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

page: 3
98
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Look up blackboxvoting. This isn't the first time it's happened and isn't the last time either. And if we completely convert to Diebold like machines to cast votes electronically (no paper trail) nationwide it'll just get worse. Hopefully people will realize that voting game is rigged and has been for quite some time now, that's why no real change has come.

This reminds me of chess (or pool) hustling. You have a master level player playing 5 dollar chess games with average players believing they are playing someone of their game strength. The master allows the average player to win a game or two to gain confidence before doubling up and beating the player just barely (as to keep the illusion alive). The average player always believes that he has a chance to win but before he knows it he has lost all the money in his wallet while the master simply shrugs.

TPTB are elite grandmasters playing club players and robbing them blind.
edit on 6-1-2012 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by eLPresidente
 

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.

he is racist,




self-discreditation much?



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
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.



Sigh...more lies from you, just after saying "you don't like people spreading lies"

Ron did endorse somebody in 08, look it up. He also OPENLY STATED he would endorse anybody that aligned with his views, it doesn't matter what party, its about policies, principles and honoring the Constitution.

Ron didn't attend the GOP convention because he wasn't invited, surprise! (even his delegates were locked out of their own convention) The grassroots threw a rally, IN PROTEST (I thought we were still allowed to do that), and he was the guest of honor, OBVIOUSLY.

You make this way too easy.




edit on 6-1-2012 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
The GOP didn't "hack the vote" to make Paul lose.


I know... I was speaking to the OP's statement:


Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Yeah, cause if this happened there and votes were added for Romney, then it probably happened for others too.

And if they can add votes to precinct totals, they can take them away, too. Catch my drift?


I caught a drift that he *might* be referring to Ron Paul.




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.


I also agree with you here. And I predicted Santorum would win Iowa! So I was right instead of you!


In any case, the Iowa caucuses are kind of moot, IMO. Santorum won't win the GOP nomination. Romney will. He's the only one who can beat Obama (in the eyes of the GOP) and that is the GOP strategy, at all costs, even vote fraud.

Besides, Santorum will continue to stick his foot in his mouth at every opportunity and by about May, will be a complete joke.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 



Sigh...more lies from you, just after saying "you don't like people spreading lies"


LOL...they are only lies if you deny reality.



Ron did endorse somebody in 08, look it up. He also OPENLY STATED he would endorse anybody that aligned with his views, it doesn't matter what party, its about policies, principles and honoring the Constitution.


Yes...he endorsed someone outside of the Republican Party...which is the point I was making. He is not loyal to the Republican Party...why should they be loyal to him? Yes, they probably are doing all they can to keep him from getting their nomination...because he isn't one of them. I would honestly kick him out of the party if I was the GOP leaders. It's not that hard to understand really...and what I said is not a lie. He will not endorse the Republican nominee if it is not himself...sounds very selfish and childish...which is why he gets nothing done as a congressman.


Ron didn't attend the GOP convention because he wasn't invited, surprise! (even his delegates were locked out of their own convention) The grassroots threw a rally, IN PROTEST (I thought we were still allowed to do that), and he was the guest of honor, OBVIOUSLY.


Ron could of went to the GOP convention...but he wanted a speaking spot...why would they give him one? He doesn't represent the parties platform, he wasn't going to endorse McCain, and he came in a very very distant 4th place. It shows his pure arrogance that he wouldn't attend his own parties convention because he felt like he should get a prime speaking spot and they told him no. To further show his arrogance...he created his own convention like a little child...he can't have it his way so he will cry and run away.



You make this way too easy.


Yes...it is very easy when all you do is lie to yourself to create a fantasy world where facts don't exist.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



I also agree with you here. And I predicted Santorum would win Iowa! So I was right instead of you!


You caught me...that is the only reason I am saying this doesn't matter...you will not take away my victory.


Really, it was so close...I think we both win. And yes, I'm only saying this to potentially share victory if the vote count changes



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


So you got caught in 3 lies after saying you don't like it when others spread lies.


Then made up more lies and added some spiel about fantasies and reality to give credibility to your already discredited self.



Stop making it about party loyalty, nobody asked for party loyalty but not openly talking about vote fraud and not participating in actual vote fraud is a GIVEN.

You make it sound like fair elections should be a luxury.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 

I think the problem with your viewpoint, with me anyway, is you appear not to have any real principle. Your views may be pragmatic like someone who has no real dog in the fight, but you criticize the dogs that are in the fight.
Ron Paul supporters apparently grind on your nerves, but rather than create your own thread topics that suit you, you go into others to stir up #. Paul supporters are passionate, and you don't like it. They are principled, but you don't recognize it. They are making a difference you will never acknowledge.
I don't believe I really care to interact with you in the future, because, frankly, you lower the bar rather than raise it.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


...and what I said is not a lie. He will not endorse the Republican nominee if it is not himself...

To further show his arrogance...he created his own convention like a little child...





I don't even have to post anything, just quoting you says everything for me.

That is two more lies added to your resume for a total of five in this thread alone. Keep lying and I'll keep adding. I don't mind, I can do this while I phone bank for Ron Paul.:up


edit on 6-1-2012 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


So you got caught in 3 lies after saying you don't like it when others spread lies.


