<table style='font:11px arial; color:#333; background-color:#f5f5f5' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='512' height='340'><tbody><tr style='background-color:#e5e5e5' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com'>The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align:right; font-weight:bold;'>Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style='height:14px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;' colspan='2'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-15-2011/indecision-2012---corn-polled-edition---ron-paul---the-top-tier'>Indecision 2012 - Corn Polled Edition - Ron Paul & the Top Tier</a></td></tr><tr style='height:14px; background-color:#353535' valign='middle'><td colspan='2' style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; width:512px; overflow:hidden; text-align:right'><a target='_blank' style='color:#96deff; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/'>www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><embed style='display:block' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:394630' width='512' height='288' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed></td></tr><tr style='height:18px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><table style='margin:0px; text-align:center' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='100%' height='100%'><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor & Satire Blog</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow'>The Daily Show on Facebook</a></td></tr></table></td></tr></tbody></table>
Why does the media hate Ron Paul?
- Thread starter H D
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Because he is a bit of a coot?
TJR
TJR
Remember that the closer we get to the elections, the more the candidates will try to move towards the middle ground and away from their usual ultra right wing or ultra left wing rhetoric. They attempt to present themselves as a more middle of the road candidate to attract those voters who may be on the fence..
Perhaps it's because the vast majority of the media is predominately controlled by Liberals. Since most of the leading Republican candidates are ultra conservative, and Ron Paul is far more liberal than the other Republican candidates, that could attract some of the more moderate Democrats who are not impressed with Obama's performance with the economy but can't vote for an ultra conservative candidate.
I think they may be trying to steer the American public to the far more conservative Republican candidates and shuffle Ron Paul down as not a serious candidate, knowing that Obama stands a better chance of reelection against those ultra conservative candidates.
I also think it's a failure of the Ron Paul campaign managers who should be pushing harder to get his name in front of the public. I suspect that half the public does not even know who Ron Paul is or that he is a Presidential candidate.
...Rich
Perhaps it's because the vast majority of the media is predominately controlled by Liberals. Since most of the leading Republican candidates are ultra conservative, and Ron Paul is far more liberal than the other Republican candidates, that could attract some of the more moderate Democrats who are not impressed with Obama's performance with the economy but can't vote for an ultra conservative candidate.
I think they may be trying to steer the American public to the far more conservative Republican candidates and shuffle Ron Paul down as not a serious candidate, knowing that Obama stands a better chance of reelection against those ultra conservative candidates.
I also think it's a failure of the Ron Paul campaign managers who should be pushing harder to get his name in front of the public. I suspect that half the public does not even know who Ron Paul is or that he is a Presidential candidate.
...Rich
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2006
- Messages
- 1,884
- Reaction score
- 70
Funny, I don't think of Ron Paul as a liberal. I think of him as an extremely old fashioned, hard core conservative myself. I think he suffers from one thing that John McCain suffered from by not being a very polished and camera ready candidate. These days you have to be very slick, like Willie, when in front of the TV cameras. Ron Paul also worries about things that most Americans don't care about like whether there really is any gold left in Fort Knox or has it all been petered away by BOTH parties. I would bet that what's really supposed to be there...isn't!
Bud Williams
Well-Known Member
My neighbor's son is a college junior, and he is a huge Ron Paul supporter, Ron Paul is really big on the colleges. This has stumped me for some time, but then I started hearing his anti-war stance, this is where he shines among this group. College aged kids do not like the ideal of war. Going to war, fighting in a war everything about war. I think the influence of the 60's anti war, anti establishment professors have took hold of this generation. They will support him no matter what chance he may have in actually winning the nomination. Ron Paul, even though he has got many good points, is the libertarian choice as an option for the mainstream candidates. I think the left are covertly pushing Paul to this demographic, in hopes of getting them to jump left in disgust for the mainstream candidate that will get the nomination. Hermain Cain 2012!
I think '07 got it exactly right. Ron Paul does worry too much about things that are either not pertinent to the everyday lives of most Americans or is just too much to bite off in one short presidential sitting. I happen to agree with his stance on the war on drugs and the IRS, but those issues aren't likely to ever get through any congress. His stance on multiple unsustainable wars is right on and I think is held by many Americans on the left and the right.
