to act like a nanny and control the legislatures in cases where that power is not granted to them. Essentially, the courts act on the law that the legislature created for them. So I agree in some extent with judicial restraint.

                • Anonymous

                  I haven’t read Frankfurter, but I think a right to privacy is implicity guaranteed with respect to federal law, just because I agree with Hamilton and Madison’s assessment. The Constitution doesn’t give the Congress any power to violate a persons right to privacy, so it doesn’t have that power to begin with. As everyone (I hope) acknowledges, the federal government doesn’t have the power to write abortion law of any kind.

                  The question for state law, in my view, is two-fold. First, how does the constitution of any particular state limit its power? And second, what *extra* restrictions does the Fourteenth Amendment put on them?

                  The Fourteenth Amendment requires due process rights to be followed, but in my view, that means only a guarantee that the state can’t subvert its own constitution, just as it can’t subvert the rest of the rule of law. If a state’s own constitution doesn’t give it the ability to write first-term abortion laws, then the state can’t do that.

                  I never said I was a conservative. I am conservative on some issues. I also happen to agree with standard established in Roe v Wade (I don’t think first trimester abortions should be illegal). But that doesn’t mean that I want the courts to act like a nanny and control the legislatures in cases where that power is not granted to them. Essentially, the courts act on the law that the legislature created for them. So I agree in some extent with judicial restraint.

        • Anonymous

          How is it obvious to you that I haven’t done my research? There are plenty of Constitutional scholars that agree with my assessment. There are several sitting right nowon the Supreme Court.

          Roe v. Wade did establish certain situations in which laws on abortion would be Unconstitutional; nothing I said came *close* to implying that all possible laws on abortion were taken out of the hands of the states.

          And the argument limiting laws was framed it in terms of the right to privacy, something which isn’t obviously there. Extracting an abstract right to privacy from a set of more specific rights is doing more than reading the text as a “dirt farmer” would read it. Stating that there’s a “right to privacy” where its not explicitly stated is adding an layer of interpretation on top of the text.

          Further, the Fourth Amendment only applies to the federal government, so you have to make a case that starts from the Fourteenth Amendment. The argument for using the Fourteenth to establish a right to privacy is based on a conception of substantive due process which is questionable.

          Frankly, your outrage at my comment was completely and totally unwarranted. The “right to privacy” has a very short history. The right as a concept was invented by the court. Its not obvious to a “dirt farmer” that its there. And Roe v. Wade did take certain law making powers out of the hands of the states that they had before.

        • Guest

          How is it obvious to you that I haven’t done my research? There are plenty of Constitutional scholars that agree with my assessment. There are several sitting right nowon the Supreme Court.

          Roe v. Wade did establish certain situations in which laws on abortion would be Unconstitutional; nothing I said came *close* to implying that all possible laws on abortion were taken out of the hands of the states.

          And the argument limiting laws was framed it in terms of the right to privacy, something which isn’t obviously there. Extracting an abstract right to privacy from a set of more specific rights is doing more than reading the text as a “dirt farmer” would read it. Stating that there’s a “right to privacy” where its not explicitly stated is adding an layer of interpretation on top of the text.

          Further, the Fourth Amendment only applies to the federal government, so you have to make a case that starts from the Fourteenth Amendment. The argument for using the Fourteenth to establish a right to privacy is based on a conception of substantive due process which is questionable.

          Frankly, your outrage at my comment was completely and totally unwarranted. The “right to privacy” has a very short history. The right as a concept was invented by the court. Its not obvious to a “dirt farmer” that its there. And Roe v. Wade did take certain law making powers out of the hands of the states, that they had before.

  • Anonymous

    Same old story, Newt throws out the red meat and gets applause, Romney has the solutions.

    • Anonymous

      I don’t believe a word Mitt says including the words, “this”, “that”, “the”, “at”, “or”, “for”, “and” and “with”. I wonder how long it will take Mitt to flipp-flopp on everything he said tonight?

    • Anonymous

      90% of what Romney says is boilerplate, often used as a way to dodge a question.

      An example. The other day at the Huckabee Forum, he was asked what he would do to defend religious liberty and fight against bigotry. He took maybe up to a minute, and all he did was rephrase the question into an answer. Basically, “I would defend religious liberty every chance I get.”

      • Anonymous

        He has already said he would appoint conservative judges, which covers that problem. They just had a major ruling the other day.

        • Anonymous

          I’m not sure that he understands Constitutional law well enough to spot a conservative judge if he saw one. In the last debate, it sounded like he didn’t even know what Griswold v. Connecticut was.

          Hopefully, if he is elected, he’ll have someone to advise him on this.

        • Anonymous

          How many times has Romney said that he would “check with his lawyers”, to see if he should do something or not? He is a weasel. He is as slick as slick Willy ever was.

        • http://twitter.com/PuritanD71 PuritanD71

          Well if Romney cannot fight Dems in his state for what he believes, he will fold like a chafe when they stand up against his nominations. “Must pick moderate to appease my foes”. Tired of Mitt’s excuses that he could not do anything cause of a majority of dems. Did not Reagan have majority of Dems when he started in office? Did not seem to slow him down much.

          • Anonymous

            85% Democrat majority in MA. Mitt single handedly saved us from MA going public option, and then the nation…

  • Anonymous

    I can’t say Newt didn’t do a great job tonight, with Perry right behind him. I do like Newt. What I don’t like is that his strengths and weaknesses are truly two sides of the same coin. As well read as he is, it’s led him to the same failures of judgement most other academics make, and it’s always to the left for some reason. He’s very intelligent, but he’s NOT always common sensical.

    He’s a great asset when he’s on the right side of the issue.

    • Anonymous

      “He’s a great asset when he’s on the right side of an issue”.

      He is a great asset when he is on the right side of an issue, and he doesn’t have the power to do anything about it. Otherwise, he is a dangerous man.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1604601903 Delle Reese

      Newt is much more knowledgable than Romney. Newt’s two problems – his baggage and his uncanny ability to self-destruct or veer off into paths unknown. His stuff on jailing judges was over the top. Then he gets focused on brain science. Otherwise, he is the best. I wish Gov. Perry had had his act together in August. I think Newt is his Svengali. BTW, Huntsman is good friends with Perry and Newt, so him backing Romney is a concession. They could have run Daniels behind Perry. Bah! We cannot afford another four years of Mugabelite.

  • poljunkie

    Newt
    Rick P
    Rick
    Paul
    Romney

    Romney and Santorum arguing over their time limits is truly juvenile!

    • http://www.lisagraas.com Lisa Graas

      What I’ve noticed about Santorum in the debates is that he does it just like he did when he served in the Senate. He’s used to Senate debates and so, if he were on the Senate floor, you wouldn’t see it that way, I suppose. I’m a very passionate person who has seen him debate in the Senate and so it doesn’t bother me in the slightest, and I rather enjoy his passion.

  • http://www.facebook.com/robert.sawtelle Robert A Sawtelle

    wow, ok. So, given that list, I’d say Obama won! Obviously you don’t care about actually finding the best candidate for the country!

    • Anonymous

      So funny I forgot to laugh. -_-

    • http://www.lisagraas.com Lisa Graas

      Obviously. In fact, TRS cares so little, this blog is actually run by trained squirrels. And yet, even the squirrels know not to add Ron Paul to a poll.

  • Anonymous

    Hey Scoop. I’ve tried to vote (twice) but both times I got an error message that said, “This poll cannot find nonce”. What the heck is nonce??

    By the way I’m trying to vote for Newt.

  • Anonymous

    This debate helped me realize why I fell in love with Newt in the first place. I cheered like I was watching a baseball game! I even scared my 3 year old, who more or less told me to settle down. Sigh…..life is good right now!

    • http://www.lisagraas.com Lisa Graas

      Remember, Santorum beat Gingrich in Iowa and New Hampshire. As much as you like Newt…we need to coalesce behind Santorum.

      • Anonymous

        We have to coalesce around the one closest in the polls to Mitt. So let’s see what happens after this debate. I like both Rick’s, and thought Rick Perry really did great tonight. I liked Santorum’s attacks on Mitt..it was nice to see him sweat.

        • Anonymous

          You might find that to be a “dangerous” tactic.

        • Anonymous

          Yea that would be PAUL!

      • Anonymous

        There are only 2 places, first and lost. So unless Santorum was on top Newt still has a good chance.

        • http://www.lisagraas.com Lisa Graas

          Rick Santorum won 62 Iowa counties (11 delegates), Mitt won 17 Iowa counties (11 delegates), Paul got 3 delegates in Iowa and everyone else got zero. New Hampshire delegates = Mitt (7), Paul (3), Huntsman (2), and everyone else zero. Total: Mitt 18, Santorum 11, Paul 6, Huntsman 2, Everyone Else 0.

      • http://www.facebook.com/RhondaStrangeMurray Rhonda Strange Murray

        It’s too soon to have to coalesce around anyone yet. Remember, in Iowa and NH, people can register to vote Republican even if they weren’t. Many were “Dems for a Day” just to try to screw up the results of the primaries. It should be illegal to be able to do that. Santorum learned some things from Newt, but still has a long way to go. He can’t beat Obama, because he’s too conservative to win a general election and there’s no way he’d fare as well as Newt in a debate. America needs Newt!

    • Anonymous

      if you support gingrich, get ready for your 3 year old to get accustomed to WAR.

