Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Congratulations Gary Johnson, 1,000,000 Votes (1% Popular Vote)

page: 4
55
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by alternateuniverse
 


The "Romney lost because Johnson stole his votes" excuse doesn't make any sense if you check the vote totals by state. In the swing states that Obama won, having Johnson's votes still wouldn't have done Romney any good in any of them:

(from www.google.com...)
Virginia: Add Johnson's 30,000 votes to Romney and Obama still wins by 80,000 votes

Ohio: Add Johnson's 48,000 votes and Obama still wins by 60,000

New Hampshire: Add Johnson's 7,000 and Obama is still ahead by 130,000 votes

Pennsylvania: Add Johnson's 68,000 votes and Obama still wins by 260,000

Nevada: Add Johnson's 11,000 votes and Obama is still up by 50,000

Colorado: Add Johnson's 30,000 votes and Obama still wins by 55,000

Iowa: Add Johnson's 13,000 votes and Obama still up by 65,000

Wisconsin: Add Johnson's 20,000 votes and Obama still wins by 180,000

Gary Johnson is not the reason that Romney lost. Romney is the reason. He was never able to inspire enough enthusiasm and confidence because of all of his inconsistencies. He should have stuck with a consistent message instead of trying to be everything for everybody.

By the way, I voted for Johnson, but that's because I am in a state that was going to go to Romney anyways (Alaska) and it was to express that I really don't support either candidate. If I lived in a state where my vote for president mattered, however, it would have been for Romney, but only as the better of two disappointing candidates.




posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 01:24 AM
link   
After the first 4 years Obama gave us, I find it very hard to believe 60,000,000+ ppl voted for him. I find it even harder to believe 57,000,000+ ppl voted for Romney. NO WAY he got that many votes. It's all rigged. I doubt Romney cleared 10,000,000 ppl who actually voted for him. As much as I love Ron Paul and wanted to vote for him, if anybody “wasted their vote", it was the the people who wrote him in. They don't even look at the write in vote. They should have voted for Johnson.
I think by re-electing Obama, we got the worst possible outcome. Romney wouldn't have been much better but at least if he flip flopped his issues while in office, it would have been a goid thing. He could have appointed Ron Paul secretary of treasury, RP could maybe have influeced him since their families are close friends, Romney would be facing a re-election.
Obamas bad news folks & I can't wait to see how those who voted for him defend him when they finally realize he's bad news. I mean come on!! How are you going to vote for and re-elect the man who made the NDAA possible?!?! The world is laughing at us right now because of this. We're stupid Americans or dumb yanks or whatever they call us.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by tamerlane
 


It would be wise to also look at the principled votes Ron Paul received during the primaries. Those votes made enough difference in enough swing state to sway it over to Romney.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 03:12 AM
link   
I happily gave my vote to Gary


No way in hell would I vote for evil and evil.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Octave

I'm proud to have voted for Gary Johnson and am absolutely horrified that the American people have chosen to reelect Obama for another term... I fear we're all doomed


NDAA
TSA
DRONES
GULAG
BANK BAILOUTS
EXTENDING BUSH POLICIES
ETC

How in the world did someone reconcile giving their vote for this??



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


Do you really think it's that many? I haven't been to any Ron Paul hangouts in a long time, but the people I know personally, most went with Johnson. The ones that didn't, well they chose to go to work instead of vote, the company offered double overtime.
edit on Thu, 08 Nov 2012 03:19:32 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by alternateuniverse
Way to go Gary Johnson! Game well played.

Did Obama invite you to the party?

Gary Johnson Pulls One Million Votes, One Percent J.D. Tuccille


Well below the 5% needed for public funding.

It's good to know what percentage of people are Libertarian though. Less than 1% of voters.

I guess that undercuts all the, "Libertarianism is hugely popular" nonsense.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by flyswatter
If you think that Romney would have won based solely on the fact that Ron Paul was the VP, then he should also have been capable of winning as a Presidential candidate on his own.


Just because you fell for the mass medias illusion doesn't mean Ron Paul didn't have the numbers. LMAO! Gimmie a break, Even the Lords of his own Party were against him. Never has a Presidential Canidate been so sand bagged by the powers that be. You just don't get it, but that's ok.
~$heopleNation
edit on 8-11-2012 by SheopleNation because: TypO



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by SheopleNation

Originally posted by flyswatter
If you think that Romney would have won based solely on the fact that Ron Paul was the VP, then he should also have been capable of winning as a Presidential candidate on his own.


