Media falsely reporting that Rock Sntorum and Mitt Romney actually won candidates on Iowa?

No one actually wins NY candidates from Iowa because they aren't bound to vote with their precinct like the rest of the district. Ap is wrong. Any of these guys could vote for Ron Paul if they wanted to. It's just misinformation to make it seem like Ron Paul lost worse than we thought he did.

abcnews.go.com...

This surprises you. It was a 3-way tie with the colleges still to be counted. The media stated Ron Paul was the favorite among the students. What happened? Exactly what I said. Give it a couple months for the lies to come out. It will. And TPTB will ignore it like in the last election. Everyone learned something last night. Don't let that tactic work again.

Here is what Ben Swann said on his Facebook regarding the Iowa caucus, it's a pretty good and easy to understand explanation:

This is long... But worth reading. Huff post and fox saying that Paul shut out of delegates and and 13 delegates have gone to Romney and 12 to Santorum... But the truth is NO DELEGATES HAVE GONE TO ANYONE... The Iowa system is just ridiculous... Remember I told you that what we saw last night was just a straw poll...that is true. Here is how the delegates are selected..

"The delegate selection process begins, and here’s where Iowa’s system gets complicated. Precinct caucuses will elect delegates to March 10 county conventions, which in turn will elect (from their pools of delegate-attendees) delegates to congressional-district conventions and the June 16 state GOP convention, which will in turn elect Iowa’s delegates to the Republican National Convention.
Most importantly, perhaps, “Votes for county-convention delegates aren’t too competitive on caucus night, and more attention is paid to national-delegate selection at the later convention votes” (my emphasis).

NBC adds that “most people don’t even participate”—only about 17 percent of registered voters in 2008, and that was a year when both parties hold conventions.

This is why what was hyped last night as it is every four years is not quite so important, as Mike Huckabee found out in 2008. Indeed, the vaunted importance of Iowa as the path to the White House does not have deep historical foundations:

The caucus has a mixed history when it comes to choosing the eventual nominee of both the Republican and Democratic parties. Five Democratic winners – Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Al Gore, John Kerry and Barack Obama – along with three Republican winners – Gerald Ford, Bob Dole and George W. Bush – have parlayed their Iowa victories into Democratic and Republican presidential nominations since 1972.

Iowa will eventually elect delegates to the Republican Convention, but only a tiny percentage of the total—28 out of 2,286, which is 1.2%. And even these are “unbound” delegates, which means they can change their allegiance when they get Tampa in August."

So if the media is reporting things like "Romney has 15 delegates locked in, and Santorum has 11", they are most likely lying. At least that's what I picked up fromt that.

I am looking forward to the plethora of Ron Paul failure threads today.

When real Republicans get together to vote, Ron Paul does not do that well.

Too bad it wasn't an online or straw poll, Ron Paul dominates those.

I am noticing a very strange thing here in Holland, on the msm they are only talking about this mitt guy. Nobody else is being mentioned for weeks now.

On topic btw, they are stating Romney won in Iowa in Holland too.

more election fraud in usa.Hell Russia looks like a choir boy compared to usa when it comes to election fraud . 2000,2004,2008 elections all fraud .Now 2012 elections also fraud.

Originally posted by sevensheeps
I am noticing a very strange thing here in Holland, on the msm they are only talking about this mitt guy. Nobody else is being mentioned for weeks now.

On topic btw, they are stating Romney won in Iowa in Holland too.

Indeed I notice the same thing!

One Paul was mentioned last week, and they added the fact that RP was under fire with his Gay and Rasism points.

Without any further explanation of course.

But what would you expect in the experimental NWO garden called The Netherlands?

reply to post by EartOccupant


Wow. I guess the media here in the us is better than that. The newsletters were covered a few weeks ago and now people are actually starting to talk about his foreign policy and I think all this attention on him actually drew real votes where it wouldn't have happened if the media didn't cover him. He has legitimacy. It's a good thing. I'm glad. We should all be glad. We can influence the Republican party now if we wanted to.