But Americans want change, right? Who is more steadfast to their beliefs, never involved in scandals or lies and truly represents a change from the norm? There's only two candidates right now that I can think of. Only Ron Paul is the seasoned politician of the two I can think of.
The other would be Herman Cain. He has no political experience. I like that. A true public servant would be a refreshing change. Somebody with real world experience would be a refreshing change.
Unfortunately, I don't think Americans are comfortable voting for real change. We know the status quo and slick talkers and big grins are comforting. Just throw in a dash of hope, or fear; that's what we know, that's where we're comfortable.
But Americans want change, right? Who is more steadfast to their beliefs, never involved in scandals or lies and truly represents a change from the norm? There's only two candidates right now that I can think of. Only Ron Paul is the seasoned politician of the two I can think of.
The other would be Herman Cain. He has no political experience. I like that. A true public servant would be a refreshing change. Somebody with real world experience would be a refreshing change.
Unfortunately, I don't think Americans are comfortable voting for real change. We know the status quo and slick talkers and big grins are comforting. Just throw in a dash of hope, or fear; that's what we know, that's where we're comfortable.
But none of this really addresses the issue of the video. Why do they just so easily pass him over at the same time they are showing his picture, poll results, etc. and just act like the facts are not there.
He has support. Probably not enough to win, but come on. Fox News has jumped all over the Tea Party stuff but they treat the father of the movement like he doesn't exist. The rest of these candidates are just attaching their far right wing, religious ruler mentality to the smoldering fire Ron Paul set to burning and hoping their flame catches on.
He has support. Probably not enough to win, but come on. Fox News has jumped all over the Tea Party stuff but they treat the father of the movement like he doesn't exist. The rest of these candidates are just attaching their far right wing, religious ruler mentality to the smoldering fire Ron Paul set to burning and hoping their flame catches on.
Timmy-The-Ute
Active Member
Like most Libertarians Ron Paul is not a conservative. Libertarians are just cheap Liberals. I worry that Ron Paul's supporter will not support the Republican nominee if it is not Paul. They will either vote for a 3rd party or vote for Obama. Libertarians identify more with liberal candidates in the end because of the social issues. Libertarians are anti-military, pro-gay rights, pro drugs, pro abortion, and they hate social conservative so much that they would rather have Obama, as long as they have enough pot to be so stoned to care.
Timmy-the-Ute,
I agree that Ron Paul is not consevative. He has some very Libral views and is a little bit of an odd-ball... probably why he is not taken to seriously.
As I said earlier, I think the Liberal media knows that the other top candidates in the Presidential race are far too conservative, and will have a hard time showing they are more moderate conservatives. I think they also know that a lot of Ron Paul supporters will not vote for the other leading candidates (but I'm not sure many would vote for Obama??). It just means that Ron Paul serves to dilute the Conservative's votes for the other candidates.
Basicly the Democrates are trying to manipulate who Obama will run against next year. Obama's best chance to win is against some fire breathing, ultra religious Conservative who will appeal less to the majority of the middle of the road conservative voters who are generally much more moderate.
It appears that the following interview with Jon Huntsman agrees with me that most voters are more moderate and not as far left or far right as the political parties would like us to believe. The ultra conservative candidates are too far to the right and probably not electable....and I think the Democrats know that, and the more Libral candidates are being ignored by the Liberal media.
...Rich
I agree that Ron Paul is not consevative. He has some very Libral views and is a little bit of an odd-ball... probably why he is not taken to seriously.
As I said earlier, I think the Liberal media knows that the other top candidates in the Presidential race are far too conservative, and will have a hard time showing they are more moderate conservatives. I think they also know that a lot of Ron Paul supporters will not vote for the other leading candidates (but I'm not sure many would vote for Obama??). It just means that Ron Paul serves to dilute the Conservative's votes for the other candidates.
Basicly the Democrates are trying to manipulate who Obama will run against next year. Obama's best chance to win is against some fire breathing, ultra religious Conservative who will appeal less to the majority of the middle of the road conservative voters who are generally much more moderate.
