I see you are here to pick up where 3770HMS left off. I cannot say I'm surprised. I have noticed a pattern with you two. You do realize I cited multiple sources, right?
Wow. Are you going to hold your breath until you turn blue when Paul loses? Christopher Hahn is almost always wrong about everything (like you). Don't know much about the other guy. But I do know Paul's a distant third in the SC polls and that your tinfoil hat mentality is hysterical. So please do keep the conspiracy theories coming!
So do you believe they both got it wrong...and the Fox News Bimbette felt no need to correct them because she didn't know either? That sounds like the conspiracy theory....especially in light of this: Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie. By Mike Gaddy. Published Feb. 28, 2003 On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast. On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows. The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers. Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news. The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves. In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation. Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was "totally vindicated" by the verdict. ------------------------ I mean seriously, this organization went to court and sued to protect their right to lie (and won), but you think this little episode has nothing to do with their stated desire to mislead the public. I'd say that makes you pretty naive.
My opinion, IF there was some sort of conspiracy to discourage independents, it is very unlikely that they would be thinking of Paul in doing so. The only plausible motive would be against Romney. Gingrich is within striking distance. Everyone expects that Paul will get his 20-ish percent. Romney commands over 30% of the independent voters, and this is the main reason he would beat Gingrich. If independents didn't show up, Newt would actually have a shot at winning it. Any way you slice it, Paul doesn't enter the equation in such a conspiracy.
Paul polls highest with independents. A good portion of his 20ish percent is from independents. Higher than Romney and higher than Obama. If independents were to stay at home, it would affect Paul more than the others. --------------- As Forbes notes: In a head to head match up with incumbent President Barack Obama, the indie voter chooses Ron Paul, a CBS News poll suggested on Monday. A total of 47% of independent voters said they would choose Ron Paul compared to 45% of independent voters choosing Mitt Romney against Obama, and 41% of independents saying they would choose Rick Santorum. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012...ependents-would-vote-for-paul-over-obama.html --------------- Let's try not to lose sight of the fact the Fox News feels they have the right to lie to us. To date, no one has been able to refute that.