Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Ron Paul Tells Reporters He Is Suspicious About Results Of GOP Caucuses

page: 1
90
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+65 more 
posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Lawrence outnumbers Lenexa by almost 2 to 1 according a 2009 city data.

Population:
Lenexa, Kansas

Population in July 2009: 48,087. Population change since 2000: +19.5%


Lawrence, Kansas

Population in July 2009: 92,048. Population change since 2000: +14.9%




Rick Santorum's Remarks at Lenexa, Kansas rally


Ron Paul at KU 3-9-12


I'm sure most of you have seen other photos/videos comparing Ron Paul's rallies to the other candidates. Ron Paul seemingly has more support than his opponents but when the votes are counted he gets his ass kicked every time. So with this, Ron Paul himself is becoming suspicious of the caucus results.



www.infowars.com...

In a conversation with reporters in Missouri this weekend, GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul said that he and his supporters were suspicious about the outcomes of several caucuses because the crowds and volumes of support have been much bigger for him than for any other candidate.

“Quite frankly I don’t think the other candidates get crowds like this, and we get them constantly” Paul said, after he had spoken to yet another crowd of over 2500 supporters in Missouri.


For fun, check out these videos, Ron Paul rallies in Michigan

How Does It Feel At The End Of The Line @ Ron Paul Rally In Hudsonville Michigan?




Ron Paul Michigan State University Auditorium Intro and Crowd - 2-27-12





edit on 12-3-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Excellent. Good choice of picture to iterate the point as well.

Again...good job. S&F

ETA: He is very careful with his wording these days to avoid being labeled a kook or any other pseudonym the MSM wants to dub him that day. I really noticed it in this interview.
edit on 3/12/2012 by freakjive because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
In addition to this, my theory is if the Republican establishment want to prove the allegations false, they could have just let Paul win Maine or 1 other ''meaningless'' state and then could just write him off and say that he simply just doesn't have a following to win the presidency. ''Oh yea whatever, he won 1 state, who cares!?''. The fact that they REFUSE a win to Paul in states that he clearly has larger support EVERY TIME makes the people who aren't as greatly informed slightly suspicious, which (hopefully) then that person would investigate it for themselves and view the clear bias involved in this process.

By voter fraud and other means, they force the results they want every time.. but you'd think the fraud would be hard to uncover. ''Its like they're pissing on us without the common courtesy of calling it rain''



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 


Thank you, Swills for bringing this to the attention of ATS. I was about to post this as well, but you beat me to it... As well as NeoVain


On topic: I'm glad that Dr. Paul watched his wording when discussing what many of us view as blatant contradictions in numbers between caucus votes and attendees. I wonder how people can see such evidence and not at least question the possibility of there being some sort of foul play going on. Perhaps it is simply their blind devotion to another politician, or fear that their beloved "democratic" country might really just be a giant joke.
edit on 12-3-2012 by Q:1984A:1776 because: fowl foul... grrr



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by freakjive
 


No doubt about it, he is a class act, but more importantly he has to watch what he says when he says it because the MSM and his fellow politicians can and will use his words against him. This applies to anyone in politics really, but when talking about conspiracy theories one has to try to side step the stigma's, unfortunately.


reply to post by Tanulis
 


You do make a good point, if there is a conspiracy against the man (which there is) then why not let him win a couple of states to keep the heat off any suspicions that the conspiracy is real? But they won't even give him a win because they are so afraid of him, his message, his supporters, and they do not want to see him gain in the popularity contest that politics has become. Didn't the MSM report Romney as the winner of the Virgin Islands? Not that the islands mean much in the political scene it just goes to show you that even a legit win won't be given easily to RP.


reply to post by Q:1984A:1776
 


No problem and thanks for reading! I suggest to everyone to watch Santorums speech and then Ron Pauls speech because they are night and day. How can people just not see the obvious? People haven't been paying attention to obvious for centuries upon centuries, although lets hope that those days are coming to an end and RP is definitely helping the American people wake up and see what they've been missing while being mislead.
edit on 12-3-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 


Great picture. This issue could be the link that breaks it all open. We'll see.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by coyotepoet
 


Thank you but I can't take credit for the picture because I got it off Infowars.com. Will this break anything wide open? Probably not and thats only because the major source of current information in this country is controlled by those who don't want anything about Ron Paul to break. Speaking of breaking, try to watch Santorums speech without breaking down and turning it off. Its so bad.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   
I think all of us who looked at the elections with an open mind are suspicious. Not just with Dr. Paul's low numbers but with Santorum's performance as well. No one even knew who he was until about a week before Iowa, now he is in 2nd with the delegate count. It just does not make any sense.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jrod
I think all of us who looked at the elections with an open mind are suspicious. Not just with Dr. Paul's low numbers but with Santorum's performance as well. No one even knew who he was until about a week before Iowa, now he is in 2nd with the delegate count. It just does not make any sense.


