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.

 

CPAC; Ron Paul won 2 years in a row; they change to electronic voting and he comes in 4th today?

page: 4
67
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


Not in the Republican party. The GOP is bloated with corruption and corporate intrest imo. If you seek an alternative, look at the Libertarian Party. Ron Paul by many definitions a Libertarian.
www.lp.org




posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
A couple of FSU statisticians ran the stats for the election between GWB and Gore in Florida 2000. Other than the 80,000 people from mostly Democratic voting groups that were thrown off the voting roles -- the ONLY explanation for the increase in Votes for Republicans was in areas where electronic voting machines were in use.

Paper ballots -- no increase for George. Electronic voting machines -- votes increased significantly for George.

>> This is why we need exit poles. But the elections officials now are so rampantly corrupt -- likewise the FBI, that anyone who might raise the alarm and have a real investigation is already part of the problem.

There are operatives from Liberty University all over the election circuit -- and they are on a Mission from God to help the RNC. Amazingly, they seem to ignore that every RNC chairman has been kicked out for suspicion of Embezzlement (usually the press release says; "To spend more time with their families") -- it's so hard to find honest crooks!


>> I don't know the details of this case, but we in the Progressive community (unlike many Liberals who still think things are as they appear to be on the TV), have been mad as hell about flagrant and widespread vote manipulation.

>> I voted for Obama -- but in a few states, it's likely that the vote for Hillary got switched to Obama, possibly by these same RNC operatives who figured Obama would be the weaker candidate.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
There is one other major difference though. Ron Paul wasn't there this year while he was there previous years. One merely needs to look at many of the videos on here to see that wherever Paul goes he attracts a large number of his supporters. With Paul not speaking, or even present this year, many of the people who would normally vote for him probably saw no reason to attend.


That is exactly right. Paul blew off CPAC and failed to attend. Had he chosen to attend his usual army of Paulbots would have flooded the place like they did the last couple of years and voted for him. The thing about Paulbots is that their devotionto Dear Leader is so great that they can't understand how he could possibly lose. If he does, as he inevitably will, it must be a conspiracy. Paul is the perfect ATS candidate and fits right along with chemtrails, reptilians. fracking, Billy Meier, and the inevitable disinformation agents.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Siberbat
 


I'd rather eat my hands than vote for a Libertarian.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


And why is that?

You''ve added nothing to the discussion except a strong inexplicable dislike for anything Ron Paul.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
I'm a Ron Paul supporter. I'd really like for Ron Paul to become the next president of the United States, but just like any other candidate, he has to deal with the system, even if the system is flawed.

Aside from the mass media "ignoring" Ron Paul, which can be supported by looking at the presidential debates and how many questions are levied towards him and how often they simply don't ask him questions the other candidates get to answer, as well as numerous times the other candidates are mentioned on the news and he is not, everything else is mostly coincidence.

Coincidence is not proof. But it sure as hell makes everyone highly suspicious. Until there is solid proof that is undeniable, all every Ron Paul supporter has is suspicion brought on by coincidence.

But coincidence is a fickle thing. It can easily become convenient.

It's coincidental that Ron Paul won the CPAC 2 years in a row, but after changing to electronic voting he comes in last.

It's coincidental that CNN happened to have footage of the late night caucus vote in Nevada where Ron Paul amassed unanimous voter support, but he lost.

It's coincidental that Maine Republican party chairman Charlie Webster was quoted saying, "What will happen is that either Paul or Romney will win by 200 votes, in my opinion, one way or the other," then a snowstorm shows up and postpones the Caucuses of Washington county until Sunday, Charlie Webster says, "Votes after Saturday won't be counted," and Mitt Romney ends up winning by 190 votes.

Then my bias as a Ron Paul supporter rears it's ugly head, turning coincidence into convenience:

It's coincidental that there were documented anomalies during the Iowa caucuses, and (a + b might equal c) Ron Paul lost!

It's coincidental that a Google search revealed a news story about the results of the Nevada primaries written two days before the vote occurred. This means (a + b might equal c) the whole voting system is rigged!!

It's coincidental that Fox news interviewed Ron Paul about his 2011 CPAC straw Poll win and showed Mr Paul and Fox viewers footage of 2010's CPAC straw poll results, where the crowd was nowhere near as enthusiastic for Ron Paul's win as the more current 2011 crowd was. FOX news lies! So (a + b might equal c) ALL MEDIA LIES!

It's coincidental that Google accidentally released Maine election results early, hours before the day of the voting took place. (a + b might equal c) EVEN SEARCH ENGINES ARE IN ON THE SCAM!!

Then you have cases like these:
Ron Paul supporter gets feet stomped by Gingrich security

Ron Paul supporter assaulted by Gingrich security for filming

These might be completely legit. It doesn't matter. Because coincidence is not proof, and suspicion can easily steamroll into conspiracy if it isn't investigated, ALL OF IT enters the realm of being conspiracy. Now it becomes fair game for statements like:

Ron Paul supporters are a bunch of whacked out, fringe, gun-loving, kids who like weed, who whine about being sore losers because smart Americans don't like Mr Paul and his radical dangerous ideas.

