Another case of voter fraud in NH town

[j6p]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=R9_wX6kXgDQ

 

[PatriotOne]

Can you summarize please. I'm on dial up and it take FOREVER to load a video.

 

[TSOL]

The summary is that with 0% Reporting, Ron Paul is listed as having 'X' Number of votes

Later, with 100% Reporting, Paul's number's drop drastically, while Romney's final tally is the exact number that Paul had at ZERO PERCENT REPORTING

 

[RonPaul_SantaMonica]

Town: Pittsfield
At 0% reporting, Paul had 186 votes
at 100% reporting Paul had 70 Votes

Coincidently, Romney had 186 Votes at 100% reporting.

 

[MikeFallopian]

Town: Pittsfield
At 0% reporting, Paul had 186 votes
at 100% reporting Paul had 70 Votes

Coincidently, Romney had 186 Votes at 100% reporting.

Sounds like a typo on the website that got corrected...

 

[nc4rp]

Sounds like a typo on the website that got corrected...

ROFLMAO... "typo" hahahaa "corrected" heh heh... your killin me over here.

 

[Molly1]

ROFLMAO... "typo" hahahaa "corrected" heh heh... your killin me over here.

well somebody had to get those 186 votes and it sure wasn't going to be Ron Paul.

 

[Molly1]

I'm beginning to think they make the whole thing up?

I mean why even bother counting?

If you are going to change it, just make it up.

It's more cost effective that way.

 

[mcanavan69]

Sounds like a typo on the website that got corrected...

Wow, I don't even support Ron Paul for president, but to say that he lost the debate is fucking absurd. If he didn't win, he came very close.

Disclaimer: I agree with a lot of Ron Paul's ideas, but don't think he would make a good president......

Yeah, and you are a plant from the Romney campaign....whatever

 

[Exponent]

I'll entertain the possibility that this is a case of intentional fraud, but what's with people who completely rule out the possibility of unintentional accident. Such things happen all the time; why is it so hard to believe that it could happen with vote counts now and then?

Granted, if remaining open to such possibilities forced you to remain passive, then yeah, it'd be a problem. But luckily, it doesn't. You don't have to be absolutely dead sure that every case is vote fraud to actively try to get to the bottom of it. And if you remain a little more open, then you will be able to proceed with your investigation in a way that encourages others to support you, rather than label you as crazy or paranoid.

 

[PatriotOne]

Was this hand count or diebold count city?

 

[MikeFallopian]

Yeah, and you are a plant from the Romney campaign....whatever

I'm not a plant, just someone who doesn't think Paul would make an effective president (but would like to see some libertarian ideas gain traction and influence in US politics regardless). You should welcome the outsider perspective - a campaign whose candidate polls 3-4% nationally can't afford to keep looking inwards. One of the things I like a lot about Paul is that he's a constant voice of dissent. Dissent and legitimate debate should be valued among his supporters, but on this board it seems people would rather call dissenters trolls and plants.

 

[Cleaner44]

I'll entertain the possibility that this is a case of intentional fraud, but what's with people who completely rule out the possibility of unintentional accident. Such things happen all the time; why is it so hard to believe that it could happen with vote counts now and then?

Granted, if remaining open to such possibilities forced you to remain passive, then yeah, it'd be a problem. But luckily, it doesn't. You don't have to be absolutely dead sure that every case is vote fraud to actively try to get to the bottom of it. And if you remain a little more open, then you will be able to proceed with your investigation in a way that encourages others to support you, rather than label you as crazy or paranoid.

An "unintentional accident" is very difficult if you understand how the votes are counted and reported. The numbers have to be reconciled and should match the total number of votes when completed. There is a proceedure to follow to prevent "unintentional accidents".

 

[Cleaner44]

I'm not a plant, just someone who doesn't think Paul would make an effective president (but would like to see some libertarian ideas gain traction and influence in US politics regardless). You should welcome the outsider perspective - a campaign whose candidate polls 3-4% nationally can't afford to keep looking inwards. One of the things I like a lot about Paul is that he's a constant voice of dissent. Dissent and legitimate debate should be valued among his supporters, but on this board it seems people would rather call dissenters trolls and plants.

