zIFBoards - Free Forum Hosting
zIFBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.

Learn More · Register for Free
Welcome to Loose Change Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Name:   Password:


 

 There Will Be A New Hampshire Recount
Arbor
Posted: Jan 12 2008, 01:43 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 680
Member No.: 6,799
Joined: 2-September 07



Top
Reggie_perrin
Posted: Jan 12 2008, 03:02 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,302
Member No.: 6
Joined: 18-October 06



QUOTE (Arbor @ Jan 12 2008, 06:43 PM)
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dl...402/1043/NEWS01

Who says democracy is dead?

"Howard is a 41-year-old father of eight from Ann Arbor who says he believes an angel of the Lord came to him and told him he would beat Clinton in a run for the presidency".


:unsure:
Top
Barcoded
Posted: Jan 12 2008, 03:46 PM


Who wants a pop?


Group: Members
Posts: 515
Member No.: 565
Joined: 23-October 06



Its like they're trying to suggest that this recount is all because a man said some angels came down, completely ignoring the voter fraud fact against Ron Paul.
Top
Reggie_perrin
Posted: Jan 12 2008, 06:23 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,302
Member No.: 6
Joined: 18-October 06



Ron Pauls campaign is not seeking a recount

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

New Hampshire Recount? (1/12/08)

After a careful investigation, I have decided against seeking a recount in New Hampshire. I am confident that not asking for a recount is the right decision.

I carefully considered the arguments for and against a recount before instructing my campaign staff not to pursue it. Without a firm belief that vote fraud had taken place, and without the possibility that a recount would have increased the chances for success of our campaign, a recount would have diverted campaign resources, time, and energy away from crucial battles elsewhere.

We have taken concerns about vote fraud seriously. In Iowa, campaign volunteers carefully monitored the caucuses. Campaign staff placed Paul supporters in every precinct to watch and verify the voting and count. We had supporters phone in results from their precincts to a campaign hotline while others ensured that those numbers were reflected on the official display board at the Polk County Convention Center. The numbers our caucus watchers reported agreed with the official tally, and both results also aligned with the campaign’s internal polling. In relatively pro-Paul counties, our sampling pegged support at 11.5%. This is consistent with an overall 10% finish for the entire state.

In New Hampshire, while I would have hoped for a better result than eight percent, I am convinced that vote fraud played no role in this result. Rumors of vote fraud were investigated, and in the end they proved to be the result of errors in early media reports that were not reflected in the official numbers. In one notable case, when a campaign staff member contacted an individual who had on the evening of January 8 claimed that his vote had not been counted, the person said that he had made a mistake and that the next morning the error in reporting on a newspaper website had been corrected both in the media and -- most importantly -- in the official tally.

Many have expressed concerns that those ballots counted by machine yielded a 2% lower total than those counted by hand. However, machine counted vote totals were more than 2% lower for both John McCain and Mike Huckabee. Hand counted votes were more likely to be cast in rural areas. Results almost always vary between urban and rural areas.

My campaign staff and I have analyzed the numbers in New Hampshire and I have reached the conclusion that it was the high turnout -- not vote fraud or counting errors -- that left us with eight percent of the vote. Our total vote count of over 18,000 votes was well within what we projected given the efforts of our extensive statewide get-out-the-vote program, giving me no reason to believe that vote fraud played any role in the results of the Granite State’s primary.

In both Iowa and New Hampshire there is much to be proud of. Taking both states together, I am honored that over 30,000 people cast their vote for me -- more than either Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson. Unlike many other candidates’ efforts, our campaign for freedom is growing and our message is spreading.

Now is the time to redouble our efforts. Our resources must be spent on the upcoming primaries and caucuses, and on ensuring that, with your help, we organize every state yet to vote with our Precinct Leaders program.

We can't win primaries and caucuses that have already happened -- but we can win those yet to come. To become the Republican presidential nominee, a candidate must have 1,191 delegates. Iowa, Wyoming and New Hampshire determine only 32 delegates, so we have much opportunity remaining.

Today, I ask you to join me in focusing on the battles ahead as we continue our fight for liberty and our Constitution.

Sincerely,

Ron Paul
Top
Arbor
Posted: Jan 12 2008, 06:43 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 680
Member No.: 6,799
Joined: 2-September 07



wow. ron paul really has great faith in our electoral process. didnt he see "hacking democracy"??????
Top
datman
Posted: Jan 12 2008, 08:35 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 276
Member No.: 287
Joined: 19-October 06



QUOTE (Arbor @ Jan 12 2008, 11:43 PM)
wow. ron paul really has great faith in our electoral process. didnt he see "hacking democracy"??????

