It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Ron Paul Stripped of All Delegates from Iowa

page: 1
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 01:37 AM
link   
This is disgusting...



The Paul campaign needs to raise HELL about this!!!!!!!

Examiner: Iowa Vote Fraud Official
edit on 25-1-2012 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Sell your vote now while it's still worth something...too late.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 

Were they actually stripped from him, or are they just not reporting them?

I don't see how they could take them away. But not reporting them to make you think that he has not received any, sounds like business as usual, unfortunately.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 01:49 AM
link   
If they strip delegates from one candidate, shouldn't all of them be stripped?

Wasn't the delegate tally; R. Paul 7, M. Romney 7 and R. Santorum 7?
How the heck did it show: R. Paul 0, M. Romney 12 and R. Santorum 12?

Sorry if I sound offensive, I know Americans are stupid but are you kidding me? Even a third grader presented with this kind of situation would be scratching his/her head.
edit on 25-1-2012 by litterbaux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 01:50 AM
link   
Vote fraud all the way through, you need to storm the WH and clean the house and re-install real democracy in US, or we are all f.....
edit on 25-1-2012 by alienspacecentereast because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by litterbaux
 


The total number of delegates in Iowa is 28.

The last count was

Paul : 7
Santorum : 7
Romney : 7
Gingrich : 2

Total 23

So there's a bunch missing somewhere.
edit on 25-1-2012 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Isn't that by itself a head scratcher?

How is the simple math not adding up? This is beyond comprehension.

This is how it origionally went down.

Ok we got dis guy for 7 and dis guy for 7 and dis guy for 7 and dis guy for 2.

*a week later*

Oh, we missed one or two. Nobody will notice. Let's just put dis guy for 12 and dis guy for 12.

Problem solved.

/vomits

Oh, /sarcasm off
edit on 25-1-2012 by litterbaux because: Edit: see above


+4 more 
posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 02:02 AM
link   
Read a book people

All of the 28 delegates from Iowa are "UNBOUND"

For the less politically educated, that means they are NEVER obligated to vote for ANYONE at the RNC.

(That means they can vote for whomever they choose)

I hope that is clear enough, I know it is lacking in the swooning worship, but it is after all FACTS

Semper



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


Yeah we get that, but it's a ploy by the MSM to make it look like Ron Paul is out of the race.

And get this... most people will believe it.

If they played fair, they would either put 0 delegates to EVERYONE or put the number of delegates according to the numbers of votes.

And anyway, vote fraud in Iowa should be investigated RIGHT NOW and all the other states should be put on hold till the investigation is done.
edit on 25-1-2012 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


It doesn't matter if they are bound or not. If CNN or whomever puts numbers under a name it should at least reflect some kind of truth.

Your real problem should be the way the media sites present the data. Email them.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   
Dear Lord....

sigh...... (Patience)

It does NOT matter what is reported by the MSN, PMSNBC or the Northern Otter

If the Paul supporters would lose the emotions and begin to act logically, he may be taken more seriously

The fact is that the delegates can, will and do vote for whomever they wish

This is a bogus story at best, but typical of the Paul hype

He is quite simply NOT ever going to be remotely considered for the nomination unless ALL the other candidates wind up lost on a desert island somewhere.

And if that happens, most of us REAL Conservatives will vote for Obama anyway



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by litterbaux
 


I could care less how they present the data

I never react with emotion

I check the facts and make up my own mind

Something sorely lacking in the Paul campaign



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 02:16 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


Well guess what, most people don't.

They'll vote for ``who will win``.

And please, if you are voting for Mitt or Newt, you are no real conservative, you are a neo-con.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Neo-Con



I love the miss use of that word..

Ever study Latin?

Neo = New
Con short for Conservative

I am not "New" by any means but thank you for the compliment. At 53 I appreciate being called new

Ron Paul, the career politician, effectiveness = 0, deserves exactly the 10 to 12 percent he gets in the polls. The man would be a disaster and ever REAL Conservative knows that. I am involved in and even hold office in several of the "Stumps" here and the common agreement is if Paul ever got the nomination, we would all vote Obama.

As destructive as Obama is, he is nothing compared to Paul

And to the poster that said I disappoint.. The name is SEMPER

Believe it or not I am allowed an opinion, even as a Mod.. (Strawman much?)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


nice off topic rant there semper (temper temper)

The OP is discussing the MSM mis reporting on the delegates situation..



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by alienreality
 


On which I answered

I also answered questions directed at me

Trust me, I am MORE aware of Off Topic comments than you can imagine



(Like yours to me)

The MSM never "MIS" reported anything. They assumed that you all know nothing of the way Iowa works and apparently they were fairly close in their assessment
edit on 1/25/2012 by semperfortis because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


Your arrogance is disgusting. I'm really beginning to hate this site.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 



Originally posted by semperfortis

I check the facts and make up my own mind

Something sorely lacking in the Paul campaign


Isn't the video linked considered checking the facts? The poster looked at the delegates given to Paul, checked back and noticed it was different. Why aren't Romney fans making threads about him getting more delegates? Where are those threads? Maybe they are the ones that aren't checking the facts? Who are the Romney fans anyway? Made up? I digress.

Saying Ron Paul supporters don't check the facts is a big gaff on your part. They pick the facts apart like its an autopsy of a murder.
edit on 25-1-2012 by alien because: ...needless off-topic commentary removed...



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Razmijix
 


Of course

Anyone opposed to Paul disgusted you. Typical



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join