  • Andrew Mezey

    I vote for Paul! Ha ha…….. I am a supporter, but not really a vote for him. Newt was strong. I am looking for someone with conviction, direction and passion; Newt had those. But so did Paul.m :)

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_F4TQVSD6WC7PZW37WRSQI6LMO4 Field

    that’s funny I got here from http://mittromneycentral.com/community/chat/ asking the people to come vote. I guess Ron Paul’s camp isn’t the only doing something you “detest”.

    Ron Paul won the debate!

    • Gman Templar

      Ron Paul has never won anything except the fear of any person with at least half of a functional brain. He is twisted.

    • http://twitter.com/Shad_Stang Paul

      Wait? So this poll is skewed because Romney’s fans flooded here, even though Romney is in last place in the poll. Riiight…

      Also there is a duplicate post later on in the comments. We know you’re a PaulBot.

    • Anonymous

      Nobody won the debate. It was an embarrassment to the word “debate”.

  • http://www.facebook.com/richard.rutledge1 Richard Rutledge

    Romney really stepped in it tonight with that answer on the National Defense Bill vote. That is a BOMB! Ricks answer was dead on and I breathed a BIG sigh of relief over that. There are groups all across thins country that are targeting every member of both the Senate and The House who voted for that Bill. Romney when he answered that he supported not only the Bill but also the indefinite Detention without due process provisions put himself squarely in the cross hairs of every one of those groups in a BIG way tonight!

    • Anonymous

      We could only hope, but the republican establishment, and the government media seem to want him to win. Not to mention the banks that are supporting him.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1015375844 Joel Bowen

    Ron Paul won! Guess you are too biased to even include him!

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

      Ron Paul won the most boos

      • http://www.therightscoop.com/ The Right Scoop

        That’s a great idea for a poll!

    • Gman Templar

      Ron Paul didn’t win shit…’cept maybe a one-way ticket to the nuthouse.

    • Anonymous

      This debate was a joke. Ron Paul didn’t win.The people that the network wanted to get exposure won, if you have to say that someone “won”. If Paul supporters are going to help Paul, they need to admit the obvious rather than looking foolish for saying things like that. I’m with you on the support, but lets keep it real.

  • Anonymous

    THANK YOU! I’m sick of seeing him at the top when it isn’t logical!

  • http://www.facebook.com/MikesAutoRepair Brandon Johnson

    Your poll doesn’t mean shit anyway. Go F@#$ yourself!

    • Linky1

      If the above is true, why do you care enough to make a post? Are you a trained squirrel, as another Paulbot so aptly described the moderators of TRS? Just askin’……

      • http://www.facebook.com/MikesAutoRepair Brandon Johnson

        I like to express my support for Ron Paul in every poll I can find, that is what they are for right? I am no Paulbot, I am an American.

        • Linky1

          You sir, are an American Paulbot.

        • Anonymous

          Then tone it down and give a constructive argument, maybe with some intelligent content.

    • Anonymous

      As a Paul supporter, I say “go away”.

    • K-Bob

      He’s gone folks. Sad to see someone who might be a parent using language like that.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Andrew-Alaniz/1698789104 Michael Andrew Alaniz

    Just like they (Ron Palubots) skewed the dodge or answer question session Fox had after the debate tonight.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

      Exactly!!!

  • Reuben Andreessen

    Rick Santorum won the initial exchange with Romney on voting rights for former felons. Mitt Romney stepped into his trap.

    • Anonymous

      Did he say that once a person pays his debt to society, and is now living in it, that he should be afforded the same rights as all citizens to participate in the political process? Or did he say that as a former criminal, they should not be forgiven by society and allowed the same human rights that everyone else has? Did he express his concern that we have too many criminals that are created by our laws and judicial system, and therefor it is a conflict of interest for government to keep them from voting, because these people might end up supporting politicians that want to scale back the laws and give much less power to the judiciary?

      I missed the first part of the debate, so I didn’t hear it.

  • Anonymous

    The Ron Paul people are clearly nuts.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Andrew-Alaniz/1698789104 Michael Andrew Alaniz

      Just like their leader.

      • Linky1

        If Santorum has his sweater vests, where’ the tinfoil hats for the PaulBots????

        • Anonymous

          I’m surprised there aren’t any for sale on the Paul sites. They could make a fortune selling tin foil beanies.

        • Anonymous

          You can buy them on Paul’s campaign website. It is his way of getting people with your views to support his cause.

    • Mary Beth House

      Amen, my friend.

  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul won. The audience lost especially when they booed the golden rule. All of them are a bunch of statists, and would be like Obama on steroids. The country lost tonight. Your unfair poll reflects the bias in the debate tonight. It is mourning in America yet again. Time to wake up!

    • Anonymous

      Paul always wins, but he didn’t win concerning the undecided who don’t know what he stands for.

      • Blake Justice

        That’s ridiculous! Ron Paul is the only candidate who has a solid history of voting his conscience, not flip-flopping, not taking money from special interests and has been saying the same things for decades (most of which has been accurately predicted). His stance has not changed and he has defended the Constitution on a continuous basis. The only confusion is that projected at Dr. Paul by those wishing to disinform the public. I’ll give you credit, though, many take the bait.

        • Anonymous

          I agree with all you said. I just don’t see that the average person heard enough from him in this debate, and he didn’t make the best showing because of it. Every time he gives and answer, I get excited and tend to think more of it because of my bias. If you look at the whole debate, and how many people would view it, he didn’t necessarily win.

          We need real debates where they pick a topic and inform the candidates ahead of time. Then sit down at a round table and go over an issue point by point with enough time for everybody to give full explanations of their position. These debates are rigged to let the establishment media control the tone, the subject matter, etc. They are media circus establishment control sessions.

          Everyone knows that Paul would kick but if given due time in debates on in the media. The media is back to ignoring him because he was doing so well. When their attempts to make him look unelectable didn’t work, they had to change their strategy.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1665623462 Ellen Hillwig

    Talk about a skewed Poll what are you afraid of Ron Paul has more support than any of the war mongers. Romney would vote for the NDAA what does that tell you about how much he supports the Constitution and our freedom!!!!!!

    • K-Bob

      We’re afraid a bunch of immature Ron Paul fans will flood the site with stupid claims about Republicans as “war mongers.” Thanks for helping us to face our fears.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_HWFNYMOHNFQO63ZYTBBHL37J5M VictoriaL

    In order to have an accurate poll you have to have all the candidates that participated. Therefore your poll is null and void.

    • Anonymous

      Just like Ron Paul’s chances of winning the nomination.

    • Anonymous

      I make the argument that they should include him, and ignore the votes if they want to. The poll would still reflect the amount of votes for others, and in what order they won. I believe that is not acceptable for people who don’t like him. I tend to agree that Paul supporters dominate the online polls, and it doesn’t represent a true “national” reflection of support for Paul. Although, online polls never really do anyway.

  • Anonymous

    Is it me or are the media and their so-called politica pundits so out of touch with what is ACTUALLY happening on the ground these days? I was watching the after-debate commentary on Fox, with that lady and the three old guys and they were all saying how Paul needs to be taken serious because he has all the young votes etc… They have no clue how far wrong they are. I’m a young person and I couldn’t be more put off Paul than anybody right now, even Levin.

    Although I somewhat understand where they are coming from, their analysis of Paul seemed so lacking in any real background knowledge of any sort. So far, nobody in the news media has mentioned or pointed to the fact that what draws Paul fans to Paul is that he is te closest thing to a 9/11 truther on the trail; there seems to be no understanding of the fact that there is a link between the phenomenal number of youtube hits for documentraies like the “obama deception” on youtube, and the fact that the makers of such conspiracy theorist docs have cast their lot in for Paul as the candidate closest to their paranoid worldview.

    The fact is young people, who naturally have a tendency to question things such as history and conventional authority, have been taken in very easily by the retelling and manipulation of history by the likes of Alex Jones (I know this, because I used to be one of them). And those who have not yet seen that not all the things these people (the Alex Jones-types) say are true and that they themselves have their own hidden agendas and biases, are the ones most dogmaticaly behind Paul.

    Even Levin seeems bemused at times by the support Paul seems to garner. The reason is simple, conspiracy theories are on the rise. Some are legitimate to be fair, in fact, quite a good amount of them are; But most are not! But still, it is the fact that Paul best fits the worldview of those conspiracy theory masters who have in the past couple of years being dominating pockets of the alternative media that makes him more influential than the msm care to understand. Till the Alex Jones types are attacked for their lies and half-truths, till the facts in their claims are sorted out from the down right lies, the dangerous likes of Paul will continue to catch the eye of a significant some in our society; in fact, support for such people, in the new age of internet media which we are entering, will (slowly but surely) most definitely increase. Bloggers; Vloggers; Online media moguls; Breitbarts; Contriubutors alike, we have work to do!

    • Anonymous

      *CLAP, CLAP, CLAP*

      By GOD THERE’S HOPE FOR YOU YOUNG WHIPPERSNAPPERS YET!!!!

      • Anonymous

        *Thank you sir*

    • Anonymous

      Thank you sir.

    • Anonymous

      I am sure that it has nothing to do with the fact that Paul has a huge online campaign, and many young people spend a lot of time online, compared to the older generations.