It appears that the following interview with Jon Huntsman agrees with me that most voters are more moderate and not as far left or far right as the political parties would like us to believe. The ultra conservative candidates are too far to the right and probably not electable....and I think the Democrats know that, and the more Libral candidates are being ignored by the Liberal media.
...Rich
Last edited by a moderator:
Ron Paul was about 200 votes away from winning the straw poll. How can anyone say that he does not appeal to conservatives.
I think he is a true conservative. Unfortunately the term has been so bastardized into a neo-conservative brand that we vote in spend crazy "conservatives" like George W. Bush.
Why must a conservative care so much about what you do in your bedroom? Why should a conservative be so war happy? War is sometimes necessary, but there can be other solutions. Conservative, in my opinion, means less government. I do not accept the religious zealot definition of conservative.
I am a Christian. I support the military. I object that homosexuals have any less rights than any other American. I support prosecution of drug crimes, but the war on crime has been a total failure. And abortion is murder, not a choice of convenience. I am conservative. Not the news channels' portrayal of conservatives, but conservative nonetheless. Perhaps that is why Ron Paul's form of conservatives is so easily overlooked. It's not easily pigeonholed into the ultra-right vs. ultra-left viewpoints our media loves to pit against each other.
And the assumption that Paul supporters would prefer Obama over the Republican nomination is absurd. Paul supporters just want less government involvement; not a liberal utopia. That is way off base and a terrible mischaracterization of libertarianism.
I don't know who I will vote for in the primary, yet, but it will not be one of the Fox News darlings. We already tried that with McCain.
I think he is a true conservative. Unfortunately the term has been so bastardized into a neo-conservative brand that we vote in spend crazy "conservatives" like George W. Bush.
Why must a conservative care so much about what you do in your bedroom? Why should a conservative be so war happy? War is sometimes necessary, but there can be other solutions. Conservative, in my opinion, means less government. I do not accept the religious zealot definition of conservative.
I am a Christian. I support the military. I object that homosexuals have any less rights than any other American. I support prosecution of drug crimes, but the war on crime has been a total failure. And abortion is murder, not a choice of convenience. I am conservative. Not the news channels' portrayal of conservatives, but conservative nonetheless. Perhaps that is why Ron Paul's form of conservatives is so easily overlooked. It's not easily pigeonholed into the ultra-right vs. ultra-left viewpoints our media loves to pit against each other.
And the assumption that Paul supporters would prefer Obama over the Republican nomination is absurd. Paul supporters just want less government involvement; not a liberal utopia. That is way off base and a terrible mischaracterization of libertarianism.
I don't know who I will vote for in the primary, yet, but it will not be one of the Fox News darlings. We already tried that with McCain.
Hugh,
Very well said. The political parties want to pigeon-hole the opposing candidates into the ultra extreme right or ultra extreme left while their candidate is more moderate and middle of the road (exactly where the voters are).
I also thin the the Democrats want Obama's next opponent in 2012 to be a very ultra conservative, who is probably not electable. Candidates like Ron Paul, and Jon Huntsman are much more moderate conservatives that would be more acceptable to the average middle of the road voters.
If the Liberal media hardly mentions Ron Paul or John Huntsman, the voters in the primaries will never know anything about them....and I think that's exactly what's happening now. Their campaign managers need to get their candidates names into the media almost daily to get the voter's attention. Unfortunately, that takes money, and our flavor of politics is "Green".
...Rich
Very well said. The political parties want to pigeon-hole the opposing candidates into the ultra extreme right or ultra extreme left while their candidate is more moderate and middle of the road (exactly where the voters are).
I also thin the the Democrats want Obama's next opponent in 2012 to be a very ultra conservative, who is probably not electable. Candidates like Ron Paul, and Jon Huntsman are much more moderate conservatives that would be more acceptable to the average middle of the road voters.
If the Liberal media hardly mentions Ron Paul or John Huntsman, the voters in the primaries will never know anything about them....and I think that's exactly what's happening now. Their campaign managers need to get their candidates names into the media almost daily to get the voter's attention. Unfortunately, that takes money, and our flavor of politics is "Green".
