The Doc calls B***S***!
| Results for Iowa Republican Caucus (U.S. Presidential Primary) |
| Jan 03, 2012 (99% of precincts reporting) |
| Rick Santorum | 29,968 | 24.5% |  |
| Mitt Romney | 29,964 | 24.5% | |
| Ron Paul | 26,186 | 21.4% | |
| Newt Gingrich | 16,241 | 13.3% | |
| Rick Perry | 12,592 | 10.3% | |
22 comments:
The funny thing is, most "news" talking heads I've seen note Iowa Republican Party hacks are against any recount. Wouldn't it be funny if in a vote fraud effort against Ron Paul the vote actually was screwed up, creating a strange artifact of a statistical tie between Santorum and Romney? Whoops.
No. Fraud never happens.
Go back to sleep, America.
I emailed Bret Baier at Fox News at about 1 AM during this crap.
Subject: The system is rigged
Votes were simply taken from Paul, and gave to a single digit Santorum.
The problem now is they are trying to decide on who THEY want to win between Romney & Santorum..
Remember what you guys say over and over per your elite handlers, Mr. Paul is unelectable.
He is electable in a free republic system.
The nation knows what is going on.
"The Doc calls B***S***!" Why?
You may not like the result but the great American public have made their choice. Proving once again that the majority of Americans have very little going on in the brain department.
If the vote was rigged. Let's have the proof.
I watched Ron Paul's address and thought it was too far above the mentality of the average American.
Ron Paul is the best President America will never have.
George, manipulation and perception management leading up to the Iowa vote has been massive, documented and clearly visible. For example, stats on air time and print coverage, time provisioned to each candidate during debates and many other raw data signatures of the general desire of the establishment against Ron Paul exists. Period. ...and notice that I'm not even touching the subjective dimension of heavy anti-Paul slant when he has indeed been covered.
It will remain to be seen if significant fraud is unearthed regarding the actual voting and counting. But when I see the level of crap served-up leading up to this election so-far, I'm more inclined to be skeptical and willing to research the claims of fraud that are starting to surface.
As for this election "proving once again that the majority of Americans have very little going on in the brain department," I think you're making a sweeping generalization. There are indeed a great many - likely, even the majority - of Americans that are generally clueless. But system-wide change has NEVER been brought about by the masses. Revolutions have come when as little as 5% of populations become activated in the context of dissatisfaction and disenfranchisement of the masses.
It's unclear what form of political change America has coming in the next five years. But odds are high that some serious shit is going to hit the fan because the elite have grown to abusive and criminal, and the masses are hurting -- with nothing on the horizon suggesting things are going to get better.
Dear Flying Wombat just in case you think that I am singling out Americans as being thick I, as an Englishman, also think the English are just as thick when it come to politics.
Unfortunately facts are facts and we might not like it when things go against us but we have to live with reality. This is why people should never pin their hopes on some Knight in shining armour to make things better.
Ron Paul says the right things but he is still a politician and in a World where "image" beats substance he doesn't stand a chance.
Even when the SHTF the World may just be a better place for a while and then the same corrupt practices will eventually happen again. History teaches this fact.
Gold and Silver have a bright future but the process goes in cycles and in the end it will return to a corrupt system.
The "greedy and corrupt" are much more determined in their endeavours than the "good and fair" so they will always take over again in the end.
Best to live life without hoping that a "politician" will ever solve anything.
Be self reliant.
FRAUD.. that's all I can say. Elite controls the counting of the votes and that's all that matters just like Stalin's favorite quote. Did you really expect the Elite to play by the rules? ha! They are dirt and will play dirty - count on it! Chances are that they will NOT let Ron Paul win (even if he does in reality) which will lead to perhaps a violent uprising against the Ruling Elite who wants to use it as an excuse to use force to keep order and expand their powers even more. The whole game is rigged and predictable to a degree of certainty. Not difficult to figure out, really. Elite wants war and it seems they just might get their wish if they push the right buttons. Puppet masters they are.
Something definitively is not right, he had more votes then that when I went to bed.
BI is saying delegates can switch after the straw vote. This sound absolutely crazy to me. It seems that manipulation is built into every turn of our election process
When the choice between serial liars and an honest and genuinely compassionate man like Ron Paul is so obvious it does seem impossible to have a result like this.
Can RP go independent?
One concept I've been toying with is the establishment of an organization with a corresponding website that provides a forum for political candidates willing to submit to a battery of tests for intelligence, emotional make-up and general knowledge of a wide range of subjects, and then sponsor them as primary candidates; or it might even work like a reality show, in which potential candidates are both conventionally tested AND publicly pitted against one another in a complex, computerized game of global strategy --say, something like 'Civilization,'but with greater depth of field. Then everyone could watch to see how each candidate would deal with all of the issues and potential tribulations to best advantage and its effect on the general population. No need then to sponsor anyone overtly, since successful candidates would effectively be choosing themselves.
I offer this as a potential strategy and device to introduce and establish a Third Party into the present system in this era of rising chaos.
