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 WON GOP Nomination. Romney Cheated. PROOF.

page: 1
22

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   
3 counties were not counted in the vote. It just so happens Mitt Romney won by less then 200 votes for the GOP nomination. Had the 3 counties not been ommited, Ron Paul would've officially won the GOP nomination. There are number of links on this youtube post that are very enlightening on all aspects of corrupt manipulation. But this has been going on since Iowa. All concerned seem to think sticking their fingers in their ears and ignoring the will of the people will make it ok. I think not. I wrote a scathing letter to Aaron Schock(IL-R) over it. He was supposed to be part of the solution to this global embarrassment. I'm inclined to think 4 more years of Barry trumps 8 more years of Romney. Still voting Ron Paul in november. Waiting for Leno tomorrow night.


edit on 3-9-2012 by GoldenRuled because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   
If you Ron Paul fanatics would have hit the pavement and actually helped his cause instead of bombarding this forum with flagrant claims maybe he would have had a chance.

I'm not a huge fan but given what else we have I would have voted for him.
edit on 3-9-2012 by PrestonSpace because: (no reason given)


+2 more 
posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by PrestonSpace
If you Ron Paul fanatics would have hit the pavement and actually helped his cause


Where the hell have you been???

Have you not seen the hundreds of photos and videos comparing Ron Paul turn outs verse EVERY OTHER candidate?

What the hell man, I am Australian and I appear to know more about this damn RNC farce than you.

WAKE UP!



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   
There's already a thread on this video.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
This should be bigger news than it is though



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenRuled
 


Gee, couldn't imagine a fixed election in this country. Has anyone heard if he will run Independent?



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenRuled
 


Who cares if this is the truth or not? The American people are the most blind I have ever seen. Bush got appointed as POTUS and what happened? Nothing. If this is true and Romney wins what will change? Nothing. Quit whining about it and do something about it! As an outsider looking in, it is very easy to spot the mistakes...harder to make people see them.



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


I agree, complaining on this site will not change the matter. Like Jessie Ventura said, " vote Indepedent".



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by PrestonSpace
If you Ron Paul fanatics would have hit the pavement and actually helped his cause instead of bombarding this forum with flagrant claims maybe he would have had a chance.



Amusing...another arm chair political advisor.



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by PrestonSpace
 


You seem to be a person of distinguished intelligence. why would the republican party go to the lengths it did to accomplish this video if they were not pulling out all stops to keep Dr Paul from being nominated? The key word here is "cheated."



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenRuled
 


Had the 3 counties not been ommited, Ron Paul would've officially won the GOP nomination.
Sorry, I don't get it. Let's say, just for the fun of it, that Paul would have had enough extra votes to overcome Romney's lead, thus winning the state's delegates. How would that have given Paul the GOP nomination? Wasn't he a bazillion delegates behind? I must be misunderstanding. What did you mean?



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by GoldenRuled
 


Had the 3 counties not been ommited, Ron Paul would've officially won the GOP nomination.
Sorry, I don't get it. Let's say, just for the fun of it, that Paul would have had enough extra votes to overcome Romney's lead, thus winning the state's delegates. How would that have given Paul the GOP nomination? Wasn't he a bazillion delegates behind? I must be misunderstanding. What did you mean?


not sure i follow...
edit on 3-9-2012 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 

Dear eLPresidente,

It's true, my writing has fallen off considerably. Please allow me to try again.

The video in the OP talks about three Maine Counties whose votes show as 0 on the official state party tallies. One is that way becaused they cancelled due to a snow storm warning, but the other two appear to be mysteries.

The OP wrote this

3 counties were not counted in the vote. It just so happens Mitt Romney won by less then 200 votes for the GOP nomination. Had the 3 counties not been ommited, Ron Paul would've officially won the GOP nomination.
The OP seems to be saying that the missing counties' vote tallies would have given Paul enough votes to win the state's delegates. Even assuming this to be true, I don't see how winning Maine's delegates would create a condition where "Ron Paul would've officially won the GOP nomination." Romney could have given Paul another 200 delegates and still have won the nomination.

I'm just trying to figure out what the OP meant.

Wait a minute! Just had a thought. Is the OP saying that Paul might have won the states' delegates and wasn't talking about the nomination? If that's the case, and forgive my attitude, who cares? This race was never close enough that Maine would have made any difference.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Look I don't understand why you people dont seem to get it.

Lets dumb it down.

Say a little league foot ball team with your kid on it plays another team. Lets say that the other team is bigger and stronger and has complete advantage. Now lets say that the coaches are bought and paid for by that team. They never call foul or enforce the rules when that team breaks them. Now every time your kids team scores the refs blow the whistle and move the goal and take away your teams points.

A team that cheats is not a winning team. What they are saying is if you play a game with rules and then break those rules you are a loser and should be disqualified.

What we are talking about is integredity and no one on the Republican or the Democrat side have any.

I am disgusted by the "show" that has been put on and it is only a "show"



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Doalrite
 

Dear Doalrite,

Thanks for your response, I do appreciate having things dumbed down for me, it makes everything easier.


