It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is the GOP manipulating their own monination process?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 06:08 PM
I think I've uncovered the ultimate election conspiracy.....

Question: What if John Huntsman had decided to run in the Iowa caucus and splits Mitt Romneys support? (He mysteriously decided to abstain from Iowa and concentrate on New Hampshire.)

Answer: Ron Paul wins Iowa

Question: What if Rick Perry get's out of the race after a poor showing in the Iowa caucus? Does his support lean towards Paul? (He said he was going back to Texas to "reassess" his campaign but mysteriously got back in for New Hampshire when everyone knows he's done.)

Answer: Ron Paul wins or is a strong second in New Hampshire

Question: Could the GOP have paid off / told Huntsman to stay out of Iowa to shore up Ronmeys vote count and paid off / told Perry to stay in New Hampshire in order to dilute Pauls vote count?

The media is trying to convince us as we speak that if Romney wins Iowa and New Hamspshire that the nomination is his. They're trying to bum rush the voters to beleive that he's the nominee and any other vote doesn't matter. Don't fall for it. Support your candidate and don't listen to the media.

MODs please don't change the forum and let this conspiracy post run it's course.

posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 06:14 PM
Those are both pretty likely situations IMO. I'm sure Huntsman will drop out after New Hampshire, as if he didn't realize that nobody was going to vote for him. You can't just skip primaries and expect to actually win, unless he's actually running for VP. Only thing is, I don't think anyone who would vote for Rick Perry has the brains to vote for Ron Paul.

posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 06:21 PM
I'm very suspicious. These two events are too much of a coincidence. I'd love to see the campaign spend for Huntsman in Iowa prior to and after his decision to abstain and the same for Perry prior to his decision to move forward and after.

posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 06:23 PM
It's a different slant at least.

See, I have been under the suspicion for the last month that the Republicans have purposely had the current candidates running for nomination to ensure Obama has a second term in office. That way, he has another 4 years of ammunition for them to use for the election in 2016.
edit on 10/1/2012 by curious7 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 06:43 PM
reply to post by beanandginger

2nd answer is wrong OP. If you add Perry's NH votes tonite to Dr Paul's, Dr Paul will still not win tonite.

Go Ron Go.

PS......Why is CNN over-emphasizing how fair the electronic ballot process is tonite , including showing a "behind the scenes" look at the procedure for handling them? I smell a rat!!

posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 06:49 PM
I'm not sure how credible this can be taken. It doesn't make much sense that the GOP would want to do that.

posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 06:50 PM
reply to post by curious7

Add this to the fact that Mitt Romney may not have won Iowa based on the affidavit from one of the precincts that have stated they have a discrepancy which would award the Iowa caucus to Santorum.

posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 06:52 PM
reply to post by randolphman

How does it not make sense that their chosen one is Mitt Romney and they're pulling every dirty trick to manipulate the electorate to choose their chosen one.

posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 06:53 PM
reply to post by freedom12

I agree. They are going out of their way to give the impresion that the process is transparent. Which leads me to beleive it is rigged.

posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 06:59 PM
Mitt Romney received the biggest donation to date from none other than Goldman Sachs. Do you need to know anymore about him?

new topics

top topics


log in