Time Top 100: VOTE FOR RON PAUL!!!

[silverhawks]

Sickens me to read and understand this now.

"For all his fundraising acumen, the media never saw Paul as anything more than a fringe player."

Is that how we're supposed to elect representative government? According to who is the media darling at the time?

 

[silverhawks]

Ron Paul is beating Obama, surprise lol

79 to like 54.. woah now its 68%?!

4chan is winning?! What kind of fucking world do we live in where a site that cracks gay porn jokes is winning over satirists and actual honest politicians?!@?!??!@?#!@?#!1 WHAT THE FUCKS!

The world where this is our government:

 

[Sandra]

What the hell is moot? I see it's at #1.

 

[BillyDkid]

I'm not getting this at all - who are these Moot and Rain people? What am I missing? Look, we all know that on line Ron will get more votes than anyone else. What is going on?

 

[silverhawks]

What the hell is moot? I see it's at #1.

Moot is the founder of 4chan. I sense the hand of anonymous at work.

 

[Vet_from_cali]

damn, ron paul gots alot of votes lol.


good stuff

 

[angelatc]

I voted only once, but I voted everybody else down .

Looks like 4chan has better spammers

 

[qwerty]

Bump!

 

[Elwar]

Ron Paul is at 47...from the looks of things 4chan is going through and voting all other candidates down and moot up...they have over 200k votes for moot.

 

[Andrew Ryan]

It says he's ranked 20 on the big list.

 

[rbmcdonald]

Are we absolutely sure that we should be voting 100? I can not find any information any where about rules or anything. The Slide says "rank", should we be ranking him as #1? It would be just like Time to calculate the results saying 1 is highest and 100 is lowest, and then show the results inversely, ie if everyone voted #1 for a person, they would show his rating as 100. I suggest many people go to this guy http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1883644_1883653_1884605,00.html because he has as few as votes as anyone. Lets all vote 1 (slide the thingie to the left) and see if we can move his average off 21. If his average goes down, then we know that voting 1 moves someone down the rank. If his ranking goes up, then we know that to move someone up, we need to vote them #1. Make sense?

 

[rbmcdonald]

OK, I am at a loss. Mr. MO whatever has apparently received 2000 votes in the last 5 minutes, and his average has moved from 21 to 79, and he is #3 on the list. Are there really that many people reading this???? Anyway, we might should stop this experiment. If we in fact did this, then it would seem to prove my suspicion, to move someone up the list, you need to vote low (I.E. #1).

 

[rbmcdonald]

OK, Mr. MO now has an average of 84 and is #1 on the list.

 

[Feenix566]

This ranking system is about as clear as mud. Time did a terrible job of setting this up.

 

[Chieppa1]

So I'm voting 100 for Ron Paul. The higher the rating, the higher the spot on the chart.

 

[LittleLightShining]

I'm so confuuused!

 

[akihabro]

This thing is skewed. I was able to vote for Ron Paul again today. Haha Barrack is not even in the top 100!

SLIDE TO 100 http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1725112_1726934_1726935,00.html
The 2008 winners had the highest score.

 

[The WadeK]

This is the reason why m00t is winning: http://vote4moot.co.nr/. Clicking on this link will take you to a page where moot is voted up several times while everybody else is voted down several times. It's a matter of just clicking on the link and leaving the page up while you sleep. They're cheating!

 

[Athan]

This is the reason why m00t is winning: http://vote4moot.co.nr/. Clicking on this link will take you to a page where moot is voted up several times while everybody else is voted down several times. It's a matter of just clicking on the link and leaving the page up while you sleep. They're cheating!

So in other words, we should cheat too?

 

[The WadeK]

Well, I mean, if that's the way that you want to interpret my post...