freakofthesouth Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Call it conspiracy or whatever you want, there is no denying what happened here. Sutton reported 0 votes last night, and after RP supporters in Sutton came forward as voters, 31 votes simply appeared. Have at it, rip me up, but there is no denying the hard facts here. http://prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/010908_district_admits.htm Sutton township reported Congressman had zero votes, actual number was 31 The head clerk of the New Hampshire town of Sutton has been forced to admit that Ron Paul received 31 votes yet when the final amount was transferred to a summary sheet and sent out to the media, the total was listed as zero. The fiasco throws the entire primary into doubt and could lead to a re-count. As we reported earlier today, an entire family voted for Ron Paul in Sutton, yet when the voting map on the Politico website was posted, the total votes for Ron Paul were zero. Vote fraud expert Bev Harris contacted the head clerk in Sutton, Jennifer Call, who was forced to admit that the 31 votes Ron Paul received were completely omitted from the final report sheet, claiming "human error" was responsible for the mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freakofthesouth Posted January 9, 2008 Author Share Posted January 9, 2008 I guess nobody friggin cares about this here I'm not surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 "Those who cast the votes decide nothing, those who count the votes decide everything." - Joseph Stalin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMK9973 Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 No one cares because it didn't effect the outcome. Sutton had something like 400 votes cast. They were focused on counting the right number of people that got over a hundard and were deciding the election. I'll tell you what -Lets assume HALF of all Paul Votes were not properly counted. Double his vote count. That puts him in 4th place? Or 3rd - Well behind 1st and 2nd. It hardly puts the "Whole proccess" in doubt as you state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUSkinsFan Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 I guess nobody friggin cares about this here You got that right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeySkin Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Call it conspiracy or whatever you want, there is no denying what happened here. Sutton reported 0 votes last night, and after RP supporters in Sutton came forward as voters, 31 votes simply appeared. Have at it, rip me up, but there is no denying the hard facts here. You did catch the part that were omitted from the sheet sent forward to the PRESS. There is no indication that they weren't in the tally counted by the STATE, which of course is the one that really counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 This actually has to do with the Democrats too. http://www.bostonnow.com/blogs/boston911truthorg/2008/01/09/major-allegations-of-vote-fraud-in-new-hampshire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 I think this should be a bigger deal than it is, but we need more information ... You did catch the part that were admitted from the sheet sent forward to the PRESS. There is no indication that they weren't in the tally counted by the STATE, which of course is the one that really counts.If they actually reported incorrect numbers in the official results, then there should be some kind of explanation. If they just left out the bottom three candidates in their report to the press, then it's not big deal.These Diebold vs. non-Diebold stats are pretty interesting. http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php?party=REPUBLICANS But I don't really know why Diebold would favor Romney and not McCain or Huckabee ... it seems more likely that electronic voting is more prevalent in larger, more urban areas, and that is also where Romney and Hillary get most of their support. Correlation but not causation. (that being said, I think electronic voting could be much more secure, and we should definitely require more verification and auditing - the problem is not that I think there's cheating; it's that with the way the system works now, there's no way to know if there's cheating). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Problem with the conspiracy theories regarding the different results of electronic vs hand count ballots is that the hand count and the electronic counts aren't counting the same votes. OK, District X has hand counting, and Fred Flintstone gets X1% of the vote. In district Y, which has touch screens, he gets Y1% of the vote. Does this prove "the touch screens are rigged"? Or does it prove that Fred Flintstone did better in one district than he did in the other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 This actually has to do with the Democrats too.http://www.bostonnow.com/blogs/boston911truthorg/2008/01/09/major-allegations-of-vote-fraud-in-new-hampshire This is just plain BS. The exit polls clearly back up what happened. The diebold machines are used mostly in urban areas (because there are more people). The exit polls clearly show that the urban voters overwhelmingly went to Hillary so places where there were more diebold machines voted for Hillary on a larger percentage so she gets more votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 But I don't really know why Diebold would favor Romney and not McCain or Huckabee ... it seems more likely that electronic voting is more prevalent in larger, more urban areas, and that is also where Romney and Hillary get most of their support. Correlation but not causation. You are right. Samething as the Dems. The machines are more prevelent in urban areas. Romney actually won in the urban areas (beat McCain by 2% or so in most exit polls) so the machines count more votes for Romney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 This is just plain BS. The exit polls clearly back up what happened. The diebold machines are used mostly in urban areas (because there are more people). The exit polls clearly show that the urban voters overwhelmingly went to Hillary so places where there were more diebold machines voted for Hillary on a larger percentage so she gets more votes. Doesn't mean one can't be skeptical. While I agree with the logic of the vote differences, Diebold's are known to have security issues. And I apologize that you must continue hearing from us Paul supporters. We've been said to be fringe candidates, excluded from poll choices, excluded from debates, etc... Now we have proof of more discrimination and you want to act as if it doesn't matter. Close to 10% of that town's votes were changed. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck then... And I'm no conspiracy theorist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Doesn't mean one can't be skeptical. While I agree with the logic of the vote differences, Diebold's are known to have security issues. I didn't say they didn't have secuirty issues, and I didn't say not to be skeptical, but you are posting links that say things like this: "Clinton would not have beat Obama without the aid of Diebold voting machines. In precincts where electronic voting machines were used, Clinton got a 7% swing over Obama, having gained 5% in comparison to hand-counted ballots and Obama losing 2%. " Emphasis mine. I've seen exit polling data today. All of them point to the samething. The diebold machines worked fine. Hillary got more votes from the machines because more of the voters voted for her in the urban settings and that is where the machines were. Not because she had the "aid" of the Diebold machines. That's not being skeptical. That is conspiracy theory level because then you essentially have to believe that multiple and different organizations are in cahoots w/ and are "modifying" their exit poll data to match what the fradualent machines are going to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freakofthesouth Posted January 9, 2008 Author Share Posted January 9, 2008 C'mon people, when votes aren't getting counted, it is bad for our country. Don't make an excuse about how it just went to the press, or that it was just one district- this was indicative of the entire process. They reported 100% of the precincts, and RP had 0 votes, and now, all of the sudden, they had 31. The same thing happened in Greenville- 0 votes for Paul, and now they are saying it's 25 votes. Garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 No one cares because it didn't effect the outcome.Sutton had something like 400 votes cast. They were focused on counting the right number of people that got over a hundard and were deciding the election. I'll tell you what -Lets assume HALF of all Paul Votes were not properly counted. Double his vote count. That puts him in 4th place? Or 3rd - Well behind 1st and 2nd. It hardly puts the "Whole proccess" in doubt as you state. There was a lot of chicanery yesterday. This is one that is easily proven. Here is another article that is interesting. http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2008/01/new-hampshires.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 You got that right You are an idiot. If you don't understand the importance of the integrity of our elections, then please move to Cuba. This is essential to being an American. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 There was a lot of chicanery yesterday. This is one that is easily proven.Here is another article that is interesting. http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2008/01/new-hampshires.html He's questioning the before the voting polls. Not the actual voting process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 This is just plain BS. The exit polls clearly back up what happened. The diebold machines are used mostly in urban areas (because there are more people). The exit polls clearly show that the urban voters overwhelmingly went to Hillary so places where there were more diebold machines voted for Hillary on a larger percentage so she gets more votes. Again, remove your head from your derrier. These are the same machines used in Kenya that that population is revolting over. You can see how dumbed down the American public is with your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 :munchout: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freakofthesouth Posted January 9, 2008 Author Share Posted January 9, 2008 If a government cannot PROVE the honesty and accuracy of the elections by which they claim authority over the people, then the people are neither legally nor morally obligated to obey that government's dictates, fight its wars, nor pay its bills. - M. R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 BTW, Iowa is still only 98% of the precincts reporting.... NH is only 96.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Again, remove your head from your derrier.These are the same machines used in Kenya that that population is revolting over. You can see how dumbed down the American public is with your post. There hasn't been a voting method that hasn't been subjected to some sort of fraud. That doesn't mean everytime an election has been held that fraud (especially to a level to change the out come of the election) has occurred. I have no doubt that the machines can be tampered with. I'm just saying that there isn't any evidence that it was done so in this case. Now, do you want to point out what is dumb about my post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 I have a feeling that Ken wouldn't be feeling this strongly about this injustice if someone rigged the voting against Bush or someone of that ilk...just a hunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 I have a feeling that Ken wouldn't be feeling this strongly about this injustice if someone rigged the voting against Bush or someone of that ilk...just a hunch. Isn't that the point? It is people like him and the people who support him that rig this stuff. BTW, Obama was cheated yesterday as well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.