I suppose that all depends on what you consider effective and what you want to see happen. If you want to see our country go bankrupt, then I certainly can see why you would not want Ron Paul. If you want a President that is effective at delivering more war and more nany state, then you are correct that Ron Paul would not be very effective at this.

My question to you would be, what do you want your next President to deliver?

 

[Molly1]

An "unintentional accident" is very difficult if you understand how the votes are counted and reported. The numbers have to be reconciled and should match the total number of votes when completed. There is a proceedure to follow to prevent "unintentional accidents".

There were a lot of 'accidents' that night.

I never knew elections could be so exciting.

 

[nbhadja]

I'm not a plant, just someone who doesn't think Paul would make an effective president (but would like to see some libertarian ideas gain traction and influence in US politics regardless). You should welcome the outsider perspective - a campaign whose candidate polls 3-4% nationally can't afford to keep looking inwards. One of the things I like a lot about Paul is that he's a constant voice of dissent. Dissent and legitimate debate should be valued among his supporters, but on this board it seems people would rather call dissenters trolls and plants.

So you like candidates that don't care about the inflation destroying the dollar, waste of billions of dollars overseas, slaughter of innocent women and children in Iraq, and the upcoming 59 trillion dollar debt?

 

[MikeFallopian]

I suppose that all depends on what you consider effective and what you want to see happen. If you want to see our country go bankrupt, then I certainly can see why you would not want Ron Paul. If you want a President that is effective at delivering more war and more nany state, then you are correct that Ron Paul would not be very effective at this.

My question to you would be, what do you want your next President to deliver?

An effective president needs the support of Congress. I don't think Paul would have that support for his current platform.

My ideal candidate would have a cautious foreign policy and do everything possible to avoid new wars, but not instantly pull out of Iraq and definitely not pull out of places like South Korea. I think the UN is flawed but ultimately a force for good, so I wouldn't want to disengage from it (same with NATO).

Economically, I don't mind the fed but would like to see additional oversight and accountability. Spending, especially on earmarks, should be curtailed.

Regarding privacy, I think that wiretap warrants should be harder not easier to get, and any person who engages in illegal wiretapping should be prosecuted. If an agency like the FBI allows its agents to run illegal wiretaps, the head of the agency should be fired and prosecuted.

I also think Gitmo should be closed and "intense" interrogation techniques like waterboarding should be clearly classified as torture. Terrorist suspects should be given swift and fair trials.

The biggest area where I break with Paul is the role of the federal government. I think departments like Energy, Education, the FDA, CIA, FBI, etc. are essential and should stay. My impression of state governments is that they are by and large inefficient, corrupt, and much less qualified to govern that the federal level is. I really don't see the appeal of dramatically increased states' rights.

Regarding drugs, I'd like to see marijuana legalized, but not other drugs. At the very least, medical marijuana should be allowed.

 

[Electric Church]

ROFLMAO... "typo" hahahaa "corrected" heh heh... your killin me over here.

yep ....just another one of those "typos"

 

[123tim]

I'm not a plant, just someone who doesn't think Paul would make an effective president (but would like to see some libertarian ideas gain traction and influence in US politics regardless). You should welcome the outsider perspective - a campaign whose candidate polls 3-4% nationally can't afford to keep looking inwards. One of the things I like a lot about Paul is that he's a constant voice of dissent. Dissent and legitimate debate should be valued among his supporters, but on this board it seems people would rather call dissenters trolls and plants.

I welcome your perspective. You realize though, that I'll try to convert you.

 

[JohnnyWrath]

Some of these towns only had hundreds of votes to count and STILL screw up...how impossibly simple is it to count ballots and be dead on accurate? How moronic do you have to be to screw up something so simple and important?

I could count things, and then write them down in kindergarten...this is absurd. If this truly is the best they can do, it is sad beyond reason.