I think he has to have this take on this. Or Foxnews would have more negitive material to broadcast. This way the vote gets recounted and he doesn't get the bad press
Top
seeker135
Posted: Jan 13 2008, 12:06 AM


Death to Tyrants


Group: Members
Posts: 3,157
Member No.: 3,469
Joined: 28-March 07



QUOTE (datman @ Jan 12 2008, 08:35 PM)
QUOTE (Arbor @ Jan 12 2008, 11:43 PM)
wow.  ron paul really has great faith in our electoral process.  didnt he see "hacking democracy"??????

I think he has to have this take on this. Or Foxnews would have more negitive material to broadcast. This way the vote gets recounted and he doesn't get the bad press

Concur. :)
Top
look-up
Posted: Jan 14 2008, 10:06 AM


A WTC 7 No-Planer


Group: Members
Posts: 5,768
Member No.: 654
Joined: 25-October 06



I guess what he says does kind of make sense...

But that doesn't mean that hIllary didn't cheat... I think it is likely that she did. All of the polls can't be THAT wrong.
Top
jfk
Posted: Jan 14 2008, 10:18 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 973
Member No.: 4,874
Joined: 28-May 07



I find this thread rather interesting. - http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1...html?1200323364
Top
bretwalda
Posted: Jan 18 2008, 04:18 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 323
Member No.: 4,191
Joined: 26-April 07



QUOTE (Arbor @ Jan 12 2008, 01:43 PM)
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dl...402/1043/NEWS01

Who says democracy is dead?

You do. He's a zionist remember? And afterall, zionist influence the vote more than any other lobby...whitehouseforsale.org

Funny Paul never got a piece of that handout.
Top
chris sarns
Posted: Jan 18 2008, 09:31 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 491
Member No.: 691
Joined: 26-October 06



Hand count and machine count locations, when calculated statewide, show an eerie statistic:

Clinton Optical scan 91,717 52.95%
Obama Optical scan 81,495 47.05%

Clinton Hand-counted 20,889 47.05%
Obama Hand-counted 23,509 52.95%

RP:
In New Hampshire, while I would have hoped for a better result than eight percent, I am convinced that vote fraud played no role in this result.

Apparently, RP is incapable of recognizing fraud.

He doesn’t endorse ANTHING we say.
Top
chris sarns
Posted: Jan 18 2008, 09:42 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 491
Member No.: 691
Joined: 26-October 06



QUOTE (datman @ Jan 12 2008, 07:35 PM)
QUOTE (Arbor @ Jan 12 2008, 11:43 PM)
wow.  ron paul really has great faith in our electoral process.  didnt he see "hacking democracy"??????

I think he has to have this take on this. Or Foxnews would have more negitive material to broadcast. This way the vote gets recounted and he doesn't get the bad press

Another "He has to be PC" excuse.

He could join the fight for free and fair elections,
i.e. getting rid of electronic voting machines.
Evidently, he has faith in Diebold.

This is one of the most critical issues of our time and RP sidestepped it for either political expediency, stupidity or complicity.
Top
datman
Posted: Jan 19 2008, 08:45 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 276
Member No.: 287
Joined: 19-October 06



QUOTE (chris sarns @ Jan 19 2008, 02:42 AM)
QUOTE (datman @ Jan 12 2008, 07:35 PM)
QUOTE (Arbor @ Jan 12 2008, 11:43 PM)
wow.  ron paul really has great faith in our electoral process.  didnt he see "hacking democracy"??????

I think he has to have this take on this. Or Foxnews would have more negitive material to broadcast. This way the vote gets recounted and he doesn't get the bad press

Another "He has to be PC" excuse.

He could join the fight for free and fair elections,
i.e. getting rid of electronic voting machines.
Evidently, he has faith in Diebold.

This is one of the most critical issues of our time and RP sidestepped it for either political expediency, stupidity or complicity.

I do agree that electronic voting machines have to go. People are lazy however, they may not want to go back to hand counting.
Top
T3QuillAMocKINGbird
Posted: Jan 19 2008, 05:46 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 176
Member No.: 6,912
Joined: 9-September 07



Hold on I need a computer to count the odds of this Statistical occurance. And the calculated answer is given back as letters... Hillary only has 1 i in her name and so to say she is an Optical Optimist we need 2 eyes and low and behold she lost an i or de-eyed making, Deyebold... H I L L I A R Y

I see people getting mad this time, it is gonna be more than eerie if the eyes have it.
Top
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
« Next Oldest | Ron Paul 2008 | Next Newest »
zIFBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Sign-up Now

Topic Options



Hosted for free by zIFBoards* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.0351 seconds · Archive