It looks like Ron Paul is getting robbed. It looks like voting results are rigged. It looks like there is a force at work posturing our next leader without regard to our wants, wishes, and needs. But until someone or "somemany" care enough to show us the proof, looks can be deceiving.


edit on 12-2-2012 by danj3ris because: formatting issues



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Drew99GT
 


Wow, just Wow. I never thought electronic voting machines could be hijacked, as easily as hand written ballots. The system is broken and has been for a long time. Our votes don't matter, the process is controlled. They will go to far one day, then the real choice will be at hand. The time is coming for us all to choose our sides. The choice is simple do you stand for freedom and self responsibility knowing that it means being left alone on an ocean with only yourself to count on, or will you accept your shackles in return for a portioned out & controlled life? The choice is yours. Throughout history thousands upon thousands of dictatorial governments have existed and less than ten that can truly be called Free. Who are You? Or Who owns You?



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by thoraxsabre
 




If you actually paid any attention you'd know the answer, as I have repeatedly and clearly stated my case. I've even made a whole thread about it.

But, paying attention is not something Paul supporters are great at so I'll slowly and carefully explain it to you again.

No, better yet, I'll let Noam Chomsky.



Quote: "here (the US) Libertarian means extreme advocate of total tyranny..."

So basically, I don't like tyranny. Maybe you do.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


Well until now the only case you stated in this thread was that you think Ron Paul is corrupt. As for the thread you said you made, well...why on earth would you expect that I have read it, or even have known that it existed?


Regardless, interesting video.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by thoraxsabre
 


Perhaps you should've clicked on my name and looked at my posts before making s'ch sweep"ng statements about my reasons, or lack thereof.

Paul is dangerous and like Obama people choose not to look past his rhetoric. The number of uninformed, or flat out delusional RP supporters I've seen on ATS et al, is well, frankly it's disturbing.

People think he's all American, but like Chomsky points out so well, he's extremely unAmerican.

Luckily, for America, he doesn't stand a chance.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
its scary when you consider the fact that theres so much mystery around how the results are counted and how little control we have



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
I'm going to say it because I did not get a legitimate answer last time: Has anyone even thought that maybe Ron Paul isn't getting any screen time, or isnt getting any votes, because the majority of people planning to vote just don't like him and are not interested in hearing his policies or have already chosen a candidate they would like to win? Oh, and not to mention, not lobbying is a huge political blunder in this day in age. We aren't in the 1800's anymore. If Paul wants to win hes gonna have to lobby with big corperations, and not take the "Vote for me because I dont answer to big buisness" aproach.
Take your tinfoil hats off, please. Not everything is one big conspiracy.
edit on 12-2-2012 by Cavalier because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


Chomsky's ramblings are a fine example of how education does not equal intelligence.

Broad generalizations of opinion, stated as fact, are not impressive, nor should they
impress anyone with the courage to think for themselves.

Chompsky's opinion of Neo-American Libertarianism is over-educated, self-important BS..

Neo-American Libertarianism has (at its foundation) Ron Paul's message of freedom, liberty,
and a return to US constitutional law. It is not about Laissez Faire economic policy, but about
obtaining the least amount of government required with the biggest "bang for the buck."

If Noam's opinions were correct, you would see US corporate and banking interests pushing
and shoving to get to the front of the Ron Paul campaign bus, not amassing their wealth
and influence behind centrist candidates like Obama and Romney. That should be clear to
ANYONE regardless of ~education~.


-back to topic

There are simply too many coincidences involving the detriment of Ron Paul's campaign
to be simply "coincidental."

at some point....if it smells like crap...feels like crap....and tastes like crap

IT IS PROBABLY CRAP



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
I agree, if Ron Paul's policies would so greatly benefit corporations they would be supporting him in mass. Follow the money. This is easy.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cavalier
Oh, and not to mention, not lobbying is a huge political blunder in this day in age. We aren't in the 1800's anymore. If Paul wants to win hes gonna have to lobby with big corperations, and not take the "Vote for me because I dont answer to big buisness" aproach.


That's such a defeatist notion. There should be NO lobbying by big corporations and the fact is the American people should be behind him for this very reason alone. Big cooperation's lobby and spend all that money buying political candidates for one reason, to benefit themselves and make more money.

Not lobbying is revolutionary in this political age. It shows a level of integrity that very very few politicians possess.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by rival
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


Chomsky's ramblings are a fine example of how education does not equal intelligence.

Broad generalizations of opinion, stated as fact, are not impressive, nor should they
impress anyone with the courage to think for themselves.

Chompsky's opinion of Neo-American Libertarianism is over-educated, self-important BS..

Neo-American Libertarianism has (at its foundation) Ron Paul's message of freedom, liberty,
and a return to US constitutional law. It is not about Laissez Faire economic policy, but about
obtaining the least amount of government required with the biggest "bang for the buck."

If Noam's opinions were correct, you would see US corporate and banking interests pushing
and shoving to get to the front of the Ron Paul campaign bus, not amassing their wealth
and influence behind centrist candidates like Obama and Romney. That should be clear to
ANYONE regardless of ~education~.