Just because you fell for the mass medias illusion doesn't mean Ron Paul didn't have the numbers. LMAO! Gimmie a break, Even the Lords of his own Party were against him. Never has a Presidential Canidate been so sand bagged by the powers that be. You just don't get it, but that's ok.
~$heopleNation
edit on 8-11-2012 by SheopleNation because: TypO


Ron Paul had no "numbers" - he didn't' even win his home state in the primary.

He was not even as popular as Michael Dukakis.

Him being the VP pick wouldn't have helped Romney, as he didn't even bother to endorse the man.

Ron Paul is about as selfish as a human gets. That's not what a VP needs to be.

The most popular Republican was Romney, and he was always unelectable, no matter his VP pick.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bramble Iceshimmer
There will never be a viable 3rd party choice. You wasted your vote wanting Paul or Johnson and we will now have O to finish the destruction of the health care system, the destruction of the military and related industries, the destruction of the energy sector particularly oil, natural gas and coal and complete regulation of the Internet per Hollywood's demands. God only knows what he will hand over to the FU at the UN.

We are scheduled to hit our borrowing limit in December and the credit rating agencies will downgrade us farther. Can or will lenders say no and push us into bankruptcy?

Ron Paul was my congressman and I'm glad he is retiring. Republican Randy Weber is leading former U.S. Rep. Nick Lampson, a Democrat for Paul's seat.

The only wasted voted is one that is not cast. Even a spoilt vote (vote of protest) is not wasted.

Your "destruction" rant is nonsense. None of these industries will ever be destroyed irrispective of whoever is in power.And that applies to all countries! Even those like ours with national free at the point of delivery for everyone health service.

My partner has breast cancer and given the treatment she has already had and will need over the next few months thank god for the NHS. I dread to think of the situation we would be in with the uncivilised and immoral US private health system.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by SheopleNation

Originally posted by flyswatter
If you think that Romney would have won based solely on the fact that Ron Paul was the VP, then he should also have been capable of winning as a Presidential candidate on his own.


Just because you fell for the mass medias illusion doesn't mean Ron Paul didn't have the numbers. LMAO! Gimmie a break, Even the Lords of his own Party were against him. Never has a Presidential Canidate been so sand bagged by the powers that be. You just don't get it, but that's ok.
~$heopleNation
edit on 8-11-2012 by SheopleNation because: TypO


Ron Paul had no "numbers" - he didn't' even win his home state in the primary.

He was not even as popular as Michael Dukakis.

Him being the VP pick wouldn't have helped Romney, as he didn't even bother to endorse the man.

Ron Paul is about as selfish as a human gets. That's not what a VP needs to be.

The most popular Republican was Romney, and he was always unelectable, no matter his VP pick.


What a poor analysis on politics.

Ron Paul got well over a hundred thousand votes in his home state when the entire nation was being told on television that Ron Paul had dropped out.

You want to make any more horrible arguments!?

Oh yea Ron Paul being vp wouldn't have helped Romney! Duh the elite would've never let ron Paul be romneys vp they stripped his delegates and didn't let him speak for goodness sakes.

Want to make more pointless and inaccurate arguments ? Of course you do

Ron Paul didnt endorse Romney on principle and principle alone. Being selfish is putting your own spin on it. Don't try to pass your own emotional hatred for one man as if it were a fact.

Want to make even more pointless and inaccurate statements? Yes it appears you do

Romney electable? Nope yesterday's election proved it he could t beat the worst president in us history. Why? Because nobody trusts him and the libertarians didn't support him


You've been a Ron Paul troll since day one. Hey at least you're consistent at it unlike romney



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by SheopleNation

Originally posted by flyswatter
If you think that Romney would have won based solely on the fact that Ron Paul was the VP, then he should also have been capable of winning as a Presidential candidate on his own.


Just because you fell for the mass medias illusion doesn't mean Ron Paul didn't have the numbers. LMAO! Gimmie a break, Even the Lords of his own Party were against him. Never has a Presidential Canidate been so sand bagged by the powers that be. You just don't get it, but that's ok.
~$heopleNation
edit on 8-11-2012 by SheopleNation because: TypO


Ron Paul had no "numbers" - he didn't' even win his home state in the primary.

He was not even as popular as Michael Dukakis.

Him being the VP pick wouldn't have helped Romney, as he didn't even bother to endorse the man.

Ron Paul is about as selfish as a human gets. That's not what a VP needs to be.

