Breaking: Eyewitness Affidavit- Iowa Caucus Vote Hacked by GOP?

page: 2
98
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
You should all take a look at the story in this letter, which explains how extra thousands of votes could be add'ed in each caucus and how 3 people from another state potentially voted in one of the precinct's

If they manage to do this in half of the more than 1700 precincts they would be able to add 25-2600 votes in Iowa.


The following night my wife was going through the stacks of caucus forms and noticed that there were three more votes than the number of caucus attendees.

Then she remembered that "Roberta", "Gary", and "Blue Blazer" had never checked in. On caucus night they had just walked past her registration table without stopping and sat down. She had recognized Roberta and Gary, checked to see if they were in the voter registration list and when they weren't, assumed that they were there as "non-participating observers" (as allowed by the rules).

I know that Roberta has another home in Washington DC and spends most of her time there. It never occurred to me that she would be registered to vote THERE. "Blue Blazer" was probably just a flunky; maybe her son, an intern or employee of her company. Gary? Who knows. All I know is that he is an obnoxious jerk who took advantage of our small town honor system and made a fool of me in the process.......Go to this link for the "long" story




posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   
What I don't understand is if the GOP is so against Ron Paul that he can't possibly win, WHY is he a member of their party??? If they are hacking the vote to make him lose, why is he even remotely associated with them? It's like he's putting himself on the altar to be sacrificed. He KNOWS the GOP hates him...

It makes no sense to me that he is a Republican. I wouldn't belong to a group that was SO intent on having me lose...



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
Whether Iowa is 'technically' significant or not is irrelevant.

The nation heard Romney won, Paul lost. THAT is the significant part.


This wouldn't change that...Romney would still beat Paul by a large margin regardless of this 20 vote difference.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


lol, you made such a huge deal about the 'sore Ron Paul losers' crying vote fraud, now that a truth affidavit has been submitted, your new argument is, "Iowa Caucus isn't important anyways, why are you guys giving it so much importantce"


Wow you are unbelievable....the lengths you will go to troll Ron Paul......



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

Easy. The conservative principles are Republican, but the party has been hijacked by corrupt criminals. So, concerned Americans don't just cut and run, they fight for principle.
The Democrats do the same thing to people trying to change a corrupt system. Look how they blindly line up behind Obama. That is the pathetic and untold story. Corruption in party politics is universal.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Because at least this way he is getting a little exposure.

If he were to run as an independent the media could/would ignore him all together. At least this way they at least mention him in passing.

I also think this is the problem. The 2 party system sucks, IMO.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


lol, you made such a huge deal about the 'sore Ron Paul losers' crying vote fraud, now that a truth affidavit has been submitted, your new argument is, "Iowa Caucus isn't important anyways, why are you guys giving it so much importantce"


Wow you are unbelievable....the lengths you will go to troll Ron Paul......


This thread should have nothing to do with Ron Paul...all that is stake here is Romney's vote count differing by 20 votes...which would give Santorum the win.

How do you figure I'm "trolling Ron Paul"???

Not everything is about Ron Paul, in my mind Ron Paul is third in Iowa...this information isn't going to change that.

I have said all along that Iowa is insiginifcant to me...if Paul won then the GOP establishment would of called it insignificant...not me.

I'm sorry the candidate you support lost and that his own party doesn't support him...that isn't my fault....deal with it.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


For starters, he believes in the 'old right', true conservatism, reforming the GOP.

How about the need for exposure when the third party gets so little? especially when you rely on a relative minority to fund the campaign?

The amount of debate time Ron got (what little it has been) is more than any independent could get in the mean time.


What I don't understand is how can somebody that is serious on winning that isn't self-funded NOT run in the two main party's? You of all people should be aware of the two party sham-system.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What I don't understand is if the GOP is so against Ron Paul that he can't possibly win, WHY is he a member of their party??? If they are hacking the vote to make him lose, why is he even remotely associated with them? It's like he's putting himself on the altar to be sacrificed. He KNOWS the GOP hates him...

It makes no sense to me that he is a Republican. I wouldn't belong to a group that was SO intent on having me lose...



The GOP didn't "hack the vote" to make Paul lose. The only thing in question is 20 votes for Romney.

Sure, the Ron Paul fanatics will illogically extrapolate that out to say that Ron Paul should of recieved 10,000 more votes than he did...but that is just them being fanatical.

This thread should be about if Santorum actually deserves the "win"...but it has been hijacked by Ron Paul supporters to claim that one potential error means the entire election is fraud and that means (in their minds), that Ron Paul won with 80% of the vote...at least.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by eLPresidente
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


lol, you made such a huge deal about the 'sore Ron Paul losers' crying vote fraud, now that a truth affidavit has been submitted, your new argument is, "Iowa Caucus isn't important anyways, why are you guys giving it so much importantce"


Wow you are unbelievable....the lengths you will go to troll Ron Paul......


This thread should have nothing to do with Ron Paul...all that is stake here is Romney's vote count differing by 20 votes...which would give Santorum the win.