      I am sure that the lack of opportunities for young people has nothing to do with it at all. When Paul talks about education debt, and no jobs coming out of college, it doesn’t resonate with them at all.

      Although it is historical fact that ideological and intellectual revolutions are largely fought by the younger people in society, it has nothing to do with that either.

      Though I jest, I must admit that I am one who pays attention to fact based information that informs one of the conspiracies that do exist in society, and Paul is the closest to understanding the enormous danger that these issues are to society. I’ll give you one example:

      Younger people are more open to the ideals of liberty, due to their lack of complacency created by the robotic lifestyles that the older generations have been engaged in for much longer.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_GTAWY4XX6L3WMNO24NLMOGIMW4 Bob F

    Another faux poll? Ron Paul is popular. Get over it.

    • K-Bob

      So is abortion.

      Sorry to harsh your mellow.

      • Trust1TG

        So are drugs, cigarettes, alcohol, porn, gambling and Obama.

  • Anonymous

    Newt won but he’s good at giving lines…got 3 different wives and counting. So trustworthy…not!

    • http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe

      I don’t like Newt, not Paul. I had 3 wives. It took me 30 years to find my current gem. Newt’s wives have nothing to do with this. While I am on, DC is full of preditory women. Anyone is fair game. At least Newt married the gals, unlike Clinton, and Kennedy.

  • http://www.facebook.com/DanontheMoon Dan Voluntarist Lyons

    Ron Paul, your poll is broken

    • Anonymous

      I love your avatar! The two faces of Mitt.

  • PFFV

    RS you don’t have to explain to me or 90% of us true Conservatives here why you don’t put RP on the poll. We know how fanatical the Paulbots are and understand completely. You are doing your job to perfection sir.

    Wow! Maybe Gingrich will make a run, I sure hope so! I would much rather have him over Mittens. Mitt sure looked extra weak in this debate didn’t he? I tell you something I really liked; I loved how Newt slapped down Juan for his inappropriate race-baiting questions. I think Newt won this big time with Rick Santorum in at 2nd and Perry a close 3rd.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Richard-Jones/100001374595021 Richard Jones

    PAUL is not a choice because all the children come here a play with the buttons and the adults can’t figure out what the deal is.

    RS, YOU ARE DOING THINGs RIGHT !!!
    I am so proud !

  • Anonymous

    Ummmm. Shouldn’t the number of options always match the number of people on the stage?

  • http://profiles.google.com/frosteetoes Kathleen Lelli

    For the first time EVER that a candidate received a standing ovation…Way To Go NEWT!!!

  • Anonymous

    Scooperpooper…the beauty of ownership is censorship…enjoy it as it is your right. That is what is so wonderful about the freedom message.

    • Anonymous

      So Blonduxo, why don’t you start your own site and then you can enjoy the beauty of ownership yourself instead of coming here to annoy everyone?

      NEWT 2012!!*

      *PS, I did that just to annoy you.

    • K-Bob

      Feel better now that I censored your comment?

      • KenInMontana

        You’re on a roll.

        • K-Bob

          Heh. Even here on the road, I was up all night working on a thorny problem involving lots of spreadsheets. I was also stuck next to a TV blaring MSNBC all day, and I wasn’t in the mood to see similar slander here, where I come to get away from all the madness “out there.”

          Oh well. Back to minimal participation till I’m past this logjam.

  • http://twitter.com/oltl_fan_gh Tina

    OUR NEXT PRESIDENT NEWT GINGRICH!!!!

  • http://profiles.google.com/frosteetoes Kathleen Lelli

    Spiders nest in Ron Paul’s brain.

  • daniel rufty

    Dr. No or no one! You area piece of crap.

  • Anonymous

    Loved all of Rick Perry’s answers. His answer to the housing crisis could have been more tailored to the question. For example, his 20% flat tax plan eliminates capital gains and retains the home interest exemption. He said it, but didn’t stress it.

    Newt was good entertainment. Loved Newt, but Newt is not Rick Perry (-;

  • http://www.facebook.com/texasuncensored DS Holter

    I vote for Ron Paul. It takes a low life to remove his name from a poll.

    • Anonymous

      Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaha. Now now… put those nails away kitty.

  • http://www.facebook.com/STGRAFIX Sharla Ripplinger Evans

    Ron Paul :)

  • Anonymous

    Newt Gingrich did an outstanding job, I think he’s on his way!

  • http://twitter.com/Karyn_ Karyn

    Your poll is VERY skewed. I followed a link from: http://mittromneycentral.com/2012/01/16/who-won-the-south-carolina-fox-newswall-street-journal-debate/ to find your poll.

    Your poll is as skewed as the FOX news debating style. The moderators couldn’t keep the questions or candidates focused on the issues. Ron Paul is the only person who consistently refocused the debate on the facts and issues American’s faced today. Even if you don’t agree with his stand on those issues, Ron Paul clearly wins the debate for staying on point.

    • Anonymous

      You followed a link from a pro Romney site to complain that Ron Paul is being ignored?

      • Anonymous

        In the world of Paulbots, that makes sense.

      • http://twitter.com/Karyn_ Karyn

        No. I followed a link from the Mitt Romney site to participate in the discussion & poll regarding the South Carolina Republican Debate. If the owner of the poll had been idiotic enough to exclude any other candidate, my response would have been the same.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

      Yeah mitt romney’s 8% is really skewing the poll.

      • http://twitter.com/Karyn_ Karyn

        The poll is invalidated by excluding one of 5 candidates. Idiocy such as this is exactly why Obama made it into office. It appears that reasonable thought, critical analysis and independent thinking is too difficult for too many voters.

  • Anonymous

    Of course Newt was going to win but I’m surprised how strong he was. Just when I was thinking how tedious and unnecessary these debates are, they have the best debate so far, full of red meat.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Keith-Van-Winkle/1607262538 Keith Van Winkle

    WELCOME TO SOUTH CAROLINA Newt: WOW……what a day for Newt…..over 500 people attend the Myrtle Beach, SC Town Hall to meet Newt and he slamed it out of the park…..SC Tea Party Coalition in Myrtle beach, SC today, Smashed it out of the park, Faith and Family Coalition today in Myrtle Beach, SC with several thousand people in attendance, smashed it out of the park and then WOW how about tonight at the DEBATE in Myrtle Beach, SC? S-M-A-S-H-E-D it out of the PARK! NEWT 2012
    SOUTH CAROLINA IS WITH NEWT!!!!!!

  • http://twitter.com/BrandonToddCarr Brandon Todd Carr

    Ron Paul 2012

    • K-Bob

      Because nuclear holocaust in the Middle East is bound to work out in our favor!

  • kcfield

    I think Gingrich clearly won the debate – especially his willingness to address the “taboo” issue of poverty and race. Santorum did well in his confrontation of Romney. I think Perry did pretty well too, but too late and not quite enough at this point to change votes.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Keith-Van-Winkle/1607262538 Keith Van Winkle

    I Live in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. I was at the Debate. Who Won in the eyes of SC voters that attended the debate?

    1st – Gingrich
    2nd – Perry
    3rd – Santorum
    4th – Romney
    5th – Paul

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

      Anything note worthy you seen during the commercial breaks with any of the candidates?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000918322047 Tammy Hartman

    Can someone say whiney babies? Would you skew a National Election too?

    So sad……. Ron Paul 2012!

    • K-Bob

      Get whiney!

      Hey, is that racist?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000918322047 Tammy Hartman

    Are you going to delete my opinion now?

    How about a mature debate on the issues instead?

    • Anonymous

      Unfortunately, most paulbots are unable to have a mature debate on the issues. But they’re not self-aware enough to know that.

    • KenInMontana

      Just an observation, from reading your comments. I do not see you exhibiting a capacity for mature debate.

  • http://www.consequenceofsound.net/author/jhpainter Harry Painter

    Well, let’s see, the four candidates listed here dodged questions and bullshitted answers. None of them won the debate, although Newt received the most applause from the cable news junkie retirees in the audience.

    I can’t wait until the only two candidates are Romney and Paul and your poll only has one option!

    • Anonymous

      Are you going to wait standing on one leg or are you going to hold your breath?

      • http://www.consequenceofsound.net/author/jhpainter Harry Painter

        Well like i said, I “can’t” wait so I’m simply not going to.

  • http://twitter.com/azn8vgma Christina

    RP is a Libertarian and shouldn’t even be in the GOP primary….

  • http://www.youtube.com/k97cross Kyle Hillinger

    Oh, that’s fair and balanced. You exclude Ron Paul from your poll, you Nazi!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PVABEYX4PJC656W2GKQ5SYHDF4 RockinAces

    LMAO a true lover of freedom you are I see….have fun in gitmo loser! Ron Paul 2012!

  • Anonymous

    This isn’t a fair poll, all the candidates aren’t in it.

  • Anonymous

    This is the wrong scoop. What a joke. You do not even have all the candidates listed. You HYPOCRITE

  • Anonymous

    I wish you (plural) had a way to make the poll tell you that you’ve already voted BEFORE you vote again. I hate it when I’m looking for polls to vote on the debates, and I forget which one I voted on until you click vote and it says something like, “we already recorded your vote”. I always think to myself, “well then why did you give me a vote button! You should have said something so I wouldn’t have clicked it again!” lol

  • Angel Jenkins

    I say we just mess up your poll by voting for the worst, like for example Perry. ;)

  • Anonymous

    THIS IS NOT A DEBATE POLL, THIS IS A BIAS POLL.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dralanprice Alan D Price

    Rather strange logic if you ask me. You poll is unscientific to start with and dependent on whomever happens to visit your site. So what purpose does it serve and doesn’t it strike you as important that there so many people out there who want to speak up for Dr. Paul? Better think about how to bring these people into the party or you’ve got Obama again for four more years

    • K-Bob

      No. See, they actually take votes from Obama.

