It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


100% voted for obama or mccain but no Ron Paul mention

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 11:56 AM
its strange that Ron Paul was never even consoled by media moguls. I was watching Brian Williams last night as he shows a chart that sums up 100% of votes going to obama or mccain, but I know I wrote in Ron Paul, but again. A vote only counts if our illuminati mason masters say so. Hail satan! just kidding, dont hail that nutbag.

But my question is why are write ins ignored, or did i answer my own question?

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 11:59 AM
First of all "just kidding, don't hail that nutbag" is my quote of the day. I found that hilarious =)

Second of all, last night CNN had Ron Paul up there as having over 12k write-in votes.

I, too, was one of them.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 12:06 PM
Er if you look at the percentages it's Obvious independents got a lot of the votes. There's 2% missing from the total, 52 Obama 46 McCain, in fact if you go to . It's more of an insult to Ralph Nader who was the only independent to get a 1% part of the vote, paul was #7 on the list and wasn't on the Ballot in every state. WHY would they mention him?

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 12:07 PM
I think if the masters of the universe didnt mute him on national tv, and disuade people, im sure those numbers would rival mccain and obama, yet im not buying 12k as a number, its seems really low.

i can only buy it since he was basicly screwed over by liars.

I have no faith in a real America being found. Now its more of a chavez/big oil/big pharm/idiot run society of talking heads and greedy manipulators and those who do nothing to change it.

Authoritarians never know reality. they make there own and if you dont comply they manipulate you, like they did to Ron Paul.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 12:09 PM
Far as I know, he didn't get any electoral votes, but plenty of popular ones. Most places don't post lists of who-all was wrote in. That would be an utter mess! They just post %D, %R, sometimes %L, and then class everyone else as "Write-in"

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 12:11 PM
all we can do now is read the good doctors books and try to be better people ourselves, and not rely on anyone for anything other than ourselves. if EVERYONE had written Ron Paul, i almost bet they would have us all vote again with the stipulation that write ins get shredded.

[edit on 5-11-2008 by drsmooth23]

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 12:16 PM
I wrote in Ron Paul, even though I had a preference to McCain. Ron Paul would have been the best nominee for the Republicans, but they didn't stand a chance after the eight year Republican rule in the whitehouse.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 12:19 PM
Perhaps he was not mentioned strictly for the fact that he was indeed a write in? In my fair state, write in votes are ignored (not counted) and I know the situation is similar in a number of other states.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 12:42 PM
I know A LOT of people who voted Ron Paul at the polls, but as far as I know, the only ones counted went either to McCain or Obama. Kind of stinks. I think they should have been included in the debates as well. As soon as they allow it, I have no doubt ther will be an independant in office.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 12:43 PM
I like your humor! Thanks for the laugh. I, too, voted Ron Paul but am not at all shocked by the lack of attention he has received.

Having said that, I honestly do not feel that Obama has been put into office by "the illuminati" nor do I believe he is an agent of Satan.

Not sure how many noticed last night when Obama gave his speech, but it was obvious (to me anyway) that the man had been WEEPING (not just shedding a couple of tears) prior to his appearance.
That spoke volumes to me about his intentions regardless of what his stances are on the issues. He is a man prone to mistakes like each and everyone of us are. He is a man that had to face more obstacles than all those who served before him and he obviously had the emotions of a man who has faced much and achieved something that he must have been doubting he could achieve deep down inside. He went after his dream despite all the ill wishers along the way and for that, at the least, he has gained my respect.

I wish him all the best. He has my prayers and my attention. No use in crying and throwing a fit, and certainly he has earned the right to be given a chance w/out prior assumptions being made about how he will do in office.

EDITED TO ADD: America honestly does not deserve what Ron Paul stands for. Ron Pauls values are for honest, fair, and kind people who understand what TRUE freedom is..... America, as a nation, does not fit this description and thus, it wasn't the time.

[edit on 5-11-2008 by justamomma]

posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 02:24 AM
Ron Paul is a retard and a conspiracy wack job, nobody takes him seriously because he doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

He'll never be president as long as he associates with known cult terrorists like Alex Jones, another retarded wack job.

posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 02:36 AM
The reason Ron Paul wasn't mentioned is because he dropped out of the race months ago. He was only on the ballot in Montana, as far as I know.

Even as a write in, there is still a procedure and since he took himself out of the race, he did not go thru with the procedures to get himself officially recognized as a write in candidate.

For example, here in Missouri, we had McCain, Obama, Barr, Nader, and Baldwin on the ballot. The only official write in candidate was Cynthia McKinney. No Ron Paul

So they won't recognize votes for Ron Paul just as they won't recognize votes for Mickey Mouse.

I would love to have had Ron Paul as president but voting for him when he was no longer a candidate was just throwing your vote away.

At least in Montana, he was on the ballot. Any other state, it was totally meaningless.

[edit on 11/7/2008 by Blueracer]

posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 02:57 AM

Originally posted by Blueracer
The reason Ron Paul wasn't mentioned is because he dropped out of the race months ago. He was only on the ballot in Montana, as far as I know.

[edit on 11/7/2008 by Blueracer]

He was also on the ballot in Louisiana and got .5% which was higher than Nader, McKinney, and Baldwin.
On the drive to vote I changed my mind from writing him in to voting for Baldwin. I regret it now seeing that without running a campaign he came in 3rd in the states he was actually on the ballot.

Original Poster- Here is the nifty link you want to find, check it out. It goes county by county and actually lists 3rd party results, no-write ins though. Get this, Florida had 11 3rd party candidates. LINKY LINKY

[edit on 7-11-2008 by beaverg]

posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 09:26 AM
I voted for Chuck Baldwin too. Why do you regret your vote now? If nothing else, a vote for Chuck did show a bit of support for Ron Paul since Ron endorsed Chuck.

Thanks for the info on the Louisiana ballot.

[edit on 11/7/2008 by Blueracer]

posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 12:59 PM
reply to post by Blueracer

Because if the GOP is forced to reassemble it would have made a statement if he had the most write in votes and beat out all other third parties in Louisiana and Montana without running any sort of campaign. I guess you could say I don't regret voting for Baldwin but I kind of wish I wrote Paul in.

top topics


log in