Maddow: Proof Ron Paul Was Robbed In Maine.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

Thanks for the links. I tried to follow your thinking, but the numbers are not cut and dry, yet.

One thing looks pretty certain though, Romney did not win, possibly Santorum, or RP, but not Romney, so I'd suspect all numbers are skewed. Investigation should be mandatory on this.

Do we even live in America anymore?

I feel sick witnessing such obvious manipulations.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by MegaMind

 

I am saying that by not counting those counties no one can trust any count of any of the counties.

Why trust people who have already shown themselves to not be trustworthy?

That is pretty damn logical!

It is not "logical" at all. Logic implies certainty...not assumptions and guessing.

A implying B does not mean that A implies C....this is basic logic. You are finding a link to one thing...and trying to say that proves it for another.

I'd rather stick with facts instead of living with assumptions.

Can I be your accountant? I'm asking only if your rich of course

How disgusting that in 2012 the US cannot run a straight forward election...
It's like a banana republic, votes bought, votes ignored..It would appear that certain figures within the Republican Party have already chosen their boy for 2012....And sadly for America, its NOT Ron Paul.

reply to post by SunnyDee

One thing looks pretty certain though, Romney did not win, possibly Santorum, or RP, but not Romney, so I'd suspect all numbers are skewed. Investigation should be mandatory on this.

May I ask for your source and your analysis that brought you to this conclusion?

Right now how it stands, Romney is winning by 194 votes in Maine. Waldo county missing precincts brings that down to him winning by 188 votes. Where are you seeing that Ron Paul will gain 188 votes?

Santorum is out of the discussion in Maine...he would need 1200+ net gain to win in Maine...so he has no chance of winning Maine no matter how many times they recount.

So it seems like you are saying that it looks pretty certain that Ron Paul will win if you are saying Romney definately isn't.

So I'm just curious to see what data you are using to come to this conclusion.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


We will just have to wait and see. There were several uncounted counties (not precincts in Maine) and several counties that haven't voted yet. All we can do is wait and see. Why spend so much time trying to discourage RP supporters? Also RP supporters should just wait and see.

The only reason to have some hope is the fact that there was definitely some shady business going on and that usually only happens to manipulate a vote. If Romney was definitely going to win then this probably wouldn't be a problem. So we can assume that it will at the very least be very close and very possibly RP won.

Romney's own people expected him to place second or third (it is recorded some where I will try to find the link, but it was before the vote. A Romney spokesperson was talking about how RP has a strong presence and they would be happy with second or third). So it isn't ridiculous to think that with those statements, and with obvious manipulation that RP might win. So why argue, why not wait and see?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by SunnyDee

 

One thing looks pretty certain though, Romney did not win, possibly Santorum, or RP, but not Romney, so I'd suspect all numbers are skewed. Investigation should be mandatory on this.

May I ask for your source and your analysis that brought you to this conclusion?

Right now how it stands, Romney is winning by 194 votes in Maine. Waldo county missing precincts brings that down to him winning by 188 votes. Where are you seeing that Ron Paul will gain 188 votes?

Santorum is out of the discussion in Maine...he would need 1200+ net gain to win in Maine...so he has no chance of winning Maine no matter how many times they recount.

So it seems like you are saying that it looks pretty certain that Ron Paul will win if you are saying Romney definately isn't.

So I'm just curious to see what data you are using to come to this conclusion.

My bad, I didn't take the time to read thoroughly. I actually took your numbers and links from another thread www.abovetopsecret.com... which were only the non reported precinct numbers.

Disregard my above post, I owe OS a slight apology for calling him out on links and then spouting my own badly researched info. Dang, I hate being a fool.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


I am simply replying to others claims and information.

If you see no sense in discussing it...you should talk to those creating the threads...not me.


The information and data that everyone has available to them...it still would indicate that Romney will remain the winner. Now I wonder if that proves to be false, if you think it is valid for Romney supporters to be suspicious of the results???

reply to post by SunnyDee


Admitting a mistake does not make you a fool...it makes you an honest and responsible person.

And you are correct, that data is only for the unreported counties..and in fact Romney did lose to both Santorum and Paul in those...but not by a large enough margin to make a difference in the final counts.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


There is no indication of who will be the winner because we don't know how many votes will be added from the several counties voting, we don't know how many votes will be added from counties that voted and were not included, and we don't know how many counties that were included had it incorrect. There would be no reason for a recount if everyone thought every thing was straight. The person creating the thread was just offering this new information. The argument comes about when people like yourself come in and try to agitate the people discussing whether Paul might win by saying that there is no chance when you have absolutely no reason to believe that for certain yourself.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


They are also adding data from counties that haven't even voted yet. All the corrections and additions combined could change the outcome.