      Then they sift out the seeds, and smoke them in a special pipe.

      • Alex Marcelo

        The trolling, oh god, the trolling.

        Only an idiot thinks that Ron Paul is going to take votes away from Obama unless he’s running in the general election. The GOP won’t be able to win without getting at least a good chunk of the Paul supporters to support their candidate, that’s just a fact. Paul brings new supporters in to the GOP, which, if you look at the GOP’s numbers and demographics, is something the party desperately needs in order to remain viable going in to the future.

        But, if your little troll brain can’t comprehend the reality of the situation our party faces, you just keep on helping Obama win.

        • K-Bob

          Help! I’m feeling intellectually inadequate! We have a smart guy commenting!
          Look what he did to my poor little troll brain!

          I always say, if you want to make a good impression, go to a site you’ve never commented at before, insult the site operator reeeeel good (fancy it up with some “smart” talk, too). Then start labeling the regulars as trolls.

          You must be fun at parties.

        • Anonymous

          That sounds like a threat. What your saying is that if Paul isn’t the nominee his supporters are going to take their vote and go home. That means paul votes are lost anyway, right?.

          Truth is though, a lot of Paul supporters have enough sense to know that the other candidates have some good qualities and will support one them when Paul drops out.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mjreo Michael Reo

    Hmm. He doesn’t like that Ron Paul’s supporters are organized and vote for him whenever possible. Sounds like a tyrant problem. The idea of a poll is to see who can get the most votes. You should thank Ron Paul supporters for bringing traffic to your website. Maybe you’d keep some of the traffic if you didn’t marginalize a significantly large portion of the population.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Larry-Mann/663774247 Larry Mann

    You can exclude Ron Paul from your poll but you can’t exclude him from the election this time. Like the pundits have said you can’t beat Obama without Ron Paul. SO you can continue to do it this way to your own demise or you could at least talk to us like we were human beings. It is your choice, we are more than willing to debate you on the facts and issues without calling you names. We could share our opinions with each other or we can go our separate ways. One way we have a chance of beating Obama but the other will leave us all with 4 more years. What is wrong with demanding that congress stop delegating it duties and responsibilities to provide to deniability to gain another term in office. Just something to think about.

  • Anonymous

    Newt won this debate. I am glad you left Ron Paul cultist off the poll. You can not get a clear reading or an honest debate with this group.

    • Blake Justice

      I can’t stand when people vote for candidates who are not my boy. They should be banned from posting here too. It’s always good to be on the “right” side, eh?

      • Anonymous

        If it was not a deliberate attempt by Paul supporters to skew the polls, I would find it offensive but to pretend that this is not a ploy by the campaign to make it appear that Paul is more popular than he is is not proper campaigning. It is dishonest.

        ________________________________
        From: Disqus
        To: without_hate@yahoo.com
        Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 3:05 AM
        Subject: [trscoop] Re: Debate Poll: Who won the SC Fox News debate?

        Disqus generic email template

        Blake Justice wrote, in response to without_hate:
        I can’t stand when people vote for candidates who are not my boy. They should be banned from posting here too. It’s always good to be on the “right” side, eh? Link to comment

  • Alex Marcelo

    If you’re not getting the response you want from your poll question, maybe instead of foolishly writing off one candidate because he has passionate supporters, you should work on your communication skills. Phrase your question better. “Who won the debate?” will always cause participants to choose the candidate they liked best at the end of the debate, not the one who performed best. Try a question like, “Who do you think won the most new voters in South Carolina because of their performance at this debate?” or “Which of the candidates gained the most ground from this debate (regardless of whom you support)?”

    Other options include making educated adjustments to poll results (while still showing the original data) to account for voter enthusiasm. You could do this by, say, noting how voters got to the poll (what website they linked from) and adjusting for each candidate’s “sourcing” according to what candidates those websites support. So, if Santorum’s voters all were referenced from a pro-Santorum blog, but Romney’s were 1/2 from a pro-Romney blog and 1/2 from non-preference GOP blogs, you might adjust Romney to 75% of his total and Santorum to 1/2 of his total to give yourself a number you can analyze. The important part is that your process has to be transparent so readers can decide whether they agree with your adjustments or not.

    Your exclusion of Ron Paul just shows that you have a lack of creativity when formulating your question and analyzing your results. Please get better at communication and research before posting any more polls anywhere. You can always try going to college. My degree is in this field, so it’s easy for me to see that you lack competence.

    • K-Bob

      Hey everyone, it’s the smartest man in the world!

      Imagine the luck involved in his showing up here tonight.

      Anyone feel more intelligent, just from having read that comment?

      Yeah, me neither.

      • Alex Marcelo

        Hey everyone, it’s an asinine comment posted by a completely anonymous person on the internet!

        Anyone surprised that a complete moron can say whatever dumb thoughts come to his head without actually engaging the argument made by the original poster?

        Yeah, me neither.

        Hope you’re feeling full now, troll.

        • K-Bob

          This is what you mean by “communication skills,” is it?

          You could save yourself further embarrassment by realizing the poll is hosted by a web service, and is just for fun. That way your furiously flagellating scientific and communications skills aren’t wasted over-analysing something that’s no more than a silly widget on the internet.

        • KenInMontana

          Frankly, you’re just the type of troll we like, the type we like to boot. See ya, bye. (No, as a matter of fact you’re not worth the slightest intellectual exercise to show you just how pathetic you really are)

      • K-Bob

        OK, that was a bit harsh. But the late-night Ronulan, drive-by horde is not really very enlightening. When they insult the site, they are also insulting a lot of people who come here to avoid some of the crazier aspects of web forum trolls, blog comment juveniles, and R-rated (or worse) political websites.

        So that’s why I decided to open the rusty container of sarcasm.

        Be warned. I might use sarcasm again.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Chrissie-Siggelakis/671586719 Chrissie Siggelakis

    Thank you RS for this and also how you came up with doing it this way. It sure makes a differnce even just to know our vote counts instead of the many other spammed polls. Thank you.
    Rick Perry was awesome tonight.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bradley-Johnston/1669102245 Bradley Johnston

    I am so glad that Ron Paul isn’t on the list. Can you believe what he says about going to war with Iran??? He only wants to do it if the congress declares war against them. What is up with that? The President has to take an oath to obey the constitution and this Ron Paul character actually wants to take that oath seriously and follow it. How crazy can you be? He should know that when the President takes an oath to obey the constitution that he is only doing lip service. Nobody really cares about that document that keeps the power in the hands of the people. We need a dictator that wont be held back by these silly rules. Also after the war is declared he wants to go in there and actually win it and get it over with instead of staying there for 10+ years. Talk about NUTS.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1666032837 Julia Francine Dixon

    actually he was stationed for a while in Saudia Arabia

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1666032837 Julia Francine Dixon

    He served from 1972-1977 and was based for a time in Saudi Arabia

  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul won the debate yet this site is so unAmerican and anti-democracy that it does not even have him as an option. Sad, sad, sad. The way to “solve this problem” is to disenfranchise me as a voter. Not cool for a site monitor. As a conservative I am very disppointed in this site after tonight.

    • K-Bob

      This means all the hundreds of four comments you made here over the past year were a real waste of time, then.

    • Anonymous

      As a conservative I am very disppointed in this site after tonight.‘ — Cowboypoetry fan

      It appears that after this night, I am very disappointed in you as a conservative.

      But then, who cares either way.

    • KenInMontana

      What is really sad is that you would state nonsense about a site on the internet disenfranchising you as a voter. Actually, that’s not sad, it’s pathetic.

  • Anonymous

    I find your response to censoring your site unconvincing. It is UN-AMERICAN and NOT PATRIOTIC to disenfranchise the readers of this site to vote as they so see fit. Sad, sad day in America and shame on TRS. The best way to “solve the problem” is let your readers vote as they see fit!

    • K-Bob

      Do you mean all potential readers, like say Ron Paul!!1!! supporters who only show up to complain about polls; or regular readers who consistently weigh in to agree that Ron Paul shouldn’t be on the poll?

      Think carefully. If it’s the former, then you also need to include people for Democrats and Communists to vote for, too. And to be fair to North Koreans, we’d have to have a poll that only allows Kim Jong Un. It could get complicated.

