It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
*The Obama campaign accepted at least some foreign campaign cash – willingly and knowingly. The campaign website could have prohibited it. It did not. In other words, it deliberately left open the door for illegal foreign contributions in its “by any means necessary” quest for re-election. WND has proven that by actually contributing under the name Osama bin Laden from a Pakistani IP address, with a phony physical address and other neon-lit red flags in hopes of catching attention. Obama accepted illegal foreign contributions in 2008 without penalty, so why would anyone expect him not to repeat his crime in 2012? No one can know the extent of the fraud, because Obama has refused to release the identity of donors of $200 or less – yet he boasts that most of the money he collected was in small amounts.
* James O’Keefe and Project Veritas spent months heroically proving the absolute willingness and eagerness of Democratic operatives to commit voter fraud – especially by having people cast multiple votes.
* Military ballots were systematically denied active-duty servicemen and women around the world. This would be a scandal if it happened once. But it has become the norm when Democrats are in charge of the Defense Department. It would be a scandal if it were due to incompetence. But it appears to be a deliberate effort to suppress the military vote. It would be a scandal if it were not a close election. But it was.
*Prior to the election, Democrats fought for open voting requiring no identification – particularly photo ID. Coincidentally, Obama won every state that didn’t fully require photo ID to vote. Democrats contended that voter ID laws suppress the vote. But they do not. They only suppress the illegal vote.
* Across Philadelphia, GOP poll inspectors were forcibly (and illegally) removed from polling locations. Coincidentally (or not), Obama received “astronomical” numbers in those very same regions, including locations where he received “over 99 percent” of the vote. Ward 4, which also had a poll watcher dressed in Obama attire, went massively for Obama. Obama received 99.5 percent of the vote, defeating Romney 9,955 to 55.
*Obama also won 99.8 percent of the vote in 44 Cleveland districts. In another Ohio county, Obama won with 108 percent of the voters registered.
*Obama received 10 million fewer votes than he did in 2008. Romney received 3 million fewer votes than McCain. Obama won in the four critical swing states by a grand total of 500,000 votes.
* Some 5 million independents changed their votes from Obama to Romney in 2012. So Romney started the day 2.5 million votes ahead of where McCain was in 2008, as Jack Wheeler points out. This means that 5.5 million Republican voters are not accounted for. Either they didn’t show up at the polls or their votes were not counted. Does anyone believe there was less enthusiasm by Republicans about this election than for the one in 2008?
Originally posted by Hawking
So how did nate silver correctly predict the election state by state if it was a fraud?
The guy used only polls and math and nailed it before any tampering could take place
By examining the number of Independents and their preference shift among actual voters, we know that 5 million Independents changed their votes from Obama to Romney. So Romney started the day 2.5 million votes ahead of where McCain was in 2008.
This means that 5.5 million Republican
voters are not accounted for.
Originally posted by Quadrivium
Something is REALLY wrong.
Sure, I Know You're Tired of These Threads But Did Obama Really Win?
Originally posted by Ghost375
Except he did NOT win any county with 99% of the vote. That's a just a lie spread by butthurt republicans, or some moron who misread 99% reporting in, as 99% for Obama.
I don't see any 99%
Just because you keep saying it, and want to believe it, doesn't mean it's true.
Are there any elected Republicans out there willing to look into this? Seriously, this is alarming. I know cities turn out the vote for Democrats, but really, 100% of the vote went to Obama in all of these places?
According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, Mitt Romney on Tuesday received ZERO votes in 59 Philadelphia voting divisions! ZERO! …
Most big cities are politically homogeneous, with 75 percent to 80 percent of voters identifying as Democrats.
As you might imagine, this is impossible.
But don’t try to tell liberal media members that voter fraud is real. (Read More)
Barack Obama received more than 99% of the vote in more than 100 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio on election day. In fact, there were a substantial number of precincts where Mitt Romney got exactly zero votes. So how in the world did this happen? Third world dictators don’t even get 99% of the vote. Overall, Mitt Romney received 30.12% of the vote in Cuyahoga County. There were even a bunch of precincts in Cuyahoga County that Romney actually won. But everyone certainly expected that Cuyahoga County would be Obama territory. And in most of the precincts that is exactly what we saw - large numbers of votes for both candidates but a definite edge for Obama. However, there are more than 100 precincts in Cuyahoga County where the voting results can only be described as truly bizarre. Yes, we always knew that urban areas would lean very heavily toward Obama, but are we actually expected to believe that Obama got over 99% of the votes in those areas? In more than 50 different precincts, Romney received 2 votes or less. Considering how important the swing state of Ohio was to the national election, one would think that such improbable results would get the attention of somebody out there. Could we be looking at evidence of election fraud hidden in plain sight?
Originally posted by redtic
Originally posted by Quadrivium
Something is REALLY wrong.
Yes - you're using WND as a source.
Originally posted by muse7
Yes he did
332 Electoral votes to 206
Along with 61,176,672 votes
Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by Quadrivium
This is the same source, WND, that has "proven" the birther argument. Might as well be reading People.
CJedit on 14-11-2012 by ColoradoJens because: (no reason given)