I'm sorry the candidate you support lost and that his own party doesn't support him...that isn't my fault....deal with it.


Funny you say that when you have already mentioned Paul in this thread when you specifically just stated "this thread should have nothing to do with Ron Paul"

Give up your charades...its blatant & sad...


What are you apologizing for? nobody tried to blame you for Paul's strong third finish in Iowa, that was the work of the campaign, the grassroots, and strong ideology. You have absolutely nothing to do with the success of the campaign. Nobody tried to blame you for the GOP not supporting him. Why would you say it isn't your fault when NOBODY blamed you?

Deal with it.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


The GOP didn't "hack the vote" to make Paul lose. The only thing in question is 20 votes for Romney.


Actually, they DID hack the vote, and the 20 votes is NOT the only questionable count. Perhaps you should read a bit more?

Vote fraud, another example.

How many more? We may find out. Why may we? Because we are hell bent on truth.
edit on 6-1-2012 by SurrealisticPillow because: Spelling



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


I am responding to people bringing up Ron Paul, so naturally I bring him up.


Doesn't change the fact that this thread shouldn't be about him...I shouldn't have to respond to people being illogical and thinking this has anything to do with Ron Paul.

Ron Paul lost a lead in Iowa...you can view it however you choose to...I view it as a loss for him. Ron Paul supporters (including you) were hyping him up as an easy win in Iowa...a landslide...having it in the bag...that makes his third place finish even worse for him. It just shows how poor of a grasp his supporters have on his level of support...over confidence is the phrase that comes to mind.

And yes...I just talked about Ron Paul...because you directed a comment to me about him...so *gasp*...I responded.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 



All I have to respond to that is:

You are so scared of him going up against Obama, it is hilarious.

If he is soooo unelectable and unwanted, you wouldn't even be bothering this much to troll him in every pro or anti-RP thread.


You make it very obvious, nothing can change that, unless you stop and ignore him altogether (which you won't)

So deal with it.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


If you haven't noticed, this is a discussion board. Ron Paul is a hot topic right now on ATS. Politics is one of my favorite forums and topics. There is also a lot of false information about Paul that his supporters try to pass off here, and I don't like people trying to spread lies. Me discussing Ron Paul is only a refleciton of the content that is currently on ATS.

Ron Paul would be my second choice as GOP candidate if I was to order them in preference of who I think would be the easiest win for Obama....actually he is first now since Bachman dropped out. He is crazy, he is racist, and the GOP base won't support him...I'm hardly "scared" of him, whatever that means.

Politics is a game...I'm an observer and commenter on that game...I'm not as emotionally involved as you (and other Ron Paul supporters) apparently are. Take a deep breath...and calm down.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente
You of all people should be aware of the two party sham-system.


I am.
I am anti-political party.

But that doesn't change the suspicion and fact in some people's minds: the GOP (whether corrupt or off-track or hijacked) will not let Paul win as one of them.

That means Paul WILL NOT win as a Republican. I don't understand the purpose of running a presidential campaign as a party member that he cannot possibly win.

But I wish him good luck.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

What IF, he does?
Where will you place the credit?



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


I agree completely. My husband and I were talking this morning and we came to the conclusion that Republican voters (those that would vote for Romney or Gingrich) would probably vote for Obama if he was up against Paul. They want the status quo to be maintained. And they THINK Obama will do that better than Ron Paul.

If Obama is just like Bush then the GOP may just vote for him if faced with the possibility of a Paul presidency.

(I personally don't think Obama is like Bush OR that he wants to maintain the status quo, but many do, and most are of the conservative-leaning quadrant)

I don't doubt the vote was hacked by the GOP. It wouldn't be the first time...



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by SurrealisticPillow
 


What if Paul wins? It would be to his credit, absolutely! If he fights this out and wins? That would increase my respect for him quite a bit. I want to see him go up against Obama. I think it would be a very exciting election!



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Some of the old timers here on ATs will probably remember this thread...
The Diebold Factor
I don't know what's scarier, the fact they can hack the vote, or the fact that Americans sat on our collective arses and let them get away with it. Check the thread out if you haven't seen it, it's pretty damning.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I don't think GOPers will vote for Obama...but I do think Trump will run as a third party candidate if Ron Paul would somehow win the nomination...and I think a large percentage of GOPers will vote for Trump as an independent instead of Ron Paul.

I actually think that most of the GOP candidates would endorse Trump as an independent rather than endorse Ron Paul.

Trump has already said he would do this...as a pun very much intended....this is the GOPs trump card against Ron Paul.

And why not...Ron Paul and his supporters are openly gaming the GOP primary...it's no secret that Ron Paul won't endorse any of the candidates if he doesn't win and his supporters aren't transferrable to them. So I say it is fair game for the GOP to sabatoge Ron Paul if he somehow wins...because he isn't willing to be a true part of their party. Do you remember 2008...Ron Paul didn't even attend the GOP convention...he had his own convention just a few miles away...if I were the GOP, I would simply kick him out of the party and not put him on the primary ballots.





new topics
top topics
 
98
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join