Then made up more lies and added some spiel about fantasies and reality to give credibility to your already discredited self.



Stop making it about party loyalty, nobody asked for party loyalty but not openly talking about vote fraud and not participating in actual vote fraud is a GIVEN.

You make it sound like fair elections should be a luxury.


So you didn't bother to respond to the facts I put that proved that they are not lies and that what you were trying to pass off was misinformation.

Ron Paul didn't endorse a Republican in 2008....FACT.

Ron Paul was invited to the convention, just not granted a speaking slot....FACT.

No lies coming from me...only from you.


And yes, Ron Paul is asking for party loyalty by wanting to be on the ballots and participate in the Republican Party debates. But in return he gives no loyalty and it is known he won't endorse the Republican nominee. So I say it is fair game for the Party to do whatever they want within the rules to prevent Ron Paul from getting the nomination. And if would somehow get the nomination, I think it is fair for the party to openly endorse Trump as an the Republican choice for an independent candidate.

If you think it is fine for Ron Paul to not support the party, then you would be a hypocrit to say it is wrong for the Republican party to not support Ron Paul. Can't have it both ways.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by SurrealisticPillow
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 

I think the problem with your viewpoint, with me anyway, is you appear not to have any real principle. Your views may be pragmatic like someone who has no real dog in the fight, but you criticize the dogs that are in the fight.
Ron Paul supporters apparently grind on your nerves, but rather than create your own thread topics that suit you, you go into others to stir up #. Paul supporters are passionate, and you don't like it. They are principled, but you don't recognize it. They are making a difference you will never acknowledge.
I don't believe I really care to interact with you in the future, because, frankly, you lower the bar rather than raise it.


I don't have a dog in this fight...I'm not a Republican. I'm an observer in this race...and I am enjoying the infighting and sillyness that is going on. I have two preferences for the GOP nomination...someone who isn't crazy and someone who Obama could easily beat. That would be Romney (not crazy) and it was Bachman for an easy Obama win...I think it is now Ron Paul.

Ron Paul supporters don't grind on my nerves...they make me laugh at their delusional outlook of the world. The honestly believe internet polls that says Ron Paul has 80% of the vote
I've made one Ron Paul thread, the only relevant and factual information I found important...that is Ron Paul's complete failure in Congress. Sponsored 464 bills...failed to get 463 of them passed.

Ron Paul supporters are passionate...passionate doesn't make any correlation to being sane or rational. Suicide bombers are pretty passionate...Nazis were passionate...Dog lovers are passionate...it means nothing in politics.

I fail to see what difference Ron Paul supporters are making...they scream loudly and often...but that doesn't mean what they are screaming makes any sense.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Great find, OP!

I find this actually funny because I video recorded my local caucus vote count and was even able to download through Google Chrome the HQ Google docs from the Iowa GOP....before they pulled them.

This has huge implications, not only on the actually vote count, but also on the credibility of the Iowa Gop!



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Real fancy trick calling your accuser a liar to deflect attention away from your obvious trolling and blatant lies.



There is no loyalty required, I've asked you to prove this 'loyalty' in the past with any information from GOP regulations or rule books and you came up short, not just short, completely E-M-P-T-Y.

He doesn't ASK to be on the ballots (did you just lie again?), the campaign follows the party rules of each state so that his name can be placed on the ballots. Two very different things. As long as he is following party rules, that is why he is allowed to run in the GOP.


And you even said, earlier, that you would kick him out of the party.

ON WHAT GROUNDS? following the rules? LOL! give me a break.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


You have still failed to address the FACTS I presented that you tried to call lies.


Loyalty is expected...it's common decency...something Paul and his supporters lack. If you are asking to be the candidate for a party, to use their debates as a platform, to ask for their base to vote for you...it is expected that you support the nominee if you are defeated.

There are no rules that demand this...just a common decency and expected loyalty from someone that claims they have integrity.

There are also no rules against the Republicans not being loyal to him. There are no rules for the party leaders to work against him getting the nomination as long as they don't break their own rules, this includes exposing his crazy policies and it also includes having unbound delegates not cast their vote for him even if he won their state. There are no rules that obligate them to fund Ron Paul if he wins the nomination, and there are no rules that they can't endorse someone else as President,

So don't cry about the Republicans working against Paul if you don't expect Paul or his supporters to be loyal to the party.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
after reading all these... i'm losing momentum for Ron Paul day by day.. I was willing to give him a chance, but the whining come from his corner shows he cannot lead this country..

Frankly I think he makes half these articles up himself... Then later blames it on someone else (just like those letters)

just accept the L and move ON!



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 12:00 PM
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...



he knows how the system works. you can't become the potus if you run as an independent.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


If Ron Paul wins this election when these systems show how easy it is to rig the votes, it will show how no matter who you vote for, all the candidates are in the capitalists pockets.

You have to hand it to TPTB, they are properly # clever and know exactly what they are doing.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
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...



No we wouldnt. Anyone but Obama.
edit on 6-1-2012 by nfflhome because: my mistake sorry.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

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.


Obviously most ATSers don't read the source material that OPs provide to support their thread.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   





new topics

top topics



 
98
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join