UNDENIABLE Mathematical Proof the South Carolina Primary was RIGGED!

Originally posted by Vandettas

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Newt and Santorum consistently swap votes back and forth with little effect on Romney and Paul.

Confused

What do you mean by swapping votes?

Also, is it suppose to have an effect on the other people in the polls?

Asking because I'm "new" to this whole voting/electing thing.

You can look at polls or election results.

In general...if Santorum goes up, Newt goes down. If Newt goes up, Santorum goes down. It has little effect on the performance of Ron Paul and Romney.

The graph on this page illustrates it perfectly.
www.realclearpolitics.com...

reply to post by Xcalibur254


Since you didn´t seem to understand me the first time, let me be absolutely clear.

Two completely different things. My conclusion is based on looking at the data. The data shows that Romney does well in area with a higher population and that Paul does better in areas with lower population.

This is where you need to stop and ask yourself "Why?". You fail to do this, instead assuming the numbers are proof of themselves in some arbitrary manner.

In order to do this, you need to ALSO ASSUME, that the numbers are NOT fraudulent.

Which is your entire premise, thereby voiding the rest of your argument in one fell swoop.

reply to post by NeoVain


So your assumption is that all numbers and statistics are fraudulant....of course unless they show Ron Paul doing well.


Simple question...what percentage of the voting population do you personally believe supports Ron Paul???

reply to post by NeoVain


Newt won the debates in South Carolina.

He blasted CNN, ABC & Obama!

Watch out for Newt.

reply to post by NeoVain


I'm simply using all available data. That data shows Romney doing well in urban areas and Paul doing well in rural areas. No alternative data has been presented so no conclusions can be made regarding it. With the data provided the simplest conclusion is that one candidate does well with one demographic and another does well with another demographic. As a result no accurate predictions can be made using only data from a single demographic as is present in the OP.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by NeoVain


He is using comparisons within demographics.

The OP document is comparing one demographic and applying that to another demographic.

That is where the OP document is just flat out wrong.

Romney does well in urban areas...so you can count on him doing good in urban areas everywhere...the data backs this up.

The OP document claims that Ron Paul does well in rural areas...therefore he MUST do just as well in the entire county.

I honestly don't understand how you are not seeing the obvious flaws...everyone else seems to...even other Ron Paul supporters.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by NeoVain

 

He is using comparisons within demographics.

Exactly like the OP doc.

The OP document is comparing one demographic and applying that to another demographic.

That is where the OP document is just flat out wrong.

Nope.

Romney does well in urban areas...so you can count on him doing good in urban areas everywhere...the data backs this up.

Why does he do well in urban areas? Because the numbers say so. How do we back this up? With the numbers.
Circular logic.

The OP document claims that Ron Paul does well in rural areas...therefore he MUST do just as well in the entire county.

False assumption by you, showing you misundertand the entire doc...

I honestly don't understand how you are not seeing the obvious flaws...everyone else seems to...even other Ron Paul supporters.

Yes, the earth is flat. We get it.

Originally posted by NeoVain

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by NeoVain

 

He is using comparisons within demographics.

Exactly like the OP doc.

The OP document is comparing one demographic and applying that to another demographic.

That is where the OP document is just flat out wrong.

Nope.

Romney does well in urban areas...so you can count on him doing good in urban areas everywhere...the data backs this up.

Why does he do well in urban areas? Because the numbers say so. How do we back this up? With the numbers.
Circular logic.

The OP document claims that Ron Paul does well in rural areas...therefore he MUST do just as well in the entire county.

False assumption by you, showing you misundertand the entire doc...

I honestly don't understand how you are not seeing the obvious flaws...everyone else seems to...even other Ron Paul supporters.

Yes, the earth is flat. We get it.



My brain is crying because it is obvious that the graphical data and those supporting it have not learned anything from what Outkast and others are saying. It is a shame that the educational system in this country fails so many people, that logic is screaming at you and you can't think outside of the narrow view of the world that too many people have in this country and will end up being the downfall.