-back to topic

There are simply too many coincidences involving the detriment of Ron Paul's campaign
to be simply "coincidental."

at some point....if it smells like crap...feels like crap....and tastes like crap

IT IS PROBABLY CRAP









Okay, take off your tinfoil hat, buddy.

LIbertarianism does not work in this time frame. Most government intervention is a good thing, although there are some bad. A Libertarianized America would look like the slums of Uganda!



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cavalier
I'm going to say it because I did not get a legitimate answer last time: Has anyone even thought that maybe Ron Paul isn't getting any screen time, or isnt getting any votes, because the majority of people planning to vote just don't like him and are not interested in hearing his policies or have already chosen a candidate they would like to win? Oh, and not to mention, not lobbying is a huge political blunder in this day in age. We aren't in the 1800's anymore. If Paul wants to win hes gonna have to lobby with big corperations, and not take the "Vote for me because I dont answer to big buisness" aproach.
Take your tinfoil hats off, please. Not everything is one big conspiracy.
edit on 12-2-2012 by Cavalier because: (no reason given)



Of course the answer to your question could be that Ron Paul is disliked by voters and is simply
being over-looked and under-reported because he, and his platform, are not popular.

Or the answer could be...that Ron Paul is not popular because the MSM has portrayed
him as un-popular, un-electable, fringe candidate.

If you take an un-baised look at the evidence for the latter answer I think you will find
plenty of instances where Ron Paul has been deliberately marginalized and oppressed.
My favorite derogatory sound-byte by the MSM is that Ron Paul's "internet" following
is the reason for his "seeming" popularity. They fail to mention that 200 million
US citizens have internet access, and that many web pages, blogs, and internet news
sources rival their MSM viewership. I don't buy into their propaganda...and neither
should you or anyone.

Check it out for yourself.
Look at youtube videos and see who has the most support, and the highest ratings.
Check blogs for comments.
See how many times Ron Paul's name is mentioned in MSM news bits in relation to
other candidates. Then go online and see if that relation is comparable to his
popularity in a forum where media bias is not present.

Think and research for yourself and come up with your own opinion.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by thoraxsabre

Originally posted by Cavalier
Oh, and not to mention, not lobbying is a huge political blunder in this day in age. We aren't in the 1800's anymore. If Paul wants to win hes gonna have to lobby with big corperations, and not take the "Vote for me because I dont answer to big buisness" aproach.


That's such a defeatist notion. There should be NO lobbying by big corporations and the fact is the American people should be behind him for this very reason alone. Big cooperation's lobby and spend all that money buying political candidates for one reason, to benefit themselves and make more money.

Not lobbying is revolutionary in this political age. It shows a level of integrity that very very few politicians possess.


I agree with you; there should be no corperate lobbying among politicians. But, my point is that America is a consumer nation, and not the same nation it was a hundred years ago. 300 Million + Americans are gonna buy, buy, and buy, and have the corperations speak for them. The sad part is that this is never going to change; the words "rights" and "Give Me" are being thrown out there far far too often by those who think that the governments only purpose to to hand out. Being Revolutionary does not always win elections.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by rival

Originally posted by Cavalier
I'm going to say it because I did not get a legitimate answer last time: Has anyone even thought that maybe Ron Paul isn't getting any screen time, or isnt getting any votes, because the majority of people planning to vote just don't like him and are not interested in hearing his policies or have already chosen a candidate they would like to win? Oh, and not to mention, not lobbying is a huge political blunder in this day in age. We aren't in the 1800's anymore. If Paul wants to win hes gonna have to lobby with big corperations, and not take the "Vote for me because I dont answer to big buisness" aproach.
Take your tinfoil hats off, please. Not everything is one big conspiracy.
edit on 12-2-2012 by Cavalier because: (no reason given)



Of course the answer to your question could be that Ron Paul is disliked by voters and is simply
being over-looked and under-reported because he, and his platform, are not popular.

Or the answer could be...that Ron Paul is not popular because the MSM has portrayed
him as un-popular, un-electable, fringe candidate.

If you take an un-baised look at the evidence for the latter answer I think you will find
plenty of instances where Ron Paul has been deliberately marginalized and oppressed.
My favorite derogatory sound-byte by the MSM is that Ron Paul's "internet" following
is the reason for his "seeming" popularity. They fail to mention that 200 million
US citizens have internet access, and that many web pages, blogs, and internet news
sources rival their MSM viewership. I don't buy into their propaganda...and neither
should you or anyone.

Check it out for yourself.
Look at youtube videos and see who has the most support, and the highest ratings.
Check blogs for comments.
See how many times Ron Paul's name is mentioned in MSM news bits in relation to
other candidates. Then go online and see if that relation is comparable to his
popularity in a forum where media bias is not present.

Think and research for yourself and come up with your own opinion.



Ron Paul is not being mentioned in the MSM because of his very own platform. As far as I know, Ron Paul is against corperate lobbying. While that may be better than pandering to big name brands, it will not get him as much mainstream attention as say, Romney or Gingrich who lobby for media spotlight. How hard is that to understand?



new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join