Iowa Caucus Stolen? Exit Polls Show Ron Paul at 29%. Winning All by a Fair Margin...

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Thump on the head to you for dismissing your wise elders so. Would you care to explain how so many college kids got suckered into voting for the ever-so-cool trendy Obama?????

Don't you remember what the alternative was?



Also, Obama promised change. Who would have guessed that a man from minority would lie too?

reply to post by conar


Donahue is good but the senior voting base gets sold MSM propaganda and its very obvious as survey's have proven with Ron leading the youth vote and his support goes down as the age brackets rise.

Ron has the 18-45 range

Loses the 50+ range

I can't say I blame them though, new technology is bizarre to them and they're being bombarded with crap news all day long.

Things like,

Ron Paul is going to end your social security.

Ron Paul wants Iran to nuke us

Ron Paul is unelectable and crazy

I personally know people that used to think like this because of the MSM and came around after finding out about alternative media.

reply to post by conar


Who would have guessed that a Marxist would lie? In the end what difference does it make if the older generation voted for a RINO like McCain or the younger generation voted for a Marxist Fabian Socialist veering into being a true dictator? And why did they vote for the Marxist for Change? Because they didn't know that all that hopey/changey stuff was just a buzz word Marxists use in their revolutionary rhetoric. At least the Tea Partiers I saw at rallies knew a lot more about the Obamarxism.

Again, consider the source of the original claim in the OP. Source promotes itself as "Independent Polling and Tracking Agency", then plasters the front page with pro-Ron Paul news items.

It couldn't be more clear that this is not an "independent" source, but is in fact an organization created for the specific purpose of alleging election fraud on behalf of Ron Paul's campaign.

None of this means there was no election fraud, but it does mean more reliable sources are needed.

Sources like this.

Originally posted by eLPresidente
reply to post by conar

 

Donahue is good but the senior voting base gets sold MSM propaganda and its very obvious as survey's have proven with Ron leading the youth vote and his support goes down as the age brackets rise.

Ron has the 18-45 range

Loses the 50+ range

I can't say I blame them though, new technology is bizarre to them and they're being bombarded with crap news all day long.

Things like,

Ron Paul is going to end your social security.

Ron Paul wants Iran to nuke us

Ron Paul is unelectable and crazy

I personally know people that used to think like this because of the MSM and came around after finding out about alternative media.

edit on 6-1-2012 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)

Another thump on the head to those who stereotype all over 50 as being hopelessly technology challenged. Man, who ever said people here are denying ignorance? Or was it really Ignorance is bliss?

I do hear you about the whole "unelectable and crazy" thing, but there are responsible people who view Paul's ideas as pacifism and it is not because the MSM said so. People like you stereotype as though no one has a thought in their head (except for the ever so smart Ron Paul people), and that may be true for some, but younger people though often forward-thinking are nevertheless not experienced either.

To suggest that anyone over 50 cannot think for themselves is to underestimate the experience of people who have lived half a century and also who knew that their parents experienced both the Great Depression and WWII. Younger people know the dot.com era and the Lady Gaga era. So please don't insult the elders with such glib remarks.

Oh yes, while we are on the subject of technology, was it the older or younger generation who devised the Internet? Who developed it for DARPA?
Oh yes, and Steve Jobs was how old when he passed? 56

I've seen a number of posts here dismissing the older generation as out of touch and well it sounds to me like you signed on to the depopulation agenda of getting rid of the useless eaters.
Soylent Green anybody?

Or maybe just the hubris of people who are still strong in body and think they will be that way forever.

There was a county of 53 total voters where they screwed up and gave Romney an extra 20 votes. That's a 37.7% error or strategic stroke of a pen, or push of a button. I do not find it hard to believe that the exit polls are the truer representation of Iowa.

Could Typo Rewrite Caucus History?

Originally posted by primus2012
There was a county of 53 total voters where they screwed up and gave Romney an extra 20 votes. That's a 37.7% error or strategic stroke of a pen, or push of a button. I do not find it hard to believe that the exit polls are the truer representation of Iowa.