  • BeenSoup

    Ron Paul. 2012. Resistance is futile. The censorship proves it

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1666032837 Julia Francine Dixon

    Perry was ignored because he did so well at the Huck Forum. FNC was afraid he’d do it again. The rest were armchairs in suits, they were that boring. And if you noticed, almost every time Perry started getting the audience going, they cut him off–at least twice. FNC knows Newt can debate, but they also know he can’t win the nomination, partly because he has the entire line of Samsonite, partly because he looks like a grandpa, partly because he hasn’t done anything this century and because of that, they know it’s safe to give him more air time. What they want, is Perry out of the race. And if anyone was paying attention when he entered, FNC did NOT make a big deal of it, so his “front-runner” status was from the people, not FNC driven. When he bombed the first debate, they cackled in glee and never looked back. They were talking Romney even then. Their plan was/is to pit the non-Romneys against each other, until the least viable non-Romney candidate is left and then mount an all out assault. It’s working. They are doing everything in their power to push Perry out because they know he can beat Willie if was given 1/2 as much press—period. And they want Willie because he won’t upset the status quo–he won’t change anything. AND don’t forget News COrp/FNC is not owned and run by conservatives—more DEMS’s than Pubs are in the positions of power—they only lean right to fill a void which makes money. And IF hell freezes over and Willie wins, they get BO-lite.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Chris-Willis/1817991605 Chris Willis

    I refuse to participate in this poll. If you think that it’s skewed toward Ron Paul than just ignore his numbers.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_J7NCUGQ7UDOUNY6APLFM4QEOE4 john doe

    So since you disagree with Ron Paul it’s not even remotely possible that he won the debate? And by omitting him from your poll you prove what? That he has too much support for your irrelevant website to handle? Guess what? You’re right. Enjoy your kool-aid party.

    • K-Bob

      Decent example of a straw man. Thanks for signing up on Disqus tonight, Mr. … Doe, is it?

  • Anonymous

    Then your poll is irrelevant . I VOTE FOR PAUL.

  • K-Bob

    The overnight “Ron Paul’s not in this survey” crowd always brings out the kind of supporters anyone not running for the Republican primary would love to have.

    I’ve been having a bit of fun with some of you, but you folks need to tone down the nastiness if you want to comment here. This isn’t one of those R-rated sites, nor do we allow accusations of Nazi-ism or rants about Israel and the Joooooos. Also, the Moderators don’t really have patience for people who stop by for the first time just to toss an insult at the site owner.

  • Brett Cates

    I vote for Ron Paul. (Edited)

  • Brett Cates

    Ron Paul 2012!

  • Mike Lee

    Who “won”? Who cares. Romney is going to win the nomination. Easily. That’s the bottom line. I see a bunch of envious losers, whiners, and liars attacking the man who bettered them in the competition. Yeah, Romney isn’t great, but the rest of them are worse. The GOP is such a mess. Hey, how about another dozen debates – that has worked out so well. How about a few more nominees? Again, it’s just great to divide the votes into so many parts. Works wonders for the system.

    • Anonymous

      Obama ran a smooth, PROFESSIONAL campaign, too. How did you like the outcome of that?

  • http://twitter.com/Praxisseizure Get out the info

    For everyone here is a link.

    Think about it. (sorry about the swears.)

    • Dan

      good one…i would add one thing….we are waking up….look at 2010…now the Soviet Style Propaganda System is pretending it didn’t happen…but like a bee sting…you can pretend you didn’t get stung but the shear pain will remind you……YEAH YOU DUMB A-S YOU GOT STUNG……

    • Anonymous

      Excellent and appropriate video for the times. George Carlin articulated that well.
      It was a speech, not a comedy routine. I was like, what are you applauding for? Didn’t you hear what he just told you?

  • Anonymous

    Gotta love all of the Ron Paul CONSERVATIVES that come to these polls and scream FOUL FOUL.

    First of all, Ron Paul is NOT a Republican, so why be PRETENDING, AND LYING, by running for GOP nominee? Because he knows he wont get the attention as a Libertarian or an independent. He knows his platform is too ridiculous for the American public to take seriously.

    Secondly, WHY does Ron Paul claim to be a CONSERVATIVE, when everyone knows (well, except his koo-koo aid drinking followers) that he is a LIBERAL. The Libertarian group has been infiltrated by Anarchists, and they dont want them to leave…because it gains Ron Paul votes. Votes normal sane citizens would never give him. Now Dems are jumping ship just long enough to vote for him, because they know if they get him in as the GOP nominee, he WILL B*MB in debates and in the general election against Obozo.

    I say to you, WHY do you continuously follow someone who is a liar? Because YOU didnt do YOUR homework. You didnt get any further than his first tv ad, his first you tube video (created by another RP follower), and the first page of his website!

    Btw, I love it when they give RP plenty of air time on these debates…he starts flapping like a chicken and spitting like a snake… he hangs himself….just like his followers do. NO ONE takes you all seriously…no one except YOURSELVES. LOL

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000179536755 James Malcuit

    I will be voting for Ron Paul- Gingrich would be a disaster for this country. But I believe he won this debate.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Wesley-White/1678680721 Wesley White

    Ron Paul or NONE at all, you whining loser afaraid we will “skew” your poll by VOTING! lol what a JOKE!

    Ron Paul 2012 end the banksters hold on America

    • K-Bob

      If you want to support your candidate, don’t make his followers look like fools.

  • pblumel

    Ron Paul won the debate and his comment on the Golden Rule was statesmanlike. The reaction from the mob rulled the moment, but Ron is not only correct but not a panderer. His simple strength in the face of adversity put him over the top last night.

    What has passed as ‘conservatism’ over the past decade or so has given us new entitlements, elective wars, reduction in our constitutional protections and debt, debt, debt. The conservative revival movement behind Dr. Paul is energetic and young and bodes well for the future. The neoconservative tangent has hurt America but real conservatives are righting the ship.

  • Anonymous

    TRS why don’t you sit on a cold hard Cucumber wankers ?

    • K-Bob

      Is the phrase “cucumber wankers” a British slang term for some sort of food item? Some variant of “toad in the hole,” perhaps?

      • Anonymous

        Spent some time in UK. Wanker is a term for “self abuse”. Cucumber refers to the methodology.

        • Anonymous

          Uhh, wanker is a self stimulator, in other words, masturbation. It has become a pejorative term to hurl at any number of things.

  • Anonymous

    Not only did Newt win that, if you noticed he had fairly small time to make the impact he did. Conservatives, take a look at that poll… if the Santorum and perry people would unite to Newt, Conservatism wins, Romney/establishment gets crushed.
    To those that say Romney polls good against Obama, it’s nonsense. That’s because Romney IS the ‘generic republican’, but the more people see how weak and empty he is, the more he will look like the loser that Conservatives know he is.
    Romney looked like a obfiascation artist, ask him the time and he will tell you the weather. What a useless empty suit, he gets center position for what? His accomplishments would make any Democrat proud, I have *no idea* what he’s done to make Republicans (not to mention Conservatives) offer him the support he has. All I hear are the most SHALLOW reasons for supporting Mitt. (i.e. looks like an anchorman, sounds good reading a teleprompter)
    Ann Coulter is a defeatest Conservative to support Mitt. I hope Newt wins this, South Carolina and the nomination, I’m so sick of the establishment, the pundits, the pollsters, the focus groups, the media.
    After that debate, Newt EARNED a few endorsements… c’mon Sarah…. :-( Rush???

  • Anonymous

    Did anyone see the piece they did right after the debate on twitter? Seemed heavily skewed by Paul followers as he had high marks in every category even when he didn’t get much of a question on the issues. i.e. race. I thought his answer in terms of race sucked yet he received better remarks than anyone else and I thought Newts answer to the race question was the best I’ve heard in years. Just curious.

    • Anonymous

      Right on all counts!

      From Carolina also and my son has been accepted (engineering) and going to be a Hokie next year! He loves VA Tech as he’s conservative and loathes UNC CH because it’s a liberal bastion. I’m proud I raised him RIGHT!

      • Anonymous

        HELL YES!! I’m a diehard Hokie. The two sites I look at in the mornings are trs and Techsideline.com Congrats to you and your son for his acceptance to VT, especially in the engineering dept. Go HOKIES!

      • Anonymous

        Awesome! Congrats to you and your son for his acceptance to VT, especially in the engineering dept. I’m sure you’re proud and proud to have a son with conservative values. I hope my boys will see the light one day (they are only 6, 4, 2 and D-60 so I have some time still, ha). I’m a die-hard Hokie. The two sites I look at in the morning are TRS and Techsideline.com Congrats again. Go HOKIES!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Justin-Bilyj/100000443046238 Justin Bilyj

    Garbage poll for a garbage site.

    A bunch of Nazis here, nothing conservative about this site…
    They should call this site the
    2 scoops of $h!t

    • Anonymous

      Thank you. What’s with these people?

  • Anonymous

    Gosh, lots Ron Paul fans as usual, all pick 1 thread to community organize in. Honestly, RP had his worst debate perfomance so far. He souned like a politician trying to deny what he said but support it in the present, he earned his boo’s last night. Good luck trying to drum up sympathy for the ‘Peace Loving’ Mooslim nations. We all feel real, real bad for violating pakistan’s precious sovereignty to kill that “gentleman” Osama. (RP calls him a gentleman, peace be upon him :-D )
    I don’t know, I didn’t see much concern for America’s sovereignty on 9-11 from pakistan. We allow millions(?) of pakistani to live here, work here, school here, then send billions in welfare aid and this is the thanks we get from Pakistan? No, I’m all for violating Pakistan’s sovereignty, anytime.

    • Anonymous

      Frankly, he sounded like a rambling old guy

  • not1984but1776

    “Why is Ron Paul not on the poll? Because his fans always skew my poll.”

    Ah, the old “Paulbot” argument.

