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.

 

Paul camp cries fraud over Nevada Caucus results

page: 9
56
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

You can't just make things up...look up the facts.


Maybe we should look at some facts.

The facts are, it is easy to see why people would claim voter fraud. We are talking about a Candidate who has been the subject of some pretty strange "honest mistakes". Here is a video with a nice long list for you in case you forgot them.


We are talking about a Candidate who's polling numbers have doubled and tripled his 2008 totals in every State, until now. They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so tell me what words come to mind when you see this picture.

[/URL]

I am still searching for confirmation on some of the many stories I have heard coming out of Nevada, but even if you do not believe in fraud, one has to admit that there are enough red flags that warrant closer inspection.




posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Well, I see a lot of people have stopped by just to comment on me commenting....but I have not seen anyone provide concrete proof of any voter fraud.
And I have not seen YOU provide concrete proof there isn't...



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal
, so tell me what words come to mind when you see this picture.

[/URL]



Words?

Unelectabillity.
After losing in every State, people don't want to vote for a proven loser in the remaining states.

More words?
Racist Newsletters.
People are looking into his past in the remaining States as to why he is losing, they see those nasty things and votes drop off the cliff.

No fraud needed, easily explainable.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Propulsion
 


I am going to save Outkast the trouble on this one.... because I know what he will say, and he is also 100% correct in saying it....

You can not prove a negative. This is a logical fallacy. You can not prove that something did not happen. You can prove it DID happen... and if you are unable to prove it, by default that means it did not happen.

On the topic of Ron Paul, Outkast and I are light years apart, but I can see why he says some of the things he does about Paul supporters. He is always asked to prove a negative, he is always accused of being a paid shill, and for what? Because his opinion is different from yours and mine? That is just stupid.

The truth is, there really are people like Outkast in the USA who really do think as he does. You can't change their mind with speculation. You can not change their mind by attacking them. Sometimes there is nothing you can ever do or say that will change their minds. The only thing you can do is present FACTS backed up with evidence of the facts.

I have been very clear that I see red flags in Nevada, but I will not claim election fraud until there is solid evidence of such. So why is it wrong for Outkast to ask for evidence?

Anyway..back ON TOPIC because last time I checked Outkast was not the topic of the thread. I found a interesting article pointing out some inconsistencies in Nevada. I have no idea about the source, I never heard of the guy, but an interesting article none the less.
Clark County vote fraud

and here is a link outlining many other issues during the Caucus. This is one you may find interesting Outkast, as it also explains how 1/3 of the precincts did not allow media coverage or observation of the election process. You asked for evidence of things being done in secret, well here ya go. This should tide you over until I find the Channel 8 video I been searching for.
GOP Caucus an embarrassment



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 


Your opinion on this matter is beyond laughable. Do you have anything to add to the conversation at hand regarding the process of the GOP Caucus or did you simply come here to throw out your usual arguments and accusations that you usually get everyone riled up and off topic with?

Tinfoil, you are not worth the effort. If ATS had an ignore button, you are the only member I have ever encountered that I would use it for.
edit on 7-2-2012 by MrWendal because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


Why didn't you compare Romney's numbers from 2008 to 2012 as well?

Because if you did, you would see that he also has had a surge in support in all the States so far...but in Nevada his support is DOWN from 2012.

It tells me that Nevada had very low voter turnout and that people in Nevada are not excited about any of the candidates.

It in no way screams voter fraud. If they wanted to fix the election for Romney...why decrease his support from 2008?



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by MrWendal
 


Why didn't you compare Romney's numbers from 2008 to 2012 as well?

Because if you did, you would see that he also has had a surge in support in all the States so far...but in Nevada his support is DOWN from 2012.


I have never compared Romney's numbers from 2008 to 2012. I have never felt a need to, but I think that is a fair request. I would be curious to see how his numbers have fluctuated. I am not so sure that I would say his support is down in Nevada though, from what I have seen he is at 50% in Nevada and if I remember correctly he was at 51% in 2008. I have no idea what vote totals were though, so I will have to search for the actual numbers.


It tells me that Nevada had very low voter turnout and that people in Nevada are not excited about any of the candidates.

From what I have seen thus far the turnout was lower by about 44,000 voters, but this number has to be questioned as well. Many precincts claimed they had more votes than people signed up for the Caucus. So the question has to be, what happened to those votes and are they included or not included in the number for voter turnout.


It in no way screams voter fraud. If they wanted to fix the election for Romney...why decrease his support from 2008?