Could Typo Rewrite Caucus History?

edit on 6-1-2012 by primus2012 because: (no reason given)

Is an error the same as it being rigged? I think not.
I was a bit miffed when I saw the numbers changing for Ron Paul but part of me thinks it's because the Pauler's got in and voted right away.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


This was just one tiny county where all local officials supposedly confirm a tally of 2 for Romney, yet when the state results were posted it became 22. Just seems a bit too convenient of an error. And if it happened once, why should we believe it didn't happen again elsewhere?
We'll never know, because I don't believe a legitimate recount is possible in a secret ballot caucus.

Rigging can be disguised as errors; or at least professed as errors when the results are questioned.

Originally posted by SurrealisticPillow
reply to post by TupacShakur

 

Exit polls?
After the caucus voters vote, someone is asking them who they voted for. Typically, they are very, very accurate. Paul cleaned up, but the "official" count was much different.
Sort of like how Harry Reid won his Senate seat when he was down by 5 points or so. Fraud.

Typically you don't know if it's accurate or not because they don't put their name next to their vote. When it's accurate it tends to get published more often than when it is not. Please show where you have data to say otherwise. You know, I have been asked when leaving a polling station who I voted for and my answer was that it was nobodys business but my own. I'm sure the same thing may have happened/will happen in many of these votes this year - how is that represented?

It truly amazes me how people (particularly Americans) still think the voting system is not totally rigged and set up as theater. The forces powers or people running this thing need things to happen a certain way and things certainly DO go their way. You are just being sold what they intend to do , remember the "top tier"?

I suggest everyone read a article written by Jonathan Vankin.

www.notablesoftware.com...

There is no hope in the ballot-faux our systems have been co-opted at every control level that matters. It is on all of us to try different ways of doing things that are contrary to this horrible status quo that will surely drag us all to our collective doom.

Has this been posted on ATS yet?

One of the official counters counted 2 Romney votes, but in the official result the number was magically turned into 22

reply to post by exile1981


are you trying to say ron paul supporters were quick to judge, an that santorum supporters took their time to make an informed decision? that is how it seems worded to come across.

personally i believe a ron paul supporter could have made their mind up 10 years ago, and they would still have 20 years of documented experience and voting record to go by. i dont believe santorum has 20 now?

Originally posted by primus2012
There was a county of 53 total voters where they screwed up and gave Romney an extra 20 votes. That's a 37.7% error or strategic stroke of a pen, or push of a button. I do not find it hard to believe that the exit polls are the truer representation of Iowa.

Could Typo Rewrite Caucus History?

edit on 6-1-2012 by primus2012 because: (no reason given)

As long as the "exit poll" presented in the OP isn't presented as an actual exit poll but rather as exactly what it is: neatly dressed up Ron Paul soapboxing, then okay.

Cite some scientific exit polls, not some (possibly well-meaning) dudes without scientific training calling some people and tabulating. (And personally, I find Ron Paul the sanest of the set)

Also got to consider the importance of the religious element -

Santorum won 37 percent of the vote of those who consider themselves born-again or evangelical, besting Ron Paul (18 percent)

www.bpnews.net...

The Youth Voted for Obama look were that got us.

Originally posted by Amaterasu


Dear... Exit polls have a margin of error historically of about 3%. All of a sudden We see 10%, 15%... Don't You think that's a teeny bit anomalous?

True it is odd, but not when you consider that all of a sudden you have a select group who is voting multiple times. Most people would never do that, so when you have a sudden change in that it's not unlikely that you will have a massive skew in the poll results.

www.dailypaul.com...

Here (above link) is a discuss on the daily Paul (his official website) that discusses how to use proxies and clear cookies so you can vote multiple times.

I support most of RP's message and I supported him in 2008. Unfortunately his cult like followers really put me off. I would rather have a known corrupt Obama (who I despise - I'm a constitutionalists) than a person who's cult of personality makes me very concerned.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


My post on page three had the raw numbers and details of how the exit poll was done. It was a form people filled out and could submit multiple forms because it was honor system that you wouldn't.

Originally posted by letscit
reply to post by exile1981

 

are you trying to say ron paul supporters were quick to judge, an that santorum supporters took their time to make an informed decision? that is how it seems worded to come across.

personally i believe a ron paul supporter could have made their mind up 10 years ago, and they would still have 20 years of documented experience and voting record to go by. i dont believe santorum has 20 now?

