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.

 

Maine GOP Recounting Votes!!!

page: 1
27
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   
So, it seems they finally buckled, and decided to Re-count the votes after all, including the zeroed counties.


The Maine Republican Party, under fire from Ron Paul supporters for its mishandling of the state’s recent caucuses, is now re-canvassing counties and municipalities to recount vote totals. POLITICO obtained an email from the State Republican Party asking local chairmen to send them the vote totals from their local straw polls. Read more: www.politico.com...



The Maine Republican Party and its chairman, Charlie Webster, have been under attack in the last week for declaring Mitt Romney of the presidential straw poll in Maine when not all of the state’s caucuses have met to vote yet. Read more: www.politico.com...


www.politico.com...

This is great news!!




posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   
it would be interesting if ron paul wins by a landslide now

of if he loses by a great margin maybe this gave the GOP time to fraud the votes without leaving evidence



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 


So are we to expect even more manipulation where they come out and say "Mitt won by even more votes" and then they whisper among themselves "that'll teach them to make a fuss, they'll never bring this up again."

Or are we expecting honesty this time around? How will they do it with transparency?



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by trust_no_one
 


So what are you saying? Recount or no recount, if Paul doesn't win it can't be valid? Forgive me..I must be misunderstanding you and look forward to a pinch of clarification on that.


Maine sounded off, alright. It still doesn't mean Paul won. Great if he did...but why ask for a recount if the results still won't be accepted...and it's being said before the totals are even offered?



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   
I can't see any way that they will let this be a straight up recount. There is no way they would risk RP winning and then the whole election/straw poll practice is thrown into question because there is obvious fraud.

Do you really think they will allow themselves to be outed?



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Because it's wrong.

Or should we all just give up and accept that we live in a fake democracy? This isn't exactly a "Ha Ha we goofed" kind of situation, lots of people are furious. (people you won't hear about on fox)

If it isn't becoming blatantly obvious to you what is going on then you can't be helped.
edit on 16-2-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by NeoVain
 


So are we to expect even more manipulation where they come out and say "Mitt won by even more votes" and then they whisper among themselves "that'll teach them to make a fuss, they'll never bring this up again."

Or are we expecting honesty this time around? How will they do it with transparency?


I agree, there needs to be someone checking the vote checkers. I mean come on already
This crap with vote tampering has to end.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by trust_no_one
 


So what are you saying? Recount or no recount, if Paul doesn't win it can't be valid? Forgive me..I must be misunderstanding you and look forward to a pinch of clarification on that.


Maine sounded off, alright. It still doesn't mean Paul won. Great if he did...but why ask for a recount if the results still won't be accepted...and it's being said before the totals are even offered?


Are you being intentionally blind to all the vote frauds getting unearthed the last couple of days/weeks, or just missed the undeniable parts, like this one?




posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   
What I am curious about.. will this not include Washington County? What is the point if it isn't going to include a county that was unfairly removed from the vote? They should do this after all the caucusing is done and just give us the real number. What if Paul wins the recount and then after all are finished Romney wins again? Or if Romney still wins, they put it to rest and then after all counts are in Paul wins, but it's ignored because you only get one chance?

I would be shocked if Paul wins after this recount if they aren't including new areas, although there were a few counties omitted from the count that were in in time to be counted.

Either way.. I look forward to seeing the results, and hope this keeps the GOP on their toes if they are going to be shady.
edit on 16-2-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 

The Saturday vote in Washington County may be determinitive. That said, Paul supporters better have observers wherever they can get them, as GOP officials have expressed no love for Ron Paul and absolutely swoon over Willard Romney (and how does he get away with not having his first name on the ballots?)



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 


Will the recount include Washington? Or is it to take place before they vote?



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by trust_no_one
 


So what are you saying? Recount or no recount, if Paul doesn't win it can't be valid? Forgive me..I must be misunderstanding you and look forward to a pinch of clarification on that.


Maine sounded off, alright. It still doesn't mean Paul won. Great if he did...but why ask for a recount if the results still won't be accepted...and it's being said before the totals are even offered?


Clerarly there was fraud, it's been proven. Ask yourself, why would fraud be present if Ron wasn't winning the votes?