All this would no doubt serve to spontaneously weed out the clownish array of candidates that we have been increasingly subjected to in recent decades, simply on the basis of their common stupidity. For most of these guys, no other criteria would be needed to identify them as the ethically challenged morons they are than the basic results of a Standford-Benet. They'd weed themselves out.
I advocate this as a far more objective system of candidacy than the current political philosophy allows. The present regime, though initially established with the best of intentions, largely selects candidates on the basis of wealth, character weakness, potential for corruptibility and downright ignorance, thus also those who, virtually by definition, can be most easily influenced and controlled by monied interests.
We really, really need something much more effective than the easily co-opted "Occupy" movement.
Ron Paul needs to go independent. Screw the dems and repubs.
I have to agree that we are being lied to. As I watched the TV this morning, they gave Gingrich more time than Paul.
I can see the bias, it has been proven by statistical analysis, yet my wife cannot see it. If after everything I show her she cannot see it, then either she is under their spell or I am a fool.
Ordinary Joe
The results were tallied perfectly. These idiots hired a democrat to do the counting. The results speak for themselves.
As for testing candidates, I suuggest the Glen-Livet test. Feed these silly pukes enough scotch until they start telling the truth. Then see what happens. If nothing else it would make the debates much nor entertaining and informative. I'd love to see Bachman let here hair down, literally.
As far as telling the truth, the best BS'er gets the most votes. This is always the way it happens. Ron Paul tells the truth and he still got over 26,000 votes. That is encouraging because it tells me American is getting ready to hear the truth.
George Silver--good to hear from you again. Did you upgrade your choice of weapons from Shilleleigh to Shitgun yet? Or is the Queen still pissed at the proles having gunpower?
Oops
Shotgun, not the other thing. 5.30 AM typing skills not so good.
Maybe Ron Paul cold use the other one. Next time one of these BS artists opens his trap, Bam, a load of buck shit right in the pie hole
Or moose shit, or what even is convenient
If you've ever seen "Hacking Democracy" you know that a rigged vote is not an impossibility in today's digital age. To deny all the events leading up to last night's caucuses (i.e. moving the vote count to a "secret" location, the smears against RP, the propaganda attempting to discredit the IA caucus with a RP victory, etc) is simply burying your head in the sand. There is NO humanly way possible that Sac-scrotum comes into the caucuses polling in single digits, then TAKE Iowa??! This is SO blatantly obvious a 3-year-old could figure it out. They did the same thing to Pat Buchanan back in 96. Our election process is a f'ing joke.
AGXIIK As far as the Royal Family, Government and your "Black & White" minstrel President go, I would think Shit Gun would just about do it.
I am now about to meet another Englishman in France who is an expert on all types of firearms and reloads his own cartridges. So in about 6 months I will probably be armed to the teeth if I haven't shot myself by then.
In England you are not allowed to even look at a gun. They say it's for the safety of the population. Actually it's for the safety of the government. In Switzerland it is compulsory for ever man to have a gun and they don't go around shooting each other.
Texas and Switzerland seem to have the right idea.
I disagree with you. I don't think there was fraud. For fraud to be believable, it needs to be plausible. And this scenario is anything but believable.
You know, the actual number of voters didn't add up to what they were expecting in terms of turn out. The votes come to 120k, they were expecting 130k. I think it was their Governor that said that. Wouldn't it be easy to get rid of 4000 votes for Paul? hmm.
http://graphics.latimes.com/2012-election-gop-results-map-iowa/
Vote rigging is the oldest political trick that is still carried out world-wide. Is it any wonder that the controlled media will magically make the losers winners? And surely Romney and Santorum are both establishment-backed puppet losers.
SILLY, stupid, ronreagan corpse cocksuckers....
ALL republicans are stupid.
-The ones in Iowa that consistently vote for a dumb ass theocrat....
-The ones all over that think mother fuckin corporate whore romney, egomaniac newt, or the guy even more stupid than the last stupid texan would be a good candidate/prez
-AND the ones that scream fraud when the hopium wears off.
THATS right, you fools that called obama supporters hopium smokers, but are now paul supporters don't smoke hopium you mainline it into your arm w/ a fat needle!
News flash: Paul ain't going to win. And, IF he does win he won't be able to accomplish ANY of his promises.
QUIT FREEBASING HOPIUM...also...QUIT UR BITCHIN AND JUST START THE MOTHER FUCKING REVOLUTION ALREADY!
If they refuse a recount i'd say it's clearly an obvious Fraud... We ALL KNOW Ron Paul was clearly winning that one.. Scumbags.. they'll rig the presidential vote to and if they do we should demolish them..
Good for you George. Make sure it's a good sized caliber 30-30, 30-06 308 Maybe an Enfield type or Mauser.
Votes were counted in the open with representatives of all campaigns present. CNN projects that Paul will get 7 delegates from Iowa - the same amount as Romney and Santorum. IOW, a 3 way tie for first in terms of delegates.
Post a Comment