...Rich
Kevin Lang
Well-Known Member
Richard L said:
Something they're quite good at, as they played a big hand in getting McCain to be Obama's opponent back in 2008. If we didn't know something was up before, the way the media pushed him over the other candidates after how McCain "infamously" treated the reporters on his tour would have raised a question or 2.
Hugh said:
I'm still a little dumbfounded that Fox News jumped on the "Let's promote McCain" bandwagon. I thought they were supposed to be the "conservative" news network, yet they advocated the same Republican candidate as the avowed liberal channels, a candidate that was not conservative ("Obama Lite" as the right dubbed him) and readily predicted to loose. I'm not sure what they really gained from it, but I'm sure it was significant.
Not even the legendary Theodore Roosevelt could win the Presidency running as a third party. All he managed to do, all the rare good 3rd party candidate has ever done, is split the votes in one of the 2 main parties so that the other party sweeps the election and gets into the White House. IMO there's also a stigma today that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote, as well as the many people who can't be bothered to vote.
The way I look at it is: About 20% of the conservative voters will always support an ultra conservative Republican candidate, while another 20% of liberal voters will always support an ultra liberal Democratic candidate. That leaves the remanin 60% of the voters who want a more middle of the road candidate who does not profess his loyalty to a political party or ideal but can think for themselves.
The problem is that most moderate candidates cannot get elected with out the financial support and backing by one of the political parties that have taken over control of our elections.
America will never have truly free elections until the money factor is taken out of the political campaigns. That means that political parties should be banned, all political donations (Personal, corporate or private) to support any political candidate's campaign should be banned.
All elections should be budgeted and paid for by the states or federal government. Donations can be made to the government election fund by private parties or corporations, but that money will be shared equally by all candidates. The money will be put on account for the candidates and they cannot spend anymore than what is in their account.
For the Presidential campaign, the candidates must file documents indicating their candidacy by a specific date. All candidates will be invited to appear on a national TV show, perhaps a couple of shows to introduce themselves, give a short bio and tell America about their political views and why they feel they would make a good President...Pretty much like a job interview. After the show, Americans can call in an vote for their favorite candidate (just like American Idol, or America's got Talent) That will narrow the group down to the top 6 candidates who can continue their campaign. The others will be dropped from the race and the campaign funds will be spread out amoungst the remaining candidates. Candidates and their campaign teams cannot spend more than money alloted to them in their campaign accounts and can only be for campaign related expenses. The cadidate is free to choose as many TV or radio spots, where to travel to make speaches and shake hands, etc.
The government will sponsor one or more debates where the candidates must appear to debate the issues where viewers can call in or email questions to ask the candidats. The questions will be randomly selected by computer and related to the current issues, like the economy, the budget, the deficit, wars, terrorist, foreign policy. Nothing religious or moral issues related to sexual orientation, gay marriage, abortion, etc. Those are areas more related to Civil Rights and the Supreme Court. That way nobody knows who is going to get what question. The computer will also randomly select one or two of the other candidates to respond to the other candidates answer.
With each primary election, the candidate with the least amount of votes will be dropped from the campaign until we are down to the last two opponents who can run against the incumbent President. If the incumbent President cannot run for reelection, then the 3 top candidates will be allowed to continue to campaign, and their names will be the only ones on the ballots....no write in votes for candidates not on the ballot.
As a third element of Americans taking control of their country, we should either eliminate the Electorial College, or modify it so it is more closely aligned with the popular vote. That means instead of a candidate who receives one more vote than the other candidate/s does not get all of that state's electorial votes...The candidate only gets a portion of the electorial votes based on the percentage of the popular votes he/she received.
I don't know exactly how we can make these changes now that the Democrats, Republicans and to a lesser extent The Tea Party are controlling the politics in this country and this might require some Constitutional ammendments to take back our country. I doubt that I will see this in my life time, but I think it will eventually come about.
I also wonder how the USA would respond if riots and protests occured in the US, like we see in Libya, Egypt, Syria, etc?? It might take that for Americans to wrestle back the control of the government from the politicians.