Not only that, but look at his budget compared to Paul! Santorum vs. Paul Budget

Paul clearly has far more support from people than Santorum. His rise to such fame makes ZERO sense. His ideologies are not popular, his voting record isn't popular, and his campaign is nowhere near as organized as Paul's. It's just too weird. It's as if "they" brought him into the mix so he would dilute the vote.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   
He will stand no chance in November 2012



2008 Results

Blacks 95% Voted for Obama
Hispanics 65% Voted for Obama
Asians 63% Voted for Obama
Women 56% Voted for Obama
Whites 43% Voted for Obama

Source

It will be even more lopsided in November

Obama 2012



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   
I said same thing in another thread... Like 8000 showed up to his rally an only got 5000 votes er somethung



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 

You have to admit 2008 and voting for Obama was a vote based more on emotion than logic. Most people wanted to vote a black man into office, and if people say race wasn't a factor they are full of it. But race clearly wasn't the only reason Obama won, the man knows how to speak to a crowd, unlike Bush who could barely speak (although he was great for his speech LoLs) and Obama was promising America Change, and god knows we needed it (too bad he completely failed to deliver). The fact that he is 1/2 black was a huge factor for us Americans but I don't think that matters so much this year. So this year he'll still get high numbers but I suspect they will be decreased, and even though I fully support Ron Paul I'm fully expecting to see a Obama v Romney 2012 and Obama coming out the victor.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   
the conspiracy candidate thinks he wuz robbed ?

NW !



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   
He could of had 50 thousand show up
to the rally doesn't mean anything in a closed primary..
which is what kansas is a closed caucus from what I have read...
edit on 12-3-2012 by popsmayhem because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


Wait a minute, 8000 people showed up to a Ron Paul rally but he only got 5000 votes?



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by popsmayhem
 


You definitely make a good point. My home state also has closed primaries, and its a good thing I re-registered as a Republican otherwise they wouldn't let me vote in said primaries. Is there a need for closed primaries or can they just do away with them?
edit on 12-3-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swills
reply to post by popsmayhem
 


You definitely make a good point. My home state also has closed primaries, and its a good thing I re-registered as a Republican otherwise they wouldn't let me vote in said primaries. Is there a need for closed primaries or can they just do away with them?
edit on 12-3-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)


I use to think closed primary was bad.
It is not, look at how Obama has no one
running against him. Could be the repubs
that had no one running against them in primary, doesn't matter.
The point being it helps from keeping the other side
from putting up votes to a more preferable candidate
for their side to beat. Just my opinion.
edit on 12-3-2012 by popsmayhem because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by popsmayhem
 


That's a good thought and makes sense but I think a fair election would allow everyone to participate.

Either way, Ron Paul supporters, or any Republican supporter, probably knows if their state is closed or not, and if it is closed they hopefully registered as a Republican a long time ago. I know I did.
edit on 12-3-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   
I'm not American so don't know how the system for electing the republican candidate works, but I imagine a lot of Ron Pauls support comes from outside the traditional republican supporters, so these presumably wouldn't be able to vote in the republican elections because they're not members of the party? It is interesting though that Ron Paul himself has referred to it



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
the conspiracy candidate thinks he wuz robbed ?

NW !


You know what's really suspicious? The fact that of the four Republican candidates Ron Paul is the only one without secret service protection.

NW !

Ron Paul's The Only Glitter-Bomb Target Left


www.theatlanticwire.com...


Newt Gingrich will get Secret Service protection starting at midnight, Fox News reported, making Ron Paul the only candidate without a government-funded security entourage -- and the only legitimate glitter-bomb target left.


Funny thing, he's already been glittered bombed, just like the rest of them.



edit on 12-3-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
90
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join