Nothing so far indicates that Romney should 100 percent remain the winner.
There are counties to be recounted, counties to be added, and counties still left to vote.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

There is no indication of who will be the winner because we don't know how many votes will be added from the several counties voting, we don't know how many votes will be added from counties that voted and were not included, and we don't know how many counties that were included had it incorrect. There would be no reason for a recount if everyone thought every thing was straight. The person creating the thread was just offering this new information. The argument comes about when people like yourself come in and try to agitate the people discussing whether Paul might win by saying that there is no chance when you have absolutely no reason to believe that for certain yourself.

The name of this thread is "Maddow: Proof Ron Paul Was Robbed In Maine".

1st) Maddow never says Ron Paul was robbed.

2nd) This entire thread is about how Ron Paul really won...so shouldn't you be talking to those people instead of me? I'm not claiming there is a different winner...I'm simply providing evidence that with the data we have available...it is still unlikely that Ron Paul would win.


If you want to tell someone not to jump to conclusions...look at your fellow Ron Paul supporters who create threads claiming "Proof" that Ron Paul was robbed of the election.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Well.. you can't prove that he didn't win and I didn't see the OP saying he made and titled the video.

I know you don't like him, but there is evidence to support that the GOP is doing what they can to work against him. It is very possible, and maybe even likely that Maine was taken from Paul to avoid him getting his first win.

Of course it was fixed.

Yet, I'm sure the same Paulers in here bitching will be the same ones going to the ballot box and casting a vote for Newt, Mitt, or whatever other lap dog that the GOP parades in front of them

reply to post by illuminatislave


I really doubt that. If Paul isn't the nominee (which I know is unlikely with this stuff going on) and he doesn't run third party I will vote for Obama before I vote for Romney.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Well.. you can't prove that he didn't win and I didn't see the OP saying he made and titled the video.

I know you don't like him, but there is evidence to support that the GOP is doing what they can to work against him. It is very possible, and maybe even likely that Maine was taken from Paul to avoid him getting his first win.

edit on 17-2-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

I have never attempted to prove that Ron Paul didn't win...just that with the data we have available to us it is still very unlikely that he will win even with the unreported Waldo precints and Washington County.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


and Hancock county and others that vote the 18th.

The GOP caucus season officially began on Jan. 29. Franklin County Republicans met Feb. 4, most of the state’s caucuses were held last Saturday — the 11th — while Republicans in Washington County and in 14 towns in Hancock County are scheduled to caucus this Saturday. Towns have until March 3 to caucus. But, before all of the straw votes had even been cast, Webster announced to the world that Mitt Romney won “the” Maine caucus. We might understand if the count as of Feb. 11 resembled a landslide, but that’s not the case. Romney was declared the winner over Ron Paul by only 194 votes, with potentially hundreds more to be counted through March 3. There’s more. The votes cast by Feb. 11 in Waterville were not counted, and according to an email sent to Kennebec County GOP members, as much as 15 percent of the votes cast for Ron Paul in towns throughout that county were not counted. In the world of elections, 15 percent is a big, big number.

source

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Most of Hancock county has already voted

www.mainegop.com...

There are a few precincts it appears that will vote tomorrow...but again...it just doesn't add up to enough votes for Ron Paul to overcome his current gap.

Even if 500 more votes take place (which is way high judging from 2008 totals)...he would still need around 40% of the vote to win.

I'm just being realistic. I have never said it is impossible...just very very unlikely.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


14 towns left to vote in Hancock. I really don't know, we will just have to wait and see. If they are honest about the recount I think it is likely Paul will win, otherwise manipulation wouldn't have been as rampant in the first place. They are saying it's possible that 15 percent of his votes weren't counted. Not 15 percent of all votes, but 15 percent of RP votes. If you add that up, it could easily have him come out on top.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

14 towns left to vote in Hancock. I really don't know, we will just have to wait and see. If they are honest about the recount I think it is likely Paul will win, otherwise manipulation wouldn't have been as rampant in the first place. They are saying it's possible that 15 percent of his votes weren't counted. Not 15 percent of all votes, but 15 percent of RP votes. If you add that up, it could easily have him come out on top.

Who is saying 15 percent of RP votes weren't counted and where are they getting that data from?

Care to share the source for that information?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by MegaMind

 

I am saying that by not counting those counties no one can trust any count of any of the counties.

Why trust people who have already shown themselves to not be trustworthy?

That is pretty damn logical!

It is not "logical" at all. Logic implies certainty...not assumptions and guessing.

A implying B does not mean that A implies C....this is basic logic. You are finding a link to one thing...and trying to say that proves it for another.

I'd rather stick with facts instead of living with assumptions.

So if I constantly borrowed your money and you kept giving it to me - and I never payed you back, wouldn't the logical thing be to stop lending me money?