The most popular Republican was Romney, and he was always unelectable, no matter his VP pick.


What a poor analysis on politics.

Ron Paul got well over a hundred thousand votes in his home state when the entire nation was being told on television that Ron Paul had dropped out.

You want to make any more horrible arguments!?

Oh yea Ron Paul being vp wouldn't have helped Romney! Duh the elite would've never let ron Paul be romneys vp they stripped his delegates and didn't let him speak for goodness sakes.

Want to make more pointless and inaccurate arguments ? Of course you do

Ron Paul didnt endorse Romney on principle and principle alone. Being selfish is putting your own spin on it. Don't try to pass your own emotional hatred for one man as if it were a fact.

Want to make even more pointless and inaccurate statements? Yes it appears you do

Romney electable? Nope yesterday's election proved it he could t beat the worst president in us history. Why? Because nobody trusts him and the libertarians didn't support him


You've been a Ron Paul troll since day one. Hey at least you're consistent at it unlike romney


Sorry, did he win in his home state?

Does it MATTER how many votes the LOSER gets? (Romney got 1M votes in TX for the record)

And hey guess what, there's NO states that Romney woulda won if he got the additional Johnson votes, which proves you're just talking out your ass.

But hey, keep up your paranoia about the scary, "elites" that stop your unpopular candidate from winning, either the nomination, his home state, or... the Presidency. His great endorsement couldn't even help his candidate of choice get 1.5% of the vote.

US Libertarianism is fringe, at best. Maybe you've been fooled by the internet into thinking Ron Paul is wildly popular, but he's not. Never was.Never will be.

edit on 8-11-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by longlostbrother
 


Thats the fun part.

It isn't paranoia.

First off. he didn't endorse Gary Johnson. Stop making things up to prove a point, thats what trolls do.

Second, Nobody said US libertarianism was mainstream. You made that up all by yourself. Who makes things up to prove a point? trolls do.

Third, you brought up Ron Paul and his home state and then you say you don't want to bring up his vote count. Well what the hell DO you want? Bringing up a point and refusing to hear the opposing arguments? thats what trolls do.

Fourth Libertarian vote wouldn't have helped Romney? Look at Ron Paul's vote in several of the swing states, those votes would've easily put Romney over the top. Are you making things up again???

Ron Paul not wildly popular... oh forgive me, I must've mistaken all of the world wide support, meetup groups, independent youth college chapters in the HUNDREDS across the country, grassroots volunteer and donor networks, his coveted endorsement on capitol hill, and one of TIME's 100 most influential people for UN-popularity.

Much of the media manipulation and election fraud has been documented. You should know this already and I suspect you are conveniently ignoring it. See no evil, hear no evil.

If Ron Paul was unelectable, why did they have to strip his delegates? Why the media black out? Why ballot stuffing? state convention fraud? entire missing precincts of votes? vote flipping? physical assaults? arrests? private security? shut off power?

Best of all, why did they set into rule at the RNC the power to pick and choose all delegates and the power to suspend all rules in the middle of the primary?

No you won't ask yourself this question, no you won't look at the evidence. Instead you will lull in your own ignorance and continue to pretend that facts and evidence don't exist.

You operate on emotion and you will continue to until you accept the FACTS.

Sorry you don't like the truth, sorry you don't like evidence, sorry you don't like FACTS. It is too bad though, you have absolutely no moral, logical or factual standing.

How many times have you been caught trolling in Ron Paul now? I've honestly lost count. You know what happens to Ron Paul trolls, they get banned. Long list already exists, don't make the same mistake others did
edit on 8-11-2012 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente
reply to post by longlostbrother
 


Thats the fun part.

It isn't paranoia.

First off. he didn't endorse Gary Johnson. Stop making things up like a troll.

Second, Nobody said US libertarianism was mainstream. You made that up all by yourself. Who makes things up to prove a point? trolls do.

Much of the media manipulation and election fraud has been documented. You should know this already and I suspect you are conveniently ignoring it. See no evil, hear no evil.

If Ron Paul was unelectable, why did they have to strip his delegates? Why the media black out? Why ballot stuffing? state convention fraud? entire missing precincts of votes? vote flipping?

Best of all, why did they set into rule at the RNC the power to pick and choose all delegates and the power to suspend all rules in the middle of the primary?

No you won't ask yourself this question, no you won't look at the evidence. Instead you will lull in your own ignorance and continue to pretend that facts and evidence don't exist.

