Why was Rand so mad last night?

[flightlesskiwi]

You know, looking at it that way, and taking into consideration that Ron Paul has been hammered by the media 24/7 with any sort of ammunition they can snatch up, Ron Paul has performed superbly. The other candidates got a small share of flak for sure, but they are all part of the establishment, so they are mostly safe. Ron, on the other hand, still has much more of this storm to weather before he enters the calm winds of the eye... after that, it's back into the storm with Obama.

the story in interwebz alternative media now is RP is connected to Soros.

relentless.

 

[Krugerrand]

the story in interwebz alternative media now is RP is connected to Soros.

relentless.

Much like Batman is connected to the Joker.

 

[Spikender]

the story in interwebz alternative media now is RP is connected to Soros.

relentless.

Wow, there's just no words. Wonder what sort of straws their clinging onto to come up with that conclusion. Beck has a better chance of being connected to Soros than Ron Paul.

 

[pinkmandy]

Personally, I think it's amazing that Paul even came in 3rd considering all the 24/7 lies the media was telling for the last couple of weeks. Not to mention what the other candidates were saying. It was unbelievable. I've never seen anything like it in my entire life.

That's not to say that I'm not disappointed, because I am. But, it ain't over yet.

+ rep

And as low as they went I realize many would have no issue sinking even lower. No morals, people. They answer to the god of ego, money and power. Kudos to the few who try to be objective but the rest are absolute scum who are nothing more than well paid, glorified tabloid tv mouthpieces without an ounce of journalistic integrity in their bodies. My hope is that history treats them as the lepers and sell outs they are.

 

[ScottishRP fan]

its to my understanding that machines where not used, it was all human, so therefore pretty tough to 'rig'

the film Hacking Democracy covers all the bases

it seems that the american system is pretty corrupt, although i doubt it would be on this occasion

Ron Paul has played it perfectally, he was esentially tied for 1st place with delegates etc so why give the MSM the negitive reaction they need, the traction for their bullshit.

 

[Len Larson]

Given the tantrum Gingrich was throwing, I suspect some words were exchanged backstage.

 

[socal]

At the concession speech Rand was in th bg fuming...

In a couple interviews I remember Rand saying he would help his dad in Iowa only if he didn't have to wear a tie. Notice what he was wearing? Maybe that's why he looked so ticked lol.

 

[specsaregood]

I doubt that. Rand is a shrewd guy; he would understand the futility of challenging the results of the first primary. It would look like sour grapes and cost us 49 other states.

And the GOP would quickly respond by pointing out how stupid challenging the results is since it is a completely non-binding straw poll!

 

[J. Evins]

He looked to me like he may have been sick. He was reaching up to his mouth like he was covering a cough. I did notice he had a very stern demeanor.

 

[RonPaul101.com]

Rand realizes how much Ron would have won by under normal, fair play. Two weeks ago Santorum was down where he belongs 5-7% in Iowa in polling. Ron was leading with Romney close behind, but Ron was 100% THE Anti-Romney candidate. It was setting up to be Romney doing well in Romney 2008 counties and Paul taking the place of Huckabee in the center of the state. If you look at the actual results and compare them county by county to 2008, Paul took over MANY Romney counties of 2008, so if not for the false Santorum push that happened intentionally late breaking, unvetted, and media blitzed with only positive spin over a long, cold, holiday weekend where there is nothing else to do but watch the news in Iowa; Paul would have won and it would have been about like this: Paul 40%, Romney 23%, Gingrich 12%, Perry 10%, Santorum 9%, Bachmann 6%.

Given the counties Paul won over Romney, if not for a last minute puppet Santorum, he would have landslid Iowa and it would have likely changed the county's leadership come next year.

I hope the campaign is building "truth telling ads" to just keep on file for anyone else who can pop up last minute: Huntsman, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Trump, etc.,. Once the establishment runs out of empty flavors-of-the-week candidates it "could" drag more in just to push Ron down in a particular state. Have the ads built, so you can run with them with zero notice; its a worth while investment.

 

[da32130]

Look at the exit polls:
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/epolls/ia

Among people who made up their minds in 2011 Paul wins with 31%, mitt 26%, sant 16%. They had to be pretty confident.

Rand was suppose to close the deal in those last couple days in 2012.

Instead, of the people who decided on the day of caucus, paul lost with 8%, mitt 22%, sant 35%.

We lost this in the last two days. The undecided broke heavily away from us. On some level, Rand's job was to ensure the late deciders came our way, but they didn't.

He may feel bad about his own appeal to voters and how well he did his job.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

There was rigging going on. That's not 'conspiracy' talk, that's from the reports from several parties who spoke to Bev Harris yesterday, or posted to the LRC blog. Harris has herself pointed out that while hand counting is much harder to hack, it is hackable, depending on the post count handling. The differential between the 'entrance'/exit polls and the early results to the final outcome is staggering, and by itself would be enough to be declared fraudulent if we were observing it in a third world country.