    Well, boo hoo, go home & cry about it! The other candidates’ supporters have just as much ability to get on the internet and vote for their guy as Ron’s do for him. Just because they’re not committed enough to do so is no excuse for omitting Ron, as if it’s all somehow his fault.

    If Gingrich, Perry, Romney and Santorum don’t generate enough passion among their followers, then whose fault is that?

    People should know that these kinds of online polls aren’t scientific anyway. You yourself should know that — in which case, don’t host one if you don’t like the way they normally turn out.

  • bugspotter24

    Love the excuse from the criminal propagandist as to why Ron Paul’s name is not on the poll. “Because his voters only come here to vote!”
    As if the others were dedicated readers or something.
    What cowardice.
    Ron Paul 2012.
    Because I don’t feel like being a slave in a one-world government run by apartheid Israel.

    • K-Bob

      I didn’t want your last comment here to make you look bad.

      Another drive-by, folks. This one isn’t coming back.

      • Anonymous

        Thank you very much. The place was infested with Paulies last night.

  • tg

    Who are you to exclude the candidate presently in second place? The rules should be the same for everyone. Each candidate’s suppporters could try as hard as Ron Paul’s supporters (and do exactly what you describe above). It’s their choice.

    You admit that the vote count is accurate and limited to one vote per person. If Ron Paul polls the highest, doesn’t that mean he has the greatest support?

    The manipulation attempts are becoming more and more obvious, even to the less informed. You are failing.

  • Anonymous

    Romney Exposed

    WHAT IS HE HIDING ON BAIN, INCOME TAXES AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE?

    Something is rotten in Denmark!!

  • Anonymous

    I voted for Newt because I think he won the night. But the best line of the night went to Rick Perry.

    When he said maybe the sound they were looking for to stop the candidates from going over their time limit was a gong, I just burst out laughing. During that interminable, incoherent, rambling, stupid diatribe answer from Ron Paul all I wanted was one of those old vaudeville hooks to drag him off the stage mid sentence. But a gong? That was a great ad lib by Perry.

    I haven’t seen a clip of that posted anywhere yet and I can’t remember how the audience reacted. I was too busy laughing. I have to wonder how many people even knew what he was referring to.

    • Anonymous

      Perhaps, with the next MSNBC debate, they could get Chuck Barris to host and hook the moderators every time they ask a numbskull question.

  • http://www.facebook.com/linus.froberg Linus Fröberg

    I actually respect the way you came out and explained why you left out Ron Paul out of the poll. What I would recommend though is that you instead only let members vote or something similar. I bet you that at least some of you readers are Ron Paul supporters. I check in from time to time though I don’t usually agree with everything you write it’s always good to get the opposite view on different subjects.

  • Anonymous

    Thanks for keeping Ron Paul off the poll. They absolutely ruin every site I’ve ever been on by having posts removed that criticize him.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JBPDSV2AIFVH4UGA7NNDKCGH24 Danny

    Newt may have won only because the moderators gave him more talk time than Perry. Saying that I voted for Perry because I feel he is the only one that speaks the truth and has the inner desire to help Americans. This office isn’t a status symbol for him. It is his calling.

  • http://www.facebook.com/hunter.melville Hunter Melville

    Hah, this is pretty funny. It’s like saying who is won the American Revolution, King George or King George. Good luck with that.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=701721334 Lisa Ann Voida

    It comes down to Freemason-Bildeberger vs. non-Freemason Catholic. MittRomney is a freemason Mormon, and Rick Perry is a Bildeberger. You want politics and puppetmaster to hold more of the strings on you? Vote for those idiot puppets. The puppetmaster George Soros is backing Ron Paul, who is also backed by CAIR. Want to have fear for USA? Vote for those 3 puppets then.
    You want FREEDOM then vote for Rick Santorum. He is Catholic and not a freemason. If you want to know most of the media is freemason, so of course they will back Romney, the airehead. It’s all because of the pressure of the lodgemembers that push their men/women to vote for Romney. SPEAK UP Americans, vote for the righteous man, Rick Santorum.

    • KenInMontana

      Hmm, looks like Alex left the gate open again.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2AI4HFCZWX5QUHANMRFP5SQVBQ Louis

    Who Won?…Are you F*@ckin kiddinig me…Not only did NEWT WIN he OWNED the Debate I AM SOOO FRIGGIN PUMPED UP RIGHT NOW! I NEED A DAMN XANAX TO SLEEP TONIGHT,LOL. NEWT REALLY HAS ME FEELING CONFIDENT RIGHT NOW. SCREW THE MEDIA, 9 MILLION PEOPLE JUST WATCHED NEWT BITCH SLAP ANYONE THAT TRIED TO SCREW WITH HIM. THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT WE NEED IN THAT OVAL OFFICE LIKE…TODAY!

    • B-Funk

      Wow! Now I wish I’d watched the debate! :-D

  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul won on integrity to uphold our Constitution. NONE of the other candidates vote in accordance with our Constitution. They are more concerned with whose contributing to their coffers; and in exchange, they get their vote. Ron Paul doesn’t entertain special interest, lobbyists, and therefore, never does their bidding. He works for us. That is all I need to know. And this is also what will beat Obama; integrity, not corruption.

    • Anonymous

      Well said !!

    • http://paper.li/EveGem/1326087824 Eve

      His Foreign Policy issues are usually his weakest, but let’s take a look at his record.

      He’s been in office since 1976 (?) I believe. Out of 620 measures that Paul has supported, only 4 have made it to a vote and only 1 has been signed into law. His total accomplishment in all these years is 1 – and the one bill was Pork for Galvestan.

      He has been a lone wolf in Congress and his record shows this. This is not greatness and getting things done.

      Integrity will not beat Obama, Liberals don’t have any and oppose those that do.

  • wakeuptheylive

    Then why conduct a poll if you can’t handle the truth of who people think won. Especially if it clearly only allows you to vote once.

    I may be for Ron Paul but the next guy is for Perry of Gingrich. Isn’t that the purpose of a poll – who do you think won the debate (NOT ‘who does Right Scoop think won the debate’

    So grade school

    LOL

  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul will always win on integrity alone. A candidate that takes their oath of office seriously and votes in accordance with our Constitution their entire career, without succumbing to corruption via the enticement of $$$$$ from lobbyists and special interests has my vote. The problems in this country are far to serious to take any more chances. The other candidates DO NOT pass the smell test. As for Newt, just because someone has a great personality, doesn’t mean they’re fit to be president of this country. His record stinks. Ron Paul is the only candidate that can beat Obama, because integrity wins over corruption every time. It’s time for someone we can trust.

  • Anonymous

    This was a remarkably bad debate for Paul. He reminded me of “Madam” with his blathering. My wife hasn’t watched a single debate (shame on her) and when she watched his incoherent 3-minute rant, she said, “What on earth is this man talking about?”

    This guy will not win the GOP nomination, period. It would be nice if he would drop out and give serious contenders some room to grow. He is sucking all the oxygen from the room. Sorry to be a hater… but he grows more annoying with each debate.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_U2JSTOJ4ZTRXLC45E5YXPBGCIU Sonbeams

      The reason he is incomprehensible is that you do not understand what he is saying. This is because the presuppositions underlying his philosophy although simple and easily understood by a child have been erased from the public mind by decades of conditioning. These ideas are related to fundamental good and evil, i.e. moral philosophy.

      This is not said to insult you it is just something I have observed over a number of years. For example, the notion that American foreign policy may well be the product of evil minds and quite insane is unacceptable to many Americans.

      Any suggestion that your leaders may be completely barmy will be resisted at some deep level of the subconscious American mind because the people have been conditioned by their public education system and the media to accept the proclamations of those in authority as being akin to Gospel truth. This then inculcates a world view that is easily manipulated by the authorities and a group mind that will vehemently resist ideas that contradict it.

      • Anonymous

        A logical and civil post, thank you for your comments.

        For the record, I went to private school and have a Master’s degree from George Washington University. I say that not to brag or anything, just to give me a little credibility I suppose. I agree with about 75% of what Ron Paul stands for and like some of the things he proposes that traditional Tea Party folks might not agree with.

        That being said, I can’t support him right now because 1) How he comes off and his age, 2) His supporters have for the most part been horrible – their tactics and personal attacks and smears rile me up, and 3) I simply don’t like a few of his positions – e.g., policies on drugs, guns, foreign policies, borders, etc.

        I mean no disrespect to you at all. I will vote for him if he becomes the nominee… but he would likely be my last choice for president at this point. I’d love to see him replace Bernanke. :)

  • Anonymous

    Did anyone see the “Twitter Poll” after the debate on FOX?

    Tweet “Answer” or “Dodge” and rate the candidates answers to the questions. How crazy skewed were the results for Paul? All green? Seriously? EVEN ON FOREIGN POLICY? That was easily Ron Paul’s worst debate performance and his minions applauded his performance? Pry yourself off the giant carp you lampreys before his blood completely clouds your vision.

    Ron Paul will not win the GOP nomination. Please stop acting like he will.

    Thanks Scoop for omitting Paul from your polls.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_U2JSTOJ4ZTRXLC45E5YXPBGCIU Sonbeams

      The Three Stooges, Gingrich, Romney and Santorum are all unelectable. Nothing they say is believable. The only honest man is Dr. Ron Paul who will indeed win in November, that is if Obama restrains himself that long.

