Examiner: Iowa Vote Fraud Official, page 5

Pages: << 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 70 times

reply posted on 22-1-2012 @ 11:19 PM by Rafe_

reply to post by nyk537

i added to my post in the meantime

reply posted on 22-1-2012 @ 11:23 PM by Rafe_

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by Rafe_

How would you know?

That's my point! This is all just speculation and theory. Nobody knows.

That's why they are called opinions.

yeah right ,if that is the best you can come up with....

You were not just stating a opinion you were freaking doing your best to defend the whole debacle and state the BS you posted as a matter of fact.That is quite a bit different then just 'stating your oppinion'.

edit on 22-1-2012 by Rafe_ because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 22-1-2012 @ 11:42 PM by Donkey_Dean

Someone please start a change.org petition. Let’s ask Ron to run as an independent when he loses the GOP ticket. Please send me the link so I can sign etc...

Please someone start anouther demanding an investigation into the Iowa caucus fraud!

A million or so signatures will more than get the message across!

edit on 22-1-2012 by Donkey_Dean because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 12:28 AM by Gerizo

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by litterbaux

I never claimed the voting process was completely accurate...not anywhere.

My issue is with claiming that this somehow screwed Ron Paul out of some amazing victory in Iowa. Ron Paul was not going to win Iowa...no matter how many votes were lost.

They recounted the votes for Romney and Santorum, so why not recount Ron Paul's votes? Ron Paul was going to win Iowa based many things already listed by the OP's article. The MSM media even went as far to say that the Iowa vote didn't matter and then when Romney/Santorum won, now its important again. Vote fraud is treason against your country. It has been confirmed so then the rules of law should be applied. "Ron Paul was not going to win Iowa." Are you psychic and knew in advance how the people in Iowa were going to vote? If Ron Paul had won Iowa the whole game would be changed up until today. Also there has already been mention of fraud in New Hampshire too where dead people can still vote apparently.

reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 12:39 AM by Gerizo

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by litterbaux

They didn't tamper with them enough to affect Paul. You don't honestly believe Ron Paul got enough votes to win do you?

In the OP linked article it says this, "official results can “never be certified” after 8 different precincts turn up invalid results due to “missing votes” and changing stories." So how does one honestly believe that Ron Paul got or didn't get enough votes to win when 8 precincts turned up missing votes? Some of these precincts were college towns which would defiantly been for Ron Paul. To suggest that it affected everyone but Paul is silly.

reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 12:54 AM by GovtFlu

Originally posted by USarmyFL
So too all of the police officers "LEO'S" out here, why are you not jumping on this and arresting people? You took an oath didn't you? Some cops may be nice, some may be bad, but they are ALL guilty of treason.

U
edit on 22-1-2012 by USarmyFL because: (no reason given)

No victim, no crime. Some Iowan needs to make a criminal complaint with law enforcement.. stolen vote victim, or whatever... Once generated, a complaint will get assigned for investigation... how far that goes is another story.

Taking "the oath" is literally less than 1 minute of your life standing, arm raised, saying words. In real life, a hefty re-occurring pay check & benefits are more important than that minute... this is why virtuous honest investigations die. Honest well meaning professional law enforcement investigators have bills to pay. Maintaining a "now" of cars, condos, houses, jet skis, kids and bitches.. takes precedence to that minute of reciting blah blah that doesn't sign paychecks.

As far as vote Fraud being "Official"... duh.. DNC & GOP "officials" are in charge.

reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 12:56 AM by oldrockinchair

only the crooks are against Ron Paul , all the smart honest people are for him the 99%. GOP is corrupt even 953 dead people voted in SC by the way I bet they were not honest dems either! Wake up Ron Paul is the only honest man for our next president!!!!!!!!!!!

reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 01:40 AM by eLPresidente

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by litterbaux

They didn't tamper with them enough to affect Paul.

I'm surprised how this was said with such factual belief behind it.

For somebody that wants to question the credibility of sources, where is your source that says Ron Paul didn't have enough votes to win WITH election fraud? The whole point is, we'll NEVER know.

reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 01:59 AM by nyk537

reply to post by eLPresidente

That's my opinion...not a fact.