...Rich
The problem is that most moderate candidates cannot get elected with out the financial support and backing by one of the political parties that have taken over control of our elections.
America will never have truly free elections until the money factor is taken out of the political campaigns. That means that political parties should be banned, all political donations (Personal, corporate or private) to support any political candidate's campaign should be banned.
All elections should be budgeted and paid for by the states or federal government. Donations can be made to the government election fund by private parties or corporations, but that money will be shared equally by all candidates. The money will be put on account for the candidates and they cannot spend anymore than what is in their account.
For the Presidential campaign, the candidates must file documents indicating their candidacy by a specific date. All candidates will be invited to appear on a national TV show, perhaps a couple of shows to introduce themselves, give a short bio and tell America about their political views and why they feel they would make a good President...Pretty much like a job interview. After the show, Americans can call in an vote for their favorite candidate (just like American Idol, or America's got Talent) That will narrow the group down to the top 6 candidates who can continue their campaign. The others will be dropped from the race and the campaign funds will be spread out amoungst the remaining candidates. Candidates and their campaign teams cannot spend more than money alloted to them in their campaign accounts and can only be for campaign related expenses. The cadidate is free to choose as many TV or radio spots, where to travel to make speaches and shake hands, etc.
The government will sponsor one or more debates where the candidates must appear to debate the issues where viewers can call in or email questions to ask the candidats. The questions will be randomly selected by computer and related to the current issues, like the economy, the budget, the deficit, wars, terrorist, foreign policy. Nothing religious or moral issues related to sexual orientation, gay marriage, abortion, etc. Those are areas more related to Civil Rights and the Supreme Court. That way nobody knows who is going to get what question. The computer will also randomly select one or two of the other candidates to respond to the other candidates answer.
With each primary election, the candidate with the least amount of votes will be dropped from the campaign until we are down to the last two opponents who can run against the incumbent President. If the incumbent President cannot run for reelection, then the 3 top candidates will be allowed to continue to campaign, and their names will be the only ones on the ballots....no write in votes for candidates not on the ballot.
As a third element of Americans taking control of their country, we should either eliminate the Electorial College, or modify it so it is more closely aligned with the popular vote. That means instead of a candidate who receives one more vote than the other candidate/s does not get all of that state's electorial votes...The candidate only gets a portion of the electorial votes based on the percentage of the popular votes he/she received.
I don't know exactly how we can make these changes now that the Democrats, Republicans and to a lesser extent The Tea Party are controlling the politics in this country and this might require some Constitutional ammendments to take back our country. I doubt that I will see this in my life time, but I think it will eventually come about.
I also wonder how the USA would respond if riots and protests occured in the US, like we see in Libya, Egypt, Syria, etc?? It might take that for Americans to wrestle back the control of the government from the politicians.
...Rich
Last edited by a moderator:
EddieS'04
In Memoriam 1950-2022
Richard, DITTO....
I like your Idea's..:haveabeer:
Im so tired of the riff and mud slinging. Then you still dont get the promises from either party. They all have become so self serving and party protective..Sick!
I once heard a Christian comedian say. You know where liers go. "Washington".....:bwahaha:
I have to wonder, who are we the people......:banghead:
I like your Idea's..:haveabeer:
Im so tired of the riff and mud slinging. Then you still dont get the promises from either party. They all have become so self serving and party protective..Sick!
I once heard a Christian comedian say. You know where liers go. "Washington".....:bwahaha:
I have to wonder, who are we the people......:banghead:
Last edited by a moderator:
Bill V
Well-Known Member
Bill V
Well-Known Member
Good thought, but bad math. If you make that assumption that every voter is either conservative or liberal, and then take away 20% of each group, you have 80% left, not 60%.
And if there are voters who are neither conservative nor liberal (as we all know is the case), then the number remaining climbs even higher. (For example, if you say that 25% of voters are liberal, 25% are conservative, and 50% are neither, then if you remove 20% of the liberal voters subset, that's 5% of all voters. Same goes for the conservative voters subset. Leaving 90% remaining.)
Bill V.