      Otherwise the worst nightmare of the neocons will happen and there will indeed be mushroom clouds over Washington, London and Tel Aviv. That it will shock the American and British and Israeli people to the core is because they have been kept in the dark for so long and have ignored the reality of blowback.

      Iran is not the target of the present wars, China is.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1497076194 Travis Pierson

      I didn’t see the entire debate, only the first hour or so, but I would agree that Paul answered all his questions. No dodges. That doesn’t make him any more acceptable as a candidate since his foreign policies were, as usual, completely detached from reality.

  • Anonymous

    Go to the DailyPaul.com – scroll to the bottom of the page – Click on Page 9 – Watch Every Prediction – this is what Ron Paul predicted in 2002 – and it has come to pass.

    This is how he tried to educate Congress and how they don’t really work in the best interest of America. We the People support Paul with small donations not the corporate funding of unlimited money – that is exactly what is wrong with America.

    We’ve become the puppets.

  • http://usamericanfreedom.com/ Sarah Roman

    Thank you so much for posting this poll WITHOUT Ron Paul’s name included. You are absolutely right about his supporters “skewing” the polls. We never get to see an accurate vote count because of them.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_U2JSTOJ4ZTRXLC45E5YXPBGCIU Sonbeams

      My guess is you cannot see the irony in your comment.

  • http://usamericanfreedom.com/ Sarah Roman

    Gingrich won by a landslide in my opinion. I would LOVE to see him and Obama in a debate!

  • Denise Cranford

    Then by not putting Dr. Paul on your poll, you are in itself “skewing” the polls.

  • Charles Pope

    Awesome. Is trs owned by cnn? Lets run a poll to see who won a debate, but lets only place four of the five debaters in our poll because we don’t like one them and he will only “skew” the results. Typical media slight against RP. Why not include RP, then when he wins your little “poll” you could just place an asterisk by his results and say he doesn’t count. This poll is a joke and so is The Rectal Scoop.

  • Anonymous

    Just noticed the latest CNN Poll: Romney loses to Obama by 5+ points and Ron Paul ties with Obama. My best guess is that if Romney is the Republican choice, then he will lose by much more than 5 points; the Paul supporters will look for another candidate who will restore the Constitution, or support Paul on a third party ticket. Last night when Romney said that he would have signed the MDAA in spite of the Constitution, that pretty much cooked his goose with all of the Ron Paul supporters. What a tragedy that so many are willing to give up their freedom and liberty so easily.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_U2JSTOJ4ZTRXLC45E5YXPBGCIU Sonbeams

    The Three Stooges, Gingrich, Romney and Santorum are all unelectable. Nothing they say is believable. The only honest man is Dr. Ron Paul and you have just shown your true colours by ignoring him.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1497076194 Travis Pierson

      Your arrival here tonight, along with dozens of other first time commentators, is the reason he has been left off the poll.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dawnieqt Dawn Whitehead

    The same way the Iowa and NH polls were “skewed” right? What a joke. RON PAUL 2012!!

  • Charles Pope

    Hmmmmm. Lets run a “poll” to see who won a debate, but lets only include four of the five debaters because we don’t like the other one. He skews our numbers. What a joke of a “poll” this is. This is just another media slight against RP. Is trs owned by cnn? LOL. Why doesn’t trs include RP in the “poll”, then when he wins it they could just put an asterisk by his results and say they don’t count. trs should also hold a poll to see what your favorite color is, but omit red and blue because they would skew the numbers for all the other colors. It’s comical. trs=the rectal scoop.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000857187303 Pam Tangredi

    Sorry then…your poll is incomplete and therefore invalid

  • http://twitter.com/LittleFlos Newcomb

    These results are exactly where I placed them lastnight BamBamNewt takes down the LIBS and will take on Obama and his croonies the same way !!! Bam ! Bam ! ‘ SURVIVOR ‘ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEjgPh4SEmU

  • http://www.facebook.com/FACE.DEL.PIPE Felipe Matamala Valenzuela

    RON PAUL 2012 PLEASE AMERICA, FROM THE WHOLE WORLD

    • K-Bob

      OF UPPERCASE TYPING RONULANS!!!!

  • Shannon Barnett

    Gengrich was on fire and told me everything that I wanted him to say. What I love is the fact that he is not afraid to say what needs to be said instead of political correct spin. It is ok to crack some eggs to make breakfast you know. Now if he was wrong then it just tossing raw eggs, but he is right on and it is edible. Now as for Ron Paul and the “Golden Rule” comment…….Ron we are talking about people who dont agree with the golden rule so the only rule that you can apply is “do unto others BEFORE they do unto you”! Gengrich vs. Obama is a pay per view debate event!!!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4NVWBFE76EQHUU2RS35JOEJFJE DahuiHeeNalu

    newt but im skewing this poll…… =) f*** Newt dough boy aka ghost buters marshmellow man

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lisa-Breuer/1513142456 Lisa Breuer

    So, instead of hoping other candidates will get a huge poll savvy organization (you know – the kind of boots on the ground that will rally to the candidate like NO OTHER when it is time to beat Obama!) you instead remove Paul’s name from your poll. Amazing. And by amazing, I mean CHILDISH!

  • http://www.facebook.com/nibarger John Nibarger

    Lame that you left Ron Paul out. He came in 2nd/3rd in Iowa. Strong NH 2nd. And is polling well in SC. AND 4 SC State Senators have now come forth to endorse Ron Paul this week.

    Fight it all you want, but the man is NOT going away. We are not going away.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QQJFUDSCGWXTUZF3VNTG74OBWQ Katie

    Ron Paul won. Grow some balls and vote for him.

    • Anonymous

      Perhaps you need to grow some eyeballs, so that you may see better the fallacy you call Ron Paul.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1497076194 Travis Pierson

    Gingrich won. The big loser was Ron Paul, but that is a redundancy isn’t it? Romney got dinged, but I don’t think it was bad enough to cost him the SC primary. My guess is that he won the Twitter #dodge tally. I still don’t like any of these guys.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SS7BKEKJ22VBWEMWSSSGP6OO64 Joseph

    We all know Ron Paul won. You know it too. Skew that!

  • http://twitter.com/knowyourniche Joe Manly

    incomplete list = inaccurate results. This poll means nothing.

  • http://www.facebook.com/nibarger John Nibarger

    And that is why your TRS poll is irrelevent.

  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul’s foreign policy is like Jimmy Carters. He’s very naive about radical Islam and if you thought that the Iran Hostage situation of ’79 was something, if Paul was to be elected you haven’t seen anything yet. He has more in common with Michael Moore than any conservative when it comes to his foreign policy.

  • Anonymous

    Scoop, it’s interesting the number of 1st time Ronulan posters you are getting. Perhaps they will stay and learn something new. One could only hope.

  • Anonymous

    Leaving him out accomplishes nothing but skewing the poll in a different way. Real cool.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1497076194 Travis Pierson

      It skews the poll in favor of portraying an accurate picture of the opinions of TRS’s regular readers. Unless, of course, you and all your fellow first timers who came here hoping to vote for Paul all decided to vote for one other candidate. But who are we kidding? None of you purists would sully yourselves by allowing your names to be affiliated with any of the other candidates.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_A74A7IZBANWIHCRDJQOH4ZOQ3A Sponge

    ur missing a candidate.

  • srmmedia

    I still don’t understand this baseless argument that Ron Paul voters skew polls. How is voting for your choice considered skewing? Are we living in a day and age where we disregard the winners because we don’t like them? Any other Candidate could have equal support and “skew” your polls just as easily as Paul supporters do , but the simple fact is that there is no other candidate with the support that Ron Paul has…. It’s not Skewing you idiot, it’s called WINNING!

  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul does not have fans he has constituents and converts who believe in his message. So let me get this straight you are saying that we should take a poll seriously that is deliberatley biased. Guess you figure to skew them before they skew you. Your poll is useless

  • Anonymous

    So the poll creator feels hurt by the wonderful organization of Ron Paul suppporters. I’m sorry, next time we’ll try to have a more disorganized campaign.

  • http://twitter.com/suapril rebecca erickson

    So..what your saying is that it’s not because we are unethical (more than one vote per person) it’s BECAUSE we support our candidate and send it to his supporters? EVERY person who voes on your poll will vote for HIS/HER CANDIDATE. So why does my vote NOT COUNT? That IS just being the BULLY AND changing the RULES so you can announce the outcome you want.
    Here kids…lets ALL line up at the start of the race…but remember crowd…you get no voice to cheer on your little ole man..in fact…if the popular vote wins..YOU don’t even get a voice. So sit there and eat it because it’s my poll and you don’t even get a voice.
    You are a sand lot BULLY…and to everybody who believes in your candidate…get off your butts and support him. Don’t bully me because WE support Ron Paul
    I watched the debate..I watch EVERY debate…as do most Ron Paul supporters. If I haven’t heard about your TRS…I check it out when I vote..isn’t that what you want? People to come CHECK out your site?
    And you thought we had done away with segregation.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

    I think the Ron Paul supporters are pissed because they couldn’t skew the Drudge Poll in his favor, Newt Gingrich won!

  • Jo Bailey

    WRITE-IN for RON PAUL

  • http://twitter.com/ArtisanTony Tony Griffy

    Why did you leave Ron Paul out of the poll?