People who open their minds to others views will always succeed.

reply to post by NeoVain


Please tell me what demographic the OP document is comparing?

Why does he do well in urban areas? Because the numbers say so. How do we back this up? With the numbers.
Circular logic.

No, the numbers tell us he does well in urban areas...the question of "why" isn't reliant on that he does in fact do better.

Are you claiming that Romney doesn't do better in urban areas???

And you never answered my previous question...what percentage of the voting population do you think supports Ron Paul??? I'm not asking for a facts here...just your opinion.

Elections are for sheeple who think one individual can change a country which is controlled by darker intentions..

Who cares about presidential elections; elect yourselves too evolve and become more then individuals..

~ Love is an art

Originally posted by Cynicaleye

Originally posted by Q:1984A:1776

Originally posted by Cynicaleye
More made up facts and numbers. All the graphs have clear errors which I don't even have to point out.

More unfounded accusations by a shill who will likely be banned here shortly for disinformation and outright lies.

Accused of dis-information purely because I don't agree with Ron Paul. Amazing.

No, it's typically because of the Nasty manor in which you present yourself.
People generally do not like ego's with rude behavor whether they are correct or not.

This is not surprising. And just imagine, the presidential election will be rigged just the same.

Yet, continue on giving your vote of confidence to this fraudulent electoral system and keep on believing in this rogue, criminal government, that serves the wishes of the privileged few, currently holding the people of this country hostage. Nothing will change

Good I say. Some of you Paulers needed a good wake up call because you guys still believe in this bull # process and in this bogus two party system.

Change will not come at the ballot box. Whoever told you that is a lying pig. When blood is spilled, and the scum elite that run this country are dragged through the street chained to the back of pick up trucks. that is when you will see true change.

reply to post by NeoVain


I noticed this as well in Iowa and in Nevada. It seemed to me percentages of Romney versus Paul support were consistent between the two no matter who won the precinct or county. However, where Paul lost against Romney the same percentage held true. Where Paul won against Romney he won by the same percentage difference. It does appear that votes were simply flipped where convenient for Romney to take the state.

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by NeoVain

 

I noticed this as well in Iowa and in Nevada. It seemed to me percentages of Romney versus Paul support were consistent between the two no matter who won the precinct or county. However, where Paul lost against Romney the same percentage held true. Where Paul won against Romney he won by the same percentage difference. It does appear that votes were simply flipped where convenient for Romney to take the state.

If you have any proof at all of your claim, I would like to see it.

Show us the numbers you are specifically talking about.

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
Slightly off topic but not much...


since I don't follow elections by default not even in my country, let alone some other...can someone tell me...what is Ron Paul's sin?

what are the strongest arguments against him being the president ? I would like to hear that from someone who doesn't support him.

Thanks

Try this video

Or how about this link

Also

He would like to Repeal Roe v. Wade
www.youtube.com...


Also that he thinks that all of our Health Care problems will be solved by Free Market capitalism and 'Charity Hospitals' (That line of thought is basically what's brought us to where we are now anyway!! LOL) Source
www.ronpaul.com...

Even from a strictly financial view, switching to a "socialized" healthcare system would save an enormous amount of money...The US spends far more of it's GDP on health care than any other Westernized nation even though most of the others have a much more 'socialized' health care system... Source
Not only that...but these 'socialized' healthcare systems are simply better at keeping people healthy! The OECD
ranked the US's health care quality
at 37.....while France and Italy are in the number 1 and 2 position respectively...
-[World Health
Organization 2003]
Or in this chart where Canada ranks in the top ten (rated as grade level of B while America ranks at level of 16 (Grade Level D)

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I posted that as an unscientific observation. I am not going to investigate this observation further then the observation. It does not make my conclusions true or false, but may provide someone who has the skills and time motivation to do so.