To lazily label it as 'loserspeak' to simply note the likelihood of fraud based on the witnesses and experts who have already said so, is the same kind of Pollyanna-loser approach that happened last time. Nothing was challenged in 2008, and how many primaries did Paul go in to win? ZERO. The regime knows if its tricks are not challenged or exposed, it can go right on using them, and so it did. Change won't happen unless the light of truth and critical scrutiny is placed upon the so-called 'transparent process' to ensure that canard is not itself being used to provide cover for the rigging that likely happened.

 

[pebcak]

I do not believe this one was rigged, and even if it were, the Paul campaign would catch on. We had someone at nearly every precinct to watch the count and to report results straight to the Paul campaign. I was one of them.

 

[Kevin Smyth]

Wow, there's just no words. Wonder what sort of straws their clinging onto to come up with that conclusion. Beck has a better chance of being connected to Soros than Ron Paul.

Is Glenn Beck spreading the lie that Ron Paul is being funded by Soros?

 

[gerryb]

There was rigging going on. That's not 'conspiracy' talk, that's from the reports from several parties who spoke to Bev Harris yesterday, or posted to the LRC blog. Harris has herself pointed out that while hand counting is much harder to hack, it is hackable, depending on the post count handling. The differential between the 'entrance'/exit polls and the early results to the final outcome is staggering, and by itself would be enough to be declared fraudulent if we were observing it in a third world country.

To lazily label it as 'loserspeak' to simply note the likelihood of fraud based on the witnesses and experts who have already said so, is the same kind of Pollyanna-loser approach that happened last time. Nothing was challenged in 2008, and how many primaries did Paul go in to win? ZERO. The regime knows if its tricks are not challenged or exposed, it can go right on using them, and so it did. Change won't happen unless the light of truth and critical scrutiny is placed upon the so-called 'transparent process' to ensure that canard is not itself being used to provide cover for the rigging that likely happened.

Why are you even here supporting Ron Paul then? If they can cheat in a room full of dozens or hundreds of Ron Paul caucusers double checking the count is conducted (aka, the chair knows how to count hands) and reported properly, what chance do we have?

It's just not possible to cheat in the Iowa Caucus.

 

[AngryCanadian]

I was there.

I don't understand how some folks can think the results AREN'T legitimate.

Is easy to fake results, like how can you have Harper for four more years.

 

[BKom]

Some neo cons were posting on my Facebook wall last night that Rand didn't clap when Ron mentioned pulling the troops out of Afghanistan. If they only knew that Rand is just like his old man on foreign policy.

If anyone thinks Rand is just like good old dad on foreign policy, then they haven't been paying attention when he ran for the senate or since. In fact, he dodged Hannity's question on only one subject, foreign policy.

If you think you know Rand, you don't. He's different on foreign policy, and he's much more comfortable with the religious right.

 

[wgadget]

I heard Bev Harris on an AJ clip saying that, yes, the ballot-counting IN each precinct is secure. It's what happens after the count gets to the state level where things aren't so sure. She said that what she looks for is the PTB declaring that IF Romney wins NH, the thinking will be: These primaries/caucuses are such a drain to state finances, we should just go ahead and consolidate behind our guy.

I think the biggest story that's gone unreported is that so many people have awakened to the blatant mischief of the media. Those who have caught on are more likely to vote for Ron Paul, imo. But it can be said that ironically people like Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich (in the debates) have helped lead the cause, while Ron just happens to be a victim of the media. Of course, the flavor-of-the-week phenomenon is even more proof of their power to move elections. Ron should run a generic ad against the media distortion if he has the funds.

 

[BKom]

Look at the exit polls:
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/epolls/ia

Among people who made up their minds in 2011 Paul wins with 31%, mitt 26%, sant 16%. They had to be pretty confident.

Rand was suppose to close the deal in those last couple days in 2012.

Instead, of the people who decided on the day of caucus, paul lost with 8%, mitt 22%, sant 35%.

We lost this in the last two days. The undecided broke heavily away from us. On some level, Rand's job was to ensure the late deciders came our way, but they didn't.

He may feel bad about his own appeal to voters and how well he did his job.

That's just silly. I am not a Rand fan, but he did a great job handling all the media interviews those last couple of days. He was smart, to the point, and turned the challenge questions around on the interviewers with regularity. And when he was probed on disagreements with his father, he skillfully avoided answering, while making the interviewer think he had answered. If you compare Ron's interviews in the last couple of days with Rand's, Rand did a much better job. He started out in his own campaign unable to handle the media well, but he has grown in that respect. He's going to be a much better candidate than his dad was in the future. Sadly, I don't like his foreign policy or religiosity, which is much more overt than Ron's. But he's going to be a force because he can do one thing that Ron can't: speak without stumbling all over the place.

 

[damiengwa]

Ron is smarter than Rand and knows exactly what is going on. Rand seems to be learning. Whatever Ron is doing he is playing his cards the best he can.

Agreed. And the Iowa caucus served what the party bosses wanted it to. they found two potentially strong candidates who will work within the party system. Outsiders like paul are suppose to lose.