People need to calm down and listen to what I'm saying. I know not being in love with Ron Paul doesn't score me any points most of the time here, but it shouldn't cause you to throw reason out the window either.

reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 02:00 AM by nyk537

reply to post by Donkey_Dean

Ron Paul won't run independent this time. He has a son who is one of the shining stars in the Republican party right now and he won't screw that up for him.

Rand Paul will be running for President next time around...and I'll vote for him. He's done an amazing job so far in my home state and he's only getting better.

reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 03:33 AM by dubiousone

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by litterbaux

Ron Paul will never drop out. His supporters are much too loyal and dedicated and will never go away.

Unfortunately for Dr. Paul there just aren't enough of them.

Why are you spreading your own brand of anti Ron Paul propaganda in this thread? You persistently make anti Ron Paul comments for whicvh you obviously have no basis whatsoever except your owned biased point of view. Granted, some of your commetns are somewhat veiled but they're fairly easy to discern. For example, your comment "there just aren't enough of them." And you know that how? Have you polled the entirety of registered voters? Doubtful that you did. By spreading your anti-Paul gospel in the way that you do you assuredly turn some people away from supporting him. But that's the goal, isn't it?

reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 03:36 AM by dubiousone

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by eLPresidente

That's my opinion...not a fact.

People need to calm down and listen to what I'm saying. I know not being in love with Ron Paul doesn't score me any points most of the time here, but it shouldn't cause you to throw reason out the window either.

You don't come across as someone who is merely "not in love with Ron Paul". Rather, your posts on thisn thread show you to be actively anti-Paul. How odd that you fail to recognize that bias in yourself. You're either blind to your own bias or are furthering an agenda. Which is it? I thought ATS moderators were held to a higher standard.

edit on 1/23/2012 by dubiousone because: grammar correction and content

reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 08:43 AM by Scopeless

I work in media, right after my reporter and I went live, we searched for the nearest caucus locations to the convention center using the GOP website to get some video and interviews. The first place we arrived was a retirement home. Several people already were streaming out. We asked what's going on and the gentleman informed me that he and 30 others had waited for volunteers to come collect their ballots, but they never came. We thought that was odd, but were running out of time to get to the next location. So, we left...

We thought at first there must've been some mistake. But, as we arrived at the vacant church that was the next closest caucus location...we started to think something fishy is going on. We were never able to confirm our suspicions, but we passed the story off to our local sister station (we were not from Iowa and were covering the story from out of town.) Not sure whatever became of that.

reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 10:26 AM by jameshawkings

I've always had a very strong talent with estimating numbers and I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt the the reality in Iowa would have been a very easy Ron Paul win with on one coming close

reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 10:26 AM by jameshawkings

Duplicate

edit on 23-1-2012 by jameshawkings because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 11:15 AM by jazzguy

you want voter fraud....you must see this

YouTube Link

get angry people this is bad

reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 11:27 AM by pheniks

take the elections again....

reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 11:43 AM by android18957392

Originally posted by Mimir
reply to post by eLPresidente

Yes there was fraud in multiple cases in Iowa, the same is true in New Hampshire and I wont be supprised if its true in South Carolina too. But who realy cares about a few votes when the entire election system in America is a joke that has "nothing" to do with democracy.

edit on 22-1-2012 by Mimir because: (no reason given)

The only way for the people to win is to sabotage the saboteurs. Hack the voting machines to display accurate results. Go into the voting booths and sabotage the machines, forcing a paper ballot. Start riots at the voting areas demanding full transparency. Until we can all monitor each vote counted on paper in realtime, there will be rampant fraud.
How else can Gingrich cancel a rally due to no turnout then win SC by overwhelming majority. I call rampant psyop. Nobody is buying that one, they want disallusionment so people will give up on Ron Paul.

Anonymous should do something useful and crash all the voting machines. Then people need to be there with videocams. We need to force them to be honest, then the results will be honest

edit on 23-1-2012 by android18957392 because: no reason

reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 11:52 AM by usernameconspiracy

Question: What if Ron Paul had been declared the winner, but 8 districts votes went missing. Is this thread five pages long, or non-existent?

reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 12:06 PM by android18957392

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy
Question: What if Ron Paul had been declared the winner, but 8 districts votes went missing. Is this thread five pages long, or non-existent?

Well I guess that depends on who the people are behind