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Every RP supporter there should stand up and attach their name to their vote. No hiding it when there is a face to every vote.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   
The Maine GOP are pretty much damned if they do-damned if they don't. If they don't do a recount then Paul supporters are going to complain about voter fraud. If they do a recount and Paul still comes in second they're going to complain about voter fraud. While I definitely agree that all the votes in Maine need to be counted, nothing is going to change if Paul doesn't win the state. Even he does win things really won't change. Maine is a fairly minor state and he will win by such a small margin that it won't give him much of a surge in other states and most of the delegates are already Paul supporters who would vote for him regardless of who who their precinct actually voted for.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


They were outed years ago.

Why have Republicans taken so long to catch up to obvious voter fraud?



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by RSF77
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Because it's wrong.

Or should we all just give up and accept that we live in a fake democracy? This isn't exactly a "Ha Ha we goofed" kind of situation, lots of people are furious. (people you won't hear about on fox)

If it isn't becoming blatantly obvious to you what is going on then you can't be helped.
edit on 16-2-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)


Obvious? I wrote several posts back before the Iowa primary saying the Republicans would work just as hard or HARDER to bury Paul by *ANY* means necessary than the Dems or Media would. It's sad to see it's come true and then some.


No.. what blows me away here isn't that a recount is happening. That sounds good and I said it sounded off for how Maine turned out. What I am kinda shocked by is how some are already saying how things BETTER turn out or it's all invalid ANYWAY and, so, what is the point??

If the idea of a recount is to accurately count the votes this time and see, honestly, if Ron Paul placed well or not then I am all for it! If the idea here is simply to push to predetermined outcome in the OTHER direction from the fraud we may have seen the first time, then again, why even bother with the time and trouble of recounting anything?



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wookiep
Clerarly there was fraud, it's been proven. Ask yourself, why would fraud be present if Ron wasn't winning the votes?

Well, it's occurred to me that there might really be a little dislike between the other 3 candidates..and some motivation to play with the numbers and spin results in an entirely different way for the benefit of one of them. If Paul dropped out right now, the dirty tricks wouldn't even slow down. Paul just wouldn't be the target of a % of it anymore.

Why is it that any fraud..any wrong doing..it's immediately assumed it was ENTIRELY about Ron Paul? That part I don't get. He's not only one of several candidates at this point...but he's the one the others least care about or take seriously. Major effort to commit fraud makes MUCH more sense by Romney, as one example, to bury Santorum or Newt...than it does to bury a man all three of them already consider a dead man walking for his political career.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Hmm, okay. A lot of people think that Ron Paul might be the last decent politician we ever see, if he doesn't win the presidency that pretty much means we are all doomed. Anything else would result in the inevitable decline of our country, probably not a smooth pretty one either. I tend to agree somewhat, though I don't know what the future holds for us.

So what you see as an adversarial post might actually be one of compassion in their eyes. Regardless, either way you look at it voting fraud is wrong and especially here in America where we take pride on the fact that our vote and our opinions matter (even if they are through "elected" officials). This is very, very wrong and I would assume the wrabbit (chuckle) hole gets quite a bit deeper. If this kind of fraud is presenting itself in this manner, just how much more corruption is there? Just how much is there that we don't know about yet if there is so much that it is bursting through the seams and into public knowledge?

Also, this is (apparently) only happening to Ron Paul. You can't blame his supporters for being upset, at this point it isn't irrational to think that fraud and corruption exists on any and every level. In fact, if you think otherwise, based on what I have seen I would say you are naive.
edit on 16-2-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


The next closest candidate after Paul was Santorum at 18% nearly 20 points behind. The only viable reason for fraud in Maine was Ron Paul's strong showing right behind Romney (the way it was reported to us at least). They reported the Cacucus called with a difference of 194 votes. This, without counting several precincts as well as reported votes not accurately stating on record Paul's actual votes in many precincts. The GOP went on to blame those on "Clerical mistakes". C'mon, it doesn't take rocket science to see what happened there!
edit on 16-2-2012 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-2-2012 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I think the reason people are reacting that way is because they are thinking (and pretty reasonably so) that if there is fraud it's because Paul was winning/won. I honestly think Paul won, and by a decent margin. The reason it remained close is because in order for them to pass off a Romney win without a recount (the last thing they wanted) was for it to be close. A close race with Romney winning was the only chance they had of passing it off without a recount.

It may not be so.. but considering Romney's own spokesperson said Paul was doing well in the state and said that they (the Romney camp) would be happy with a second or third place win.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join