Rock Snortum!!! LOL!!!

These guys have no idea how bad they look... EVERYONE can see the fraud as plain as the nose on their faces. My VERY Republican and VERY pro-establishment 74 year old father commented to me today; "Something doesn't sound right about this whole Iowa thing. Nobody likes either Romney nor Santorum but they won?" Also note, my father thinks RP is a kook BUT... he also sees the rapidly growing following the guy is receiving and is puzzled by all of this. He's beginning to admit that maybe there is something to this "Whole rigged election thing."

reply to post by GoldenRuled


I wasn't around for Ron Paul in the 2008 election. I liked him and his ideals and I was slowly becoming a libertarian but I was still an interventionist at that time and I supported Obama. Now I support Ron Paul because of his issues and non intervention both foreign and domestic and his adherence to the constitution. It would be better than what we have now.

Would you mind filling me in on the 2008 election?

reply to post by Carseller4

I am looking forward to the plethora of Ron Paul failure threads today.

I'm struggling to understand how getting 22% when the two top picks got 25% each, is "failure". That's a 3% gap....

Santorum's "success" is (I feel) a one-shot Iowa deal anyhow. He won't fare nearly as well in those to come. It's obvious most have picked Romney as their front-runner. He's got the backing, will likely get the nomination, and then lose to Obama, and we'll have 4 more years of a do-nothing President. Congratulations America! Well, at least if you're a fat cat executive, you've got 4 years of business as usual to look forward to.

Me? I'm going to vote for someone I actually believe can make a difference.

reply to post by Gazrok


I pray that Ron Paul wins somehow,because the TPTB want a thermonuclear war.

Have you googled "santorum" disgusting stuff,

Originally posted by kozmo
Rock Snortum!!! LOL!!!

These guys have no idea how bad they look... EVERYONE can see the fraud as plain as the nose on their faces. My VERY Republican and VERY pro-establishment 74 year old father commented to me today; "Something doesn't sound right about this whole Iowa thing. Nobody likes either Romney nor Santorum but they won?" Also note, my father thinks RP is a kook BUT... he also sees the rapidly growing following the guy is receiving and is puzzled by all of this. He's beginning to admit that maybe there is something to this "Whole rigged election thing."

Well yea, the same republican establishment that allowed Obama to be elected by not vetting him, and running only those with no chance of beating him, the same republicans that gave us McCain and Palin, McCain is endorsing Romney,BTW,

Yea, those republicans?

Originally posted by Carseller4
I am looking forward to the plethora of Ron Paul failure threads today.

When real Republicans get together to vote, Ron Paul does not do that well.

Too bad it wasn't an online or straw poll, Ron Paul dominates those.

So the republicans in Iowa are fake republicans? I forgot "real" republicans want this nation to fail so it's obvious they won't vote for Paul. Just listen to the other candidates more wars, more laws against Americans and even more support for a nation that gets our citizens killed and spies on us. Paul is the only one in the bunch that isn't a border line traitor.

reply to post by buster2010


I absolute believe congress is full of traitors, without a shadow of a doubt, the whole damn lot needs voted out.

I'm not reading a lot into Iowa because, as has been pointed out 1/4 of the voters were not Republican, but Democrats or Independents that are allowed to say they are Republicans for that night's ballot. NPR estimated that 1/2 of the Democrats and Independents voted for Paul, but didn't say where the other 1/2 went.

That means that among Republican voters, Paul got about 9%

The important thing is the perception that there are now three possibles, Romney the liberal, Santorum the conservative, and Paul the who knows what.

oh boy

here we go.

he's alway sbeen unelectable to any reasonable observer, but for some reason people kept over-estimating online polls and thinking ron could get 48% of the general vote and win the potus.

aint happening

could ayn rand get elected ?

nope

but she is real popular on the innerwebs if you got o certain sites

as I stated months ago, his loss will generate a slew of conspiracy threads, and will probably need its own forum