View Full Version : Voter fraud alert!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

01-19-2012, 05:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">© 2012, Des Moines Register and Tribune Co.

THE RESULTS:<span style='font-size: 26pt'> Santorum finished ahead by 34 votes</span>
MISSING DATA: 8 precincts’ numbers will never be certified
PARTY VERDICT: GOP official says, ‘It’s a split decision’

Rick Santorum – Final total: 29,839 Change: -168
Mitt Romney – Final total: 29,805 Change: -210

It’s a tie for the ages.

There are too many holes in the certified totals from the Iowa caucuses to know for certain who won, but Rick Santorum wound up with a 34-vote advantage.

Results from eight precincts are missing — any of which could hold an advantage for Mitt Romney — and will never be recovered and certified, Republican Party of Iowa officials told The Des Moines Register on Wednesday.

GOP officials discovered inaccuracies in 131 precincts, although not all the changes affected the two leaders. Changes in one precinct alone shifted the vote by 50 — a margin greater than the certified tally.

The certified numbers: 29,839 for Santorum and 29,805 for Romney. The turnout: 121,503.

It’s not a surprise that the ultra-thin gap of eight votes on caucus night didn’t hold up, but it’s tough to swallow the fact that there will always be a question mark hanging over this race, politics insiders said.

The news comes at a pivotal point — two days before the South Carolina primary, the third state to vote in the nominating process, and just before another big debate tonight. Romney is under attack from all sides, and the other GOP hopefuls are struggling to convince voters that they are viable alternatives to the former Massachusetts governor.

Expect the Santorum campaign to try to leverage today’s news into extra momentum, strategists said.

“It will be a story and Santorum will seize upon it, but it won’t change the current political narrative,” said John Stineman, an Iowa Republican operative.

Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator, is still battling Newt Gingrich, and to a lesser degree Rick Perry, for the conservative base, Stineman said.

Even if Santorum had been the big headline on Jan. 4 as the Iowa winner, “it certainly wouldn’t have changed how New Hampshire came out, nor (Romney’s) status as the national front-runner,” Stineman said. </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are too many holes in the certified totals from the Iowa caucuses to know for certain who won, </div></div>


Too sweet. The party against non-existent voter fraud can't even run a fair election within its own members. LOL

..and they want to run the country............???????????????

LOL (http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2012/01/19/register-exclusive-2012-gop-caucus-count-unresolved/)

01-19-2012, 05:19 AM
I was the one that predicted this.

Romney is the left's preferred candidate.

01-19-2012, 06:05 PM
So, in your view, 'the left' successfully masqueraded as GOP party officials, in order to steal the Iowas caucus results for Romney?

And nobody noticed? ('Hey, who's that guy???!!!')

It that's the claim, it's ridiculous. If that's not the claim, what is?

01-20-2012, 04:08 AM
Your error begins with assuming the republican party is a right wing organization.

01-20-2012, 06:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your error begins with assuming the republican party is a right wing organization. </div></div>

Stop trying to change the subject. The Q was...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If that's not the claim, what is? </div></div>



01-20-2012, 12:38 PM
Ok, take two.

The Iowa Republican Party is either entirely left-wing, or significantly infiltrated by the dreaded statist/fascist/socialist left-wing. They wanted to be sure Romney was the winner, so first, somehow they allowed the non-Romney Santorum to get within a statistical dead-heat on the reported results (i.e., effectively, a loss for Romney), and then, so clumsily did their skull-duggery that Santorum's actual winning the race there has now come to light.

I'm not sure I can go along with this scenario as plausible.

Is that your claim, or do you have another, take 3, to offer?

01-20-2012, 02:25 PM
The results speak for itself.

01-20-2012, 02:26 PM
As an addendum ... do you honestly see Romneyas a right wing conservative solely because he isn't a full blown moonbat crazy leftist?

01-20-2012, 03:02 PM
I see him as an amoral politician who will take any tact necessary to win for his personal aggrandizement.

Considering the current right wing state of play of the party he now seeks to head, he's as right wing as anyone up there, in effect, if not by his core principles (which I maintain there are none).

I have now received a half-dozen of Willard's election flyers, and he continues to push cut, cap and balance, the Tea Party's wet dream of a policy that was the rage in the debt ceiling debate just recently.

01-21-2012, 01:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I see him as an amoral politician who will take any tact necessary to win for his personal aggrandizement. </div></div>

Yep. Its a toss-up who is the most detestable, Willard or Newt. They are both repugnant in their own way.

Neither of them have any idea or sympathy/empathy for those who have lost their jobs or houses and are living on the edge.

I despise them.

If there is a God, they are both going to hell.