Well, I have not screamed voter fraud either. It is however a red flag. Can we at least agree on this point? As far as Romney, I really do not see his numbers as showing a decrease in support. 50% vs 51% in 2008 is not a decrease in my opinion when you the State is saying there were 44,000 less voters. That would easily explain a 1% drop.
edit on 7-2-2012 by MrWendal because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


I read both the articles you linked.

The first one is nothing but not understanding the election process and how results come in. The author thinks that since Ron Paul was winning when there were 800 votes counted, that he should have kept that lead. He also doesn't know how the media can project winners...when it is very easily done with entrance/exit polling. If the candidate is appearing to win by a certain percentage, they project them as the winner. That doesn't make them the winner...media has been wrong before, which is why they are very careful about projecting the winner.

The second article had this quote in it.


Some complained the whole process was designed to restrict voters there to Jews and Seventh Day Adventist who both observe Saturday as the Sabbath.


THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THAT CAUCUS WAS FOR. It is the fault of Ron Paul's campaign and his supporters for spreading mis-information telling other Ron Paul supporters that they could just skip their own scheduled caucus and show up to this one at night.

The videos of the two Ron Paul supporters being turned away...they admit that they didn't go to their caucus because they were working. No ones fault but their own...plan ahead...ask for the day off if you want to participate. They simply can not accomodate everyone and every single situation. The did this special caucus for two reasons, 1 is that these people are prohibited by their religion to participate and 2....the GOP is really trying to attract the Jewish vote.

Like I said before...this is a party event...they can really do whatever they want. The only recourse you have is to leave the party if you don't like it.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


Romney in 2008 had 22,646 votes in the Nevada Primary. This year he had 16,486 votes, a decrease of 6,106 votes.

Voter turnout in 2008 was 44,315, this year it was 32,894. So it was down by 11,421.

Nevada 2008 Results

Nevada 2012 Results



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by TheCommentator
 


I agree with Searcher, lets see the evidence please...not stupid responses like "do you really not think yadyada" or "everyone know they blah are rigged" yada...

I am no Mitt fan but but saying things that re unfounded puts YOU at the same level as Obama... : )

Sniper



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


However, even if you could prove voter fraud were occurring that does not mean that it is against Paul. As I have pointed out numerous times now, even pro-Paul websites are showing that he is drawing primarily from the youth vote. Out of the 60,000 active, registered Republican youth in Nevada only about 2,000 voted. Even if Paul had all 2,000 of those votes he still would have lost.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by marinesniper0351
 
There is proof of voter fraud or at least proof that you can get away with it by some People who came to Democrat and Republican Primaries in Mass. posing as Dead people. They were on the list of registered voters so they were allowed to vote even without an ID. If you want the link to the Video I can locate it for you but to say "theres no proof so it didn't happen" is pretty short sighted. To address the problems with some Ron Paul voters not being able to vote in the late night voting, I don't quite understand why they were turned away. If Orthodox Jews and other religious entities had a special late night voting than why cant someone who couldn't get away from there job vote late night as well.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
If voting changed anything they would make it illegal.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by MrWendal
 


However, even if you could prove voter fraud were occurring that does not mean that it is against Paul. As I have pointed out numerous times now, even pro-Paul websites are showing that he is drawing primarily from the youth vote. Out of the 60,000 active, registered Republican youth in Nevada only about 2,000 voted. Even if Paul had all 2,000 of those votes he still would have lost.


The point you seem to be missing is I have no interest in proving fraud against Ron Paul. My interest is more about the process and if fraud is currently occurring. It makes no difference to me who it is against.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


That's a good argument if it were truly the case. What really happened was the NVGOP changed the Caucus times and didn't get much notification out. Thus the low voter turn out. I'm a RP fan, but I think his Nevada run was a case of "Electioneering", not blatant fraud.

Do some google searching, and you'll see that MANY people were turned away from Caucus because of the time change, and MANY voters didn't know where the correct caucus was because of redistricting, in particular Washoe county. Interestingly, Paul had more donations from that area around Washoe then any other candidate, yet he came in 4th place among voters in all but 2 of the surrounding counties? Come on. The NVGOP spokesperson even admitted that they did a poor job of getting the word out.

THEN - they decide to have a late night caucus for people. Cool. Paul campaign puts out (if you couldn't attend the earlier caucus, go to this one) via robo call from Carl Bunce, head of RP campaigning in Nevada. Unfortunately, it's only for Jewish voters? Come on NV GOP! Since when do we cater to a specific religion (need I remind you this is the land of religious freedom, and separation of church and state is a founding principle).

Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
Source 4

So after reading all of this you can see that the disorganization and the lack of communication from the Nevada GOP caused low voter turn out and confusion.