You operate on emotion and you will continue to until you accept the FACTS.

Sorry you don't like the truth, sorry you don't like evidence, sorry you don't like FACTS. It is too bad though, you have absolutely no moral, logical or factual standing.

edit on 8-11-2012 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)


He didn't specifically endorse him, but did repeatedly praise him. He couldn't endorse him officially, as he didn't want to contradict his son (Rand the "optometrist") who endorsed Romney.

As for your paranoia, it's all too real.

The party "stripped" his delegates, because that's what parties do... they unite around the candidate, unless their selfish lunatics like Paul, who cares more about his image than his party.

As for the media "blackout" - it happened, because the media knew that Paul had no chance, because his party didn't like him, and because he didn't win elections... ask every other fringe candidate about the "blackout"... some of them probably have paranoid fantasies as well.

The GOP, Ron Paul's party of choice, changed the rules because they a) don't like Paul or his followers and b) they thought Mitt was their best choice.

Remember as well that Paul barely made a whimper about this, and his son endorsed the guy you think was responsible for the huge conspiracy against his father.

The simple facts:

- Paul is a loser, on the national stage.
- He didn't win his own state, by a HUGE margin, even though his name was on the ballot
- He chose to stop campaigning, no one forced him
- The man closest to his potions, in the race, Gary Johnson, got 1% of the vote - pretty much the definition of fringe

Unpopular candidate with unpopular positions. And no amount of paranoid conspiracies about the party he choose to associate with justify your delusions, on his behalf.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 06:45 AM
link   
Even the liberal MSNBC pundits agree, now quit making things up.




This lady was particularly mad at the Ron Paul supporters for spoiling Romney's victory.

www.liveleak.com...



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente
Even the liberal MSNBC pundits agree, now quit making things up.




This lady was particularly mad at the Ron Paul supporters for spoiling Romney's victory.

www.liveleak.com...


That's what you've got?

Here's Ohio:

Barack Obama 50.1

Mitt Romney 48.2
Gary Johnson 0.9

If I assume ALL of John's votes coulda gone to Romney, what's total?

Obama 50.1
Romney 49.1

Still a loser.

How about the Libertarian bastion of Colorado?

Barack Obama 51.2

Mitt Romney 46.5
Gary Johnson 1.3

Without Johnson

Obama 51.2
Romney 47.8

Still a loser

How many more should we do...?

How about TX? Ron Paul's home state, where he's a huge, "hit".

Romney 57.2
Obama 41.4 (over 4 in 10 Texans voted for Obama - let that sink in)
Johnson 1.1

Even in Texas, only 1/100 want a Libertarian President. That's 40x less than want a Muslim Kenyan Manchurian candidate.

Libertarians are wildly unpopular, even where they're popular.
edit on 8-11-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-11-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:12 AM
link   
Come on people if Paul would have gotten his fair share of media coverage he would have been the GOP candidate to beat Obama. If Paul was not a threat than why would the media attack him as much as they did ? Herman Cain even got more POSITIVE media attention and all he said was "999"



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Korvenus
Come on people if Paul would have gotten his fair share of media coverage he would have been the GOP candidate to beat Obama. If Paul was not a threat than why would the media attack him as much as they did ? Herman Cain even got more POSITIVE media attention and all he said was "999"



Again, Paul never had a real chance.

His supporters like to think that he's really popular, but there's NO EVIDENCE that he's be able to win nationally if he'd been given media coverage on par with Romney.

Romney hired a wouldbe Libertarian as his VP and like Paul, he couldn't defend his positions in the media. Because they're pretty much just magical thinking.

American's don't want to trade corporate boards for Democracy, and they know that's the Libertarian message: Trust business, destroy governement, get rid of things Americans like (like state funded primary schools) and things they need (like FEMA).

That's not a winning or popular message.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:56 AM
link   
I voted for Gary Johnson because I couldn't vote for Obama or Romney. When I told people who I voted for they usually laughed and said who's that. It's sad they really didn't know. My family and I will continue to live our life and keep a smile on our faces. I was very upset yesterday, but what can I do but wait till next election.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Hmmm... Vote for one liar or another? Meh. So there went the main two. Still too many people do the "vote against" thing with the lame "more likely to win" argument than to try something completely different and perhaps get a real change.

I don't fall for that B.S. So yeah, you can count me on the list for scribbling the ballot scantron for Gary.

Shame the percentage numbers weren't bigger, I think it would have sent a nice message if it were something like 10% or more.





new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join