A team that cheats is not a winning team. What they are saying is if you play a game with rules and then break those rules you are a loser and should be disqualified.
This is what was particularly meaningful to me.

Do you remember the first Rollerball with James Caan? It had some pretty serious technical problems, but it had a great story and is still high on my list of films. As you recall, the corporations ran the games and started changing the rules to make it harder and harder for Caan "Jonathon E" to stay alive. In one match his best friend, "Moon Pie," was knocked into a vegetative state. Jonathon visited his comatose friend in the hospital and was told there was no hope for him, and that Jonathon had to sign the papers allowing them to take Moon Pie off life support. Jonathon refused and asked that Moon Pie continue to be treated. The doctor said something like "You have to sign. There are rules." Jonathon replied "No there aren't, there aren't any rules at all." That is one of the most influential lines, to me, in cinema.

Picking the nominee for your party isn't a game, there aren't any rules, and if you change or break the so-called "rules," there is no rule that says you have to be disqualified, especially if you're the one that has been picked.

I feel badly about saying those things, but I wouldn't if I didn't think they were true. I also feel sad for the Paul supporters. I've been on some causes for truth and honesty, only to get slaughtered by people who were stupid and petty, and dishonest. It's a terrible feeling.

But there's no sense appealing to the rules, "... There aren't any rules at all."

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


I've never had the pleasure to watch that movie.

We are only as good as the leaders we follow. Those leaders we follow are not leaders but they are crooks.

There are no rules your correct, only an illusion of rules in the government. We have no morals in this country and there should be no wonder why other countries don't respect us.

Without honor we have nothing, our country as we have known it will fall.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Im2keul
reply to post by GoldenRuled
 


Gee, couldn't imagine a fixed election in this country. Has anyone heard if he will run Independent?


He will not run 3rd Party.


edit on 4-9-2012 by MrWendal because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Doalrite
 

Dear Doalrite,

I'm not sure how to respond. (I suppose that means I shouldn't. Oh, well.) The point of the movie reference was that "the people in control" (whatever that means) can discard or change those rules as they feel necessary. I think the only real block to that in the US would be a Supreme Court which forces people to follow the rules, the Constitution.


We are only as good as the leaders we follow. Those leaders we follow are not leaders but they are crooks.
That may be a little too sweeping. This is tough to explain, but I think there is a difference between good men who sometimes do bad things, good men who do stupid things, and bad men.

For example, Regan was a good man who did some stupid things, I think Romney is, too. Carter was a good man who did (many, many) stupid things. I think Bush was somewhere between Regan and Carter. Lyndon Johnson was a bad man. I'm torn on Obama, Bad man, or good man doing bad things and stupid things? I'm leaning towards bad man, but I'm not certain. Paul? A very good man who has done stupid things.

But these are off the cuff assessments and I expect people would disagree. But I do believe there are dividing lines that we should pay attention to. We will not have a good, wise and flawless leader, they're not made. But I do think we have to stay away from the obviously bad, or stupid, leaders.


There are no rules your correct, only an illusion of rules in the government. We have no morals in this country and there should be no wonder why other countries don't respect us.
Here, I agree and disagree. I believe there are morals in this country, many people have them, and some of our leaders try to live up to them. And I don't think we've lost respect because of those issues. After all, are there morals in Russia? China? Any really powerful country?


Without honor we have nothing, our country as we have known it will fall.
Agreed, whether you call it morals, character, godliness, honesty, or whatever, it is essential to a people.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 05:32 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenRuled
 


if this were an actual election then yes Ron Paul would have won the the nomination. but considering the fact that the elections are just a show for the general public the globalist establishment network chose Romney are their pawn to go up against the other pawn Obama/the son of Frank Marshall Davis. there are a few quotes that really woke me up and made me realize that the whole electoral process is complete bull$h!t it's from the video game Metal Gear Solid 2 Sons Of Liberty



Johnson: That was quite a show, wasn't it? It was a well-scripted drama staged by the Patriots for the benefit of the public. Even the Democrats and Republicans were dancing to the Patriots' tune.





Johnson: That's what the Patriots want the country to believe... It's all a show. "Democracy" is just a filler for textbooks! Think about it! Do you actually believe that public opinion influences the government?



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Whenever the winner of the popular vote, loses the election, we get our proof that the whole system is rigged.

There's always "a rigged plan" in place, to fall back on, if the popular vote doesn't follow the predetermined script.

So, it is not that all elections are rigged, some are not, but all have "a rigged plan" waiting just in case it things are going the wrong way.

In times like these we get to see the rigged plan, which has become so obvious only because of the modern technological advance called the "cellphone."

It was some smart citizen with a cellphone, who recognized the importance of video taping the teleprompter to show all that the script was just being read, and no votes counted and no voices mattered. For that, cell phones may be "banned" in the future RNC conventions, to prevent people from recording the evidence of political fraud.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   
He had nowhere close to the number of delegates that Romney had. Even if you gave Ron Paul all of maines delegates, times that by 10, he still wouldnt have won.
edit on 4-9-2012 by theconspirator because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
22

log in

join