And that's the crux of it. Alot of RP supporters registered Republican specifically to vote in the caucus, but weren't notified of the time, date and location changes. Big surprise considering the NV GOP will grant a special caucus for the Jewish but not for the rest of the republicans who were working saturday? tsk tsk.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by zeeon
 



And that's the crux of it. Alot of RP supporters registered Republican specifically to vote in the caucus, but weren't notified of the time, date and location changes. Big surprise considering the NV GOP will grant a special caucus for the Jewish but not for the rest of the republicans who were working saturday? tsk tsk.


It's not the responsibility for the party to hold everyones hand and make sure they know the times. They release the times and places, it is up to the voter to find out this information. it's called responsibility.

If you want to fault anyone...fault the Ron Paul campaign for not doing a good enough job of keeping their supporters informed. You can fault them for spreading false information about the late night caucus as well...they full knew that it was for Jewish and Seventh Day Adventists voters who were prohibited from participating until after sunset. Ron Paul's campaign did it just to cause chaos and confusion at that late night caucus. They created that caucus for the sole puropse of giving everyone an equal opportunity to vote regardless of their religion...not to give them special treatment of allowing them two opportunities to vote.

I am also not finding any source about them changing the caucus time...do you have a source for that?
edit on 7-2-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by zeeon
 
For something as important as nominating our next freaken President, you would think both parties would want the most fair and balanced election for the betterment of our Country. LOL...now that is funny. Anyway, there is a ton of evidence of Voter Fraud (dead people voting), Misleading the Voting Public (vague instructions for where and when), Hanging Chads, Diebold (sp) Voting Machines, etc. so for anyone to ignore the evidence and continue to argue that there needs to be absolute proof or no body can say anything is laughable at best.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by zeeon
 



And that's the crux of it. Alot of RP supporters registered Republican specifically to vote in the caucus, but weren't notified of the time, date and location changes. Big surprise considering the NV GOP will grant a special caucus for the Jewish but not for the rest of the republicans who were working saturday? tsk tsk.


It's not the responsibility for the party to hold everyones hand and make sure they know the times. They release the times and places, it is up to the voter to find out this information. it's called responsibility.

If you want to fault anyone...fault the Ron Paul campaign for not doing a good enough job of keeping their supporters informed. You can fault them for spreading false information about the late night caucus as well...they full knew that it was for Jewish and Seventh Day Adventists voters who were prohibited from participating until after sunset. Ron Paul's campaign did it just to cause chaos and confusion at that late night caucus. They created that caucus for the sole puropse of giving everyone an equal opportunity to vote regardless of their religion...not to give them special treatment of allowing them two opportunities to vote.

I am also not finding any source about them changing the caucus time...do you have a source for that?
edit on 7-2-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)


I like your self responsibility rant. I really, honestly do. However, your opinion and that of the goals of the NV GOP aren't the same as you imply. NV GOP stated that one of their goals was to get more people to the Caucus's, increase voter registration and participation in the caucus's. They failed. They did indeed attempt to contact SOME of the voters in a half-hearted attempt to get the word out. RP supporters weren't the only ones who were angry also - so blaming the RP camp here is just flat out wrong. Voter turn around was in the 10-20k less-than-expected range, and we both know it's a stretch to assume RP would have hit 10k votes period - so we can logically infer that RP supporters weren't the only ones turned away (or chose not to participate).

I think it's curious (at least) that all these things were changed and not a lot people knew about it. A state population of MILLIONS and only 33k turned out...pretty sad. Even the NV GOP expected about 70k participants.
source

Also, you're wrong about the late night caucus. They made everyone who showed up sign affidavidts that they were Jewish / SDA and if you refused to sign the affadavidt you were turned away. So yes, the late night Caucus was indeed for Jewish / SDA believers. I don't agree with Paulites signing the affadivts regardless of their true religious situations, but I also can't support the NV GOP MAKING people sign affadivts for religious purposes in order to cast a vote.
source

Unfortunately, I can't seem to find the one article I saw that listed what times they have traditionally held the caucus's vs. this year caucus. You can scratch me on that one, but the dates and locations were still changed. If I find the article in question, I'll post it up here.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


I was directly addressing why he is losing while you are out in never never land crying voter fraud.

When a candidate wins two or three in a row they get a surge of interest, conversely when a candidate loses every time they get a drop off in interest, which is the only logical conclusion to your little conspiracy graph.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 


I don't think you have enough logic to even come up with a logical conclusion, let the people who have a better grasp about this subject do the typing for you. You will only make your fellow comrades look bad, your that one bad apple that no one wants a part of their tree.



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join