No your math is wrong. If 20% of the voters are ultra conservative, and another 20% are ultra Liberal which constitutes a total of 40% of the voters. That leaves 60% of the voters who are more moderate.....and that's the portion of the voters that the politicians are trying to win over.
They already know that the Democratic candidate will get the majority of the Libral voters, and Republican candidate will get the majority of the Conservative voters. That leaves the leave the moderate voters to decide between the two evils. That's why the candidates always try to appear more moderate during the campaign, but change when they get elected.
...Rich
No your math is wrong. If 20% of the voters are ultra conservative, and another 20% are ultra Liberal which constitutes a total of 40% of the voters. That leaves 60% of the voters who are more moderate.....and that's the portion of the voters that the politicians are trying to win over.
They already know that the Democratic candidate will get the majority of the Libral voters, and Republican candidate will get the majority of the Conservative voters. That leaves the leave the moderate voters to decide between the two evils. That's why the candidates always try to appear more moderate during the campaign, but change when they get elected.
...Rich
Last edited by a moderator:
Les
Well-Known Member
Bill V, interesting math, but got to agree with Richard.
Bill V
Well-Known Member
Sorry Richard and Les, my math is right. Richard, your new response states a different scenario than what your original post had said.
In your new response, you said to take away 20% OF THE VOTERS who are ultra conservative and another 20% OF THE VOTERS who are ultra liberal. In that case, then yes, those two groups total 40%, leaving 60%.
But in your original message, you said to take away 20% OF THE CONSERVATIVE VOTERS and 20% OF THE LIBERAL VOTERS.
The difference? In your new response, you're taking away two-fifths of the entire pie. In the original message, you're taking away one-fifth each of two SLICES of pie. And then in each case, you're asking how much of the entire pie is remaining. Clearly, you'll get two different answers mathematically.
But in the end, it really doesn't matter. I definitely agree with the sentiment of your original message, regardless of how the numbers work out. :haveabeer:
In your new response, you said to take away 20% OF THE VOTERS who are ultra conservative and another 20% OF THE VOTERS who are ultra liberal. In that case, then yes, those two groups total 40%, leaving 60%.
But in your original message, you said to take away 20% OF THE CONSERVATIVE VOTERS and 20% OF THE LIBERAL VOTERS.
The difference? In your new response, you're taking away two-fifths of the entire pie. In the original message, you're taking away one-fifth each of two SLICES of pie. And then in each case, you're asking how much of the entire pie is remaining. Clearly, you'll get two different answers mathematically.
But in the end, it really doesn't matter. I definitely agree with the sentiment of your original message, regardless of how the numbers work out. :haveabeer:
Last edited by a moderator:
Bill V,
That's your interpretation of what I said. I may not have specified it as such, but most other people understood my meaning. You leaped to an assumption and changed the math to meet your definition, when you obviously knew what my statement meant and it was a proper way to state the problem
Your assumption was that if 20% of the voters were ultra right wing conservatives, that the 20% that were ultra liberal were being extracted from the remaining voters.....That is not the case...the 20% of ultra conservitive voters, and the 20% of the ultra libral voters are extracted from the original 100% of voters. That can easily be understood when I said "the remaining 60% of voters are more moderate"
I don't think it does you any justice to disagree based on symantics when you and others knew exactly what I meant even if the statement was not technically perfect. Few of us here are English majors and do not profess to speak and spell perfectly...and I sure that you are no different.
....Rich
That's your interpretation of what I said. I may not have specified it as such, but most other people understood my meaning. You leaped to an assumption and changed the math to meet your definition, when you obviously knew what my statement meant and it was a proper way to state the problem
Your assumption was that if 20% of the voters were ultra right wing conservatives, that the 20% that were ultra liberal were being extracted from the remaining voters.....That is not the case...the 20% of ultra conservitive voters, and the 20% of the ultra libral voters are extracted from the original 100% of voters. That can easily be understood when I said "the remaining 60% of voters are more moderate"
I don't think it does you any justice to disagree based on symantics when you and others knew exactly what I meant even if the statement was not technically perfect. Few of us here are English majors and do not profess to speak and spell perfectly...and I sure that you are no different.
....Rich