Sorry if it came across that way. What I meant was that most of the people who filled out the exit poll form who said they voted for RP say they made up there minds months ago, while most of the people who voted for sant. made up there mind on the day of the caucus. It wasn't meant to be a judgement other than a comment that it explain how S. did much better in the actual caucus then on line polls suggested he would. It also showed that RP pretty much gained no new supporters in the 3 months prior to the caucus.

Originally posted by exile1981

Originally posted by Amaterasu


Dear... Exit polls have a margin of error historically of about 3%. All of a sudden We see 10%, 15%... Don't You think that's a teeny bit anomalous?

True it is odd, but not when you consider that all of a sudden you have a select group who is voting multiple times. Most people would never do that, so when you have a sudden change in that it's not unlikely that you will have a massive skew in the poll results.

That may be true of the Iowa poll - but both entrance polls (MSNBC) and the exit polls had Paul winning... And it is NOT true in Ohio in the election of Bushie-baby with the voting machines with proprietary software. (Proprietary software should be creating a MAJOR outrage! We should be able to see any voting software. And it should be simple.)

I support most of RP's message and I supported him in 2008. Unfortunately his cult like followers really put me off. I would rather have a known corrupt Obama (who I despise - I'm a constitutionalists) than a person who's cult of personality makes me very concerned.

I have news for You... Many RP supporters are NOT "cult." Most of Us, I suspect. It's a poor reason to fail to support a candidate because some (relatively) few make a cult out of Hume (Hume is a genderless pronoun for Human). Paul can't control that.

Originally posted by Amaterasu

I have news for You... Many RP supporters are NOT "cult." Most of Us, I suspect. It's a poor reason to fail to support a candidate because some (relatively) few make a cult out of Hume (Hume is a genderless pronoun for Human). Paul can't control that.

In addition, humans are naturally disposed to replace the authority of the parental figure with that of a strong political figure. As Lipman-Blumen points out, “The yearning to fill the vacuum left by a parental authority figure commonly prompts adults to accept controlling leaders. Our childhood experiences with authoritarian, even punitive parents, who also loved and protected us, may condition us, as adults, to accept difficult, hostile authority figures.”12 In fact, a leader who presents a strong agenda act essentially as parental replacements, and often induce adults to accept radical or different ideas that are common to the personality cult. This concept was echoed in Sigmund Freud psychology work, which is here sumarized: "Freud explained the loss of individuality in mobs as due to aim inhibited libido and the Oedipus complex. Group members identified with the leader as a father figure, who replaced their ego ideal, and they identified with one another. This he felt was a phylogenetic inheritance from the primal horde."

There is no difference between the cult like following of obama, Ron paul, George Bush or Hitler. The problem is we as a society are becoming more conditioned to accept these leaders as supermen who use the destruction of our society as a way to tie us to them so that they come to represent the hopes and dreams of the masses.

Ron Paul has done nothing to distance himself from the crazies and has actively encouraged them he is doing every step of the process to create a cult of personality. He has even gone so far as to authorize that money be printed with his image ronpaulcopper.com... and for only a 1.69 for a 10 cent coin you can support ron paul.

While he says all the correct things; there is something about him he is too eager to be a cult hero. As for your comment about RP followers who are crazy being the minority I think you need to re-look at posts on this site. The RP followers where the first to scream about conspiracy that there candidate didn't win the iowa caucus and then they claimed a hack of the system to take thousands of votes from rp. I pointed out in another thread that the issue with the 20 extra votes for romney was a typo and the info first was brought out in a press release from the official caucus website. Unfortunately no one looked at the link instead they all wanted to believe a rp youtube channel about a massive conspiracy, a channel I might add that claimed it was an impartial site designed to ensure no election fraud.

RP may still be the best option for president as the other republican options are almost as bad as obama. Romney is a democrat pretending to be a republican, newt should be in jail not running for president. Cain was a horrible business man. While I despise Romney I would rather see him and his corruption and bad policies rather than a cult like figure in the white house.

One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes a revolution in order to establish a dictatorship. - George Orwel

I suggest that all RP supporters read this site sitemaker.umich.edu... and then look in the mirror and think long and hard at why they are supporting RP and how they are supporting him. Are they doing it because he says the right things or because they want to belong or have they really listened to RP and do they truly believe in all the things he says?

People should look at Gary Johnson as he is the libertarian party candidate and he has actually done the thinks he preaches rather than RP who has talked for 4 decades.