  • http://www.facebook.com/kurt.pieper1 Kurt Pieper

    I get tons of emails asking me what I mean by skewing the poll. For some reason people think that it only means multiple votes from one person. Actually, I can control that. What I detest is seeing, after every debate and after every poll that I post with Ron Paul’s name on it, is all these websites posting my poll for every Ron Paul fan in the known universe who never even visits TRS to come and vote for Ron Paul. That’s what I mean by skewing the results and that’s why his name will NEVER appear on a TRS poll again.

    Boo hoo…rename yourself “The poop scoop”

    • KenInMontana

      Thy name is “Gone”.

  • http://twitter.com/ArtisanTony Tony Griffy

    I thought this was a legitimate blog until I see you avoiding true journalism. Leaving someone off the poll is childish and makes you afraid of the results.

  • http://twitter.com/ArtisanTony Tony Griffy

    lol, I can see this is a neocon blog where comments regarding Ron Paul are just deleted. Jesus, I really thought I had found an objective blog. I am really not that big of a supporter of RP but hate to see blogs and media blocking any information. It is really pathetic and Nazi like to keep him off of your poll and delete comments about him. You are the example of why people think right wingers are crazy.

    • KenInMontana

      Wow, a new record! It only took you a third comment to validate Godwin. Not to mention a classic example of a concern troll.

  • Blake Justice

    What better way for you not to have your poll used for Ron Paul by not including him. Makes perfect sense ;) Next time omit all but who you would like to win and it will look even better.

  • http://twitter.com/SSReaney Susan Reaney

    If Romney wins SC he’ll take the GOP Nomination…Obama will eat him for lunch!
    Newt is the only candidate that can debate and win against Obama, this is our only chance to take back the White House. I stand with Newt.

  • Bonnie Whitener

    Then perhaps you should market to people in a manner that invites more independent and free thinking people to want to STAY and read your publication! Ron Paul is the ONLY choice for president this election, but more importantly, a vote for Paul is a vote for WE THE PEOPLE to continue to fight for liberty and freedom. WE THE PEOPLE are the engine!

    • KenInMontana

      Yeah! Just like at “LibertyTree”, where you can be banned in record time for questioning Paul’s positions or record. Physician heal thyself.

  • http://fishygov.wordpress.com FishyGov

    If those complaining about Paul not being on this poll saw the debate and the Twitter hash mark, answer and dodged, vote ratings for each of the candidates following the debate you may START to realize why Paul never makes it on the polls conducted on this site.

    Paul’s followers flooded those hash mark results skewing all of his results beyond belief.

    • Anonymous

      Just like they’re trying to skew the comments section here. Looks like the meme is out to Paul sites that if they can’t skew the polls, then they need to skew the comments sections with drive-bys.

    • Blake Justice

      Ron Paul supporters “flood” in support because he is invoking passion in people who previously thought the political system was a lost cause. There are a lot of computer savvy people in this country. The real question that should be asked is why isn’t your candidate getting a flood of support? If they were, you would have no problem. Good luck.

  • http://twitter.com/HopVision HopVision

    I think I found a bug. It seems like no matter whom I choose in your poll, it just gives a point to the status quo.

  • Blake Justice

    Ron Paul has the most supporters come to his rallies and the most supporters on the web. You can’t stop an idea whose time has come. The establishment and mainstream media is afraid of Dr. Paul because he is a threat to the status quo. No one can stand up to a debate with Dr. Paul because he has the truth on his side. He doesn’t flip-flop on issues and he is the only real conservative out there, fiscally and constitutionally.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_BPIFJYIKAC7TGLOTY6UZ6MCTAA Brock S.

    Well you worked in all the talking points, well done RuPaulite. As soon as we see the “Ron Paul is the only one running that…” well, yeah..

  • Anonymous

    Debates are not about hair and hutzpa. It’s for determining the direction the US should take. So what Gingrich can defend elements of the free market? He’s not willing to bring home troops and not willing to repect the Constitution when it comes to warmaking. Conservatism took a wrong turn with William Buckley, down the road to empire. Ron Paul is articulating why that turn was and is wrong. This poll did not include Ron. What is ‘therightscoop’ but a neocon Pravda-like brainwash?

  • Guest

    It is obvious from the flood of fanatical visitors to the poll that Scoop correctly excluded the “online” President. National Review also correctly did the same. It also strikes me that from the demeanor of the Paulies that even if he does run third Party, it will affect King Putt more than the Republican. These people were surely never Republican to begin with and an almost exact match to the wide eyed worshipers that voted in our current Idol in Chief.

  • Anonymous

    What a bunch of Jackwipes you guys are. How is this a real poll w/out Ron Paul?

  • 777denny

    Newt Gingrich proved in this debate why he would prove to be a much tougher GOP candidate against Obama than regional candidate Rick Perry, Libertarian Foreign Policy Fright Ron Paul, not-quite-up-to-the-task Rick Santorum and RINO, Father of Homosexual Marriage in America, Mitt Romney. Newt has a PROVEN TRACK RECORD of getting BIG things done for America BECAUSE of his big mouth to speak the Truth To Power, be they Saul Alinsky Radicals or Establishment Republicans like Bush Sr, who derailed Reagan’s Revolution by violating his “no new taxes, read my lips” pledge. Newt will RESTORE the Reagan Revolution, bringing millions of jobs to America and CHANGING it from the road to Sodom and Gomorrah that Obama and the RINOS currently have it on, to the road BACK to exceptionalism and the Rule of Law. He worked with Presidents Reagan and Clinton to help create a climate to create over 20 million new jobs and reformed welfare and balanced America’s budgets. Go Newt!

  • Kyle McFarland

    So let’s be clear, you won’t put Ron Paul on your poll because Ron Paul supporters are more active. All of the other candidates have just as many fan sites and targeted sites to find polls so their supporters can support their candidate. So if you are looking for to get a poll that is even remotely close to being accurate in your views, take this down, go out and ask someone on the street. Otherwise include everyone running in the polls.

    By taking this poll you are asking for the community’s opinion. Just because a majority of the online community weighs heavily on one side, should not be a reason to try and silence that side of the community by removing their choice.

    You would be just as upset if they never included TRS on a vote for most objective writing, because anyone who likes TRS and agrees they are the most objective in their writing votes for you. Which this is all a fantasy because the poll above shows that you are objecting to being objective with your poll results.

    It sounds like you don’t like Ron Paul, and every time you take a poll you’re reminded that everyone does not agree with you. So because an overwhelming majority takes the time to support their candidate, you would rather hide that fact and call their support “skewing”. By omitting Ron Paul from this poll you are “skewing” the results, and in fact are guilty of hypocrisy.

  • Blake Justice

    Ignore all you want. It doesn’t make Ron Paul disappear as the establishment would like.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_CI4UMZXLIOU43JGAUYTQPDUFHY Had enough

    Ron Paul clearly won it and it’s clear that this poll is geared for the status quo.

  • thomas.hooker%asu.edu

    literally lol….ya don’t post Ron Paul’s name because he keeps winning all the polls you put on your website!?!?! If that is not blatent bias then I don’t know what is. If you kept his name on the poll you would probably have new people coming to your webiste and more views on your page which means your popularity would grow…but oh ya you wouldn’t want that right? Obvisously Dr. Paul is winning with or without your poll, and I think more peope are going to look into Paul now considering you don’t even give them an option to vote or see his name. Good try though trying to silence the majority! Ron Paul 2012!!! want to learn more about him go to ronpaul2012 . com

  • http://www.facebook.com/chfernandz Carlos Fernandez

    Ok, so now you have a biased, incomplete poll that is irrelevant. Keep up the good work!

  • Anonymous

    What is the purpose of having a poll and leaving someone out. The numbers won’t be correct so what is the point. I don’t get it.

  • robert champeau

    Great poll, moron. Leaving Dr. Paul off the poll is obviously going to make this poll accurate. Might as well throw it on the junk heap along with the rest of your carreer.

  • Anonymous

    You should take your website down, too.

    Maybe we should absentee vote for Perry??

    Ron Paul is the ONLY one who ever has anything SUBSTANTIVE to say. Maybe that’s why he wins the polls.

  • Anonymous

    So you turn around and skew the results yourself. A few words come to mind;unfair,biased,manipulative…you also remind me of a kid throwing a tantrum when things don’t go their way.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Btwn-Unemploymnt/100003319865138 Btwn Unemploymnt

    I love that I can’t vote here…democracy at its best! I actually voted for Rick Perry on this one, just for sh*ts and giggles. You guys need to lighten up, raise the lights a bit and have a little perspective. Ron Paul fans are supporting their guy just like you’re supporting yours. We may not always agree, but we don’t have to exclude people from polls. Use IP tracking or only allow votes from validated accounts…I think you’ll see that Ron Paul gets more votes, but only because he has more support.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1179436189 Betty Gilroy

    Today I looked in my toilet and there was some brown stuff lying in the bottom of the bowl….it reminded me of this web page.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1127971822 Mark Wilmoth

    So what you are saying is you are a huge crybaby because Ron Paul has all the support and you want to take your poll and go home? Brilliant!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1179436189 Betty Gilroy

    Well….I came back just to read the comments here realizing the moderator/owner of this web site does not see the humor and ignorance in their poll. What a riot. I am cracking up at the comments and just shaking my head at the spoiled, whiny cry baby who created this poll. This is some good political humor for sure and the poll reflects the political establishment to a tee.