Ron Paul Won in Iowa!

I do not want to get into a discussion about truth and reality, but let me just say that what we think we know is not always the truth. Folks lie. Information gets garbled in transmission. Sometimes we aren’t really paying attention. As we grow up, we learn to question what we see and hear---and especially, what we are told. We understand that some lies are self serving, and we begin to look out for these. If we aren’t wary, we can fall into a briar patch as we make our way through life.

One thing that all of us know by now----electronic voting is unreliable. It is easy to change results. We should never, ever accept any e-vote tally, unless we first confirm that the result makes sense given everything else that we (think we) know.

So, what do I know about the straw poll in Iowa? I only know what I hear, so here are some of the things I have been told.

1.I hear that Michelle Bachmann got 4823 votes to Ron Paul’s 4671. Source: CNN.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-08-13/politics/iowa.straw.poll_1_ames-straw-poll-iowa-republicans-herman-cain?_s=PM:POLITICS

2.I also hear that in an unofficial on-line poll organized by Iowa Rep. Tom Latham, Ron Paul got 44% of the “unique” vote, with Bachmann a distant third at 10%. A poll like this reflects the opinions of people from around the country who have internet service, and may have little in common with what folks in Iowa think. However, Iowa will not elect a president, the nation will.

http://iowacaucus.com/2011/08/13/straw-poll-results/

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/07/29/latham-campaign-designs-online-straw-poll/

3.I know that the Iowa straw poll was conducted using electronic voting machines, because they told us so, and no one would lie about using e-vote, given how unpopular (and untrustworthy) it is.

http://www.radioiowa.com/2011/08/17/butter-cow-obama-parry-and-paylin-all-got-votes-in-straw-poll/

4.I hear---no, I know that the corporate media has tried its best to pretend that no one took second place in Iowa this year. I know, because their behavior is so egregious that other members of the corporate media have called them out on it---and you seldom see the mainstream media criticizing its own. Professional courtesy and all.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/letters/2011-08-17-Ron-Paul-low-interest-rates_n.htm
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/16/ron-paul-he-who-shall-not-be-named/

5.I hear that Ron Paul supporters believe that he was robbed of votes in Iowa in 2007. They claim exit polls showed him doing better than he did in the official tally.

http://web.archive.org/web/20071013174029/http://freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=46721


6.I know that electronic voting technology has given some wildly inaccurate vote totals since it was introduced. In Tarrant County in Texas, an extra 100,000 votes were counted (only 58,000) were cast, making it pretty difficult for e-voting advocates to say “Nothing to see here. Move along.” And in another race, in 2002, when two local Republicans had landslide victories, a hand recount showed the Democrats actually won. The problem with the software was later corrected---the Secretary of State of Texas banned paper trails in elections.

http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7Bfb3c17e2-cdd1-4df6-92be-bd4429893665%7D/MASTERLISTOFMACHINEFAILURES.PDF

7.I know that Michelle Bachmann is an idiot. (no citation needed)

So, who won the Iowa poll? If I weigh the evidence (GOP won’t hesitate to use e-vote fraud, corporate media which mouths RNC talking points wants to bury Ron Paul, Michelle Bachmann is an idiot that not even an Iowa Republican really wants to see become president), I am forced to assume that Ron Paul won, the votes were changed so that the press could omit his name….and Rick Perry was instructed to announce the same day as a message to Republicans to get on the bandwagon and elect the candidate whom their corporate masters have selected for them. Remember, back in 2008, the pundits at MSNBC declared McCain the presumptive nominee after Iowa, because Huckabee beat Romney (first and second place to McCain's distant third) and the winner for sure when McCain came in a close third in New Hampshire. Republican math is sort of tricky that way.

how very true

I mean, it IS a Puke fundraiser (and wouldn't it be nice to see Obama put an end to THAT), but doesn't it smack of election fraud?

I mean, they've stolen every election they've ever "won" (no sane person votes Puke); this is just so brazen that it can't be ignored.

in search of another story. Realistically it means nothing. They could use E-machines or kernels of corn, that makes no difference.

It's about the media circus and the pre-ordained result they were seeking. Ron Paul surely won, but he simply doesn't look good on the camera so off he goes for the goof balls that make more noise & more news.

As a fundraiser, it cost $30 to "vote" in the straw poll. MSNBC was reporting that Bachmann's camp was giving people the $30 to vote for her. Assuming that Paul had fewer or no votes bought (because I doubt his campaign is as flush), he most likely won the straw poll.

but I heard yesterday that she bought and distributed at least 3000 ballots.

on edit- I heard it on steph's show from Harry Shearer

$20 of the $30 cost, but he did pay.

most ballots and gave them to her constituents. The whole thing was a fraud that the MSM pushed as valid. They should be ashamed.

where our truth is always absolutely true and reality is whatever we wish it would be.

Would love to see a third forum called something like "Election 2012 aka I don't give a rat's fuck who is good or who is evil, I just want to see the Democrats regain control of the House"

is for Republicans to control everything. I'm in Wisconsin so I know what happens when the GOP controls the whole ball of wax.

I think that Obama is most concerned about himself, his reelection, being liked and where that interest intersects with that of most Democrats then it's great. When it doesn't we get unfettered bipartisanship and compromise which mean that Republicans get most of what they want, giving up as little as possible.

eom

He is anti-war and therefore conservatives will not elect him as their candidate.

Even that was a cover: An intrepid Daily Kos by the name of PHenry user blew the lid on that and other RP lies back in '07:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/06/05/343328/-Ron-Paul-Hates-You

Here, I'll even quote the Peace & Militaty Issues section:

" Peace and Military Issues: With all the hooting and hollering about Paul's opposition to the Iraq war, it sure seems like he should have been able to get better than 58 percent from PeacePAC, doesn't it? Even Joe Lieberman managed to get 63 percent. (Still, it beats the 45 percent Paul got from them in the previous Congress.) He did a little better from Peace Action, managing 67 percent--easily the top score for a Republican, but a below-average score for Democrats. (Still, it beats the 40 percent he got from them in 2004.)

And while Paul may oppose the Iraq war, he doesn't seem to have much use for the men and women who have to fight it. Paul received an "F" rating from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. It's not easy to get an F from the IAVA; Paul shares this distinction with only six other members of the House."

RP's a slick charlatan. You've been had.

I got flamed in the last election for saying that the media chooses our presidents, but it's happening again. They want a circus, and all the craziest candidates are getting the most press.

I saw Buddy Roemer on MSNBC this week. While he's still a Republican, and I cannot support him, he actually talked like a rational person who might work together with Democrats (maybe that's just talk), and he had been both a governor, and a congressman. Probably a very good choice for the GOP, but he's getting very little press, while crazies like Bachmann are on the front page of every paper.

I'm sure you've seen the Jon Stewart segment about Ron Paul being the 13th floor of a hotel. No matter how much grass roots support he gets, he will be pushed off the plate with the other green bits by the MSM.

Seriously, I wouldn't expect RP to be any different unless he actually needed an agenda to go thru..........and what happens if he dies in office, btw? He had that fake 'patriot' Chuck Baldwin as Vice-President back in '08, you should know: do we want a FASCIST replacing his so-called 'libertarian' corporatist boss?

And that means TPTB will keep him as far away from the levers as possible.

I wish I could say that was great, but it's just a coincidental blessing for us. Their plans are probably worse in the end, but are more predictable.