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.
(visit the link for the full news article)
New evidence is coming out about just how tough and dirty the Mitt Romney campaign fought to block the Ron Paul takeover of the Republican Party at the State Conventions last summer.
It may offer a little sneak preview of what a Romney presidency will be like. And make no mistake, barring war with Syria or some other dramatic October surprise, Romney will now win this election in a landslide. At least, that is my humble opinion, as one who loves and reads history. The economy will decide that.
It turns out that Mitt Romney and other Republican operatives were apparently very much awa
Originally posted by hawkiye
And this just proves .....
Originally posted by Zarniwoop
Doug Wead appears to be somewhat of a sore loser.
So pointing out evidence of election fraud heavy handed tactics including people being falsely arrested physically beaten and harmed etc. is just being a sore loser???
Go drink some unfiltered tap water and flip on the tube nothing to see here...
Originally posted by caladonea
reply to post by hawkiye
I was sitting here reading this thread and it got me to thinking about the 2000 Presidential Election....Bush vs. Gore... that election was very close and there was a big dispute...and the United States Supreme Court had to make a ruling on the results.
Link: www.shmoop.com...
So I am wondering will this 2012 election be a dispute too...like the 2000 election?
edit on 19-10-2012 by caladonea because: edit
Originally posted by AwakeinNM
So I am wondering will this 2012 election be a dispute too...like the 2000 election?
edit on 19-10-2012 by caladonea because: edit
Of course it will.. that's how liberals operate. Sore losers, just like in 2000.
Talk about sore losers; the crybaby conservatives have been whining for the last 4 years about Obama.
Sore losers indeed...
edit on 19-10-2012 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by hawkiye
Ron Paul lost the elections. He didn't win a single state by popular vote in these primaries, he's never won a single state by popular vote in all his 3 campaign attempts at the presidency. He even faily to win his own district for the third time these primaries in Texas. Ron Paul lost the elections, he isn't as popular as the Paulbots on the internet will hype him to be. I don't like Romney either, but he won the primaries fair and square, he got the most delegates, he got more than double the votes in these primaries as Ron Paul did.
Ron Paul lost, it's time for people to get over it and move on. He can try for the presidency again in 2016.
Originally posted by BABYBULL24
Was a Ron Paul guy but he is out...i look at it this way.
Obama has had 4 years to get his criminals in the government & they are entrenched & he doesn't have to worry about being re-elected . So at the least it will take Romney some time to get his criminals in place & he will be somewhat in check cause he has to worry about re-election.
They are different sides of a bad coin but really have to weigh - are we better off with an un-checked Obama or a nube in office trying to install a corrupt power structure.
Hell it might buy us 6 months to a year with Romney.
imo