Friday, 27 January 2012

Proof that Iowa Caucuses were Rigged?

Google trends proves that the iowa caucuses must have been rigged. In every city in Iowa it shows Ron Paul as the front runner!

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, January 27th, 2012.]


steven andresen said...


I'm thinking this skepticism is well founded.

There was a story, I think you had it, where Gingrich had to cancel an appearence because so few people showed up happening just before the election.

Don't they do polling of people after they have voted in order to check on the reliability of the vote count? Isn't this a practice in banana republics where the population calls in the U.N. or something? Hasn't Carter helped work on one of the vote polling efforts in order to check on the credibility of voting in Nicaragua or places like that.

I would imagine that there would be a fair number of people who would want international observers to come in and observe an electuion in order to check out whether the voting was rigged.

Suppose the Democrats were honest. Wouldn't they have the same suspicions and couldn't they monitor these Republican vote counts. What if they had just enough data to show their counts were rigged and then brought this data out during the general election. Wouldn't this support Obama's claim that not only was the Republican candidate an idiot, but his nomination was rigged by the Party and not representative of the Party's voters.

I suspect, however, that the U.N. is barred and the Democrats aren't honest so they would shy away from bringing up this kind of argument.

What say you?

Spookypunkos said...


I say you are right over the target, IMHO.

I don't know if any of the parties will bring up the Vote Fraud issue seeing as John Kerry famously backed off challenging the suspect vote in 2004. (Al Gore didn't issue a challenge in 2000 either when he easily could have.)

All this makes me suspect that the top of the political trees are inhabited by corrupted people who keep a lid on what is really going on so as not to be implicated in the crimes or end up assassinated.

I don't know if the threatrical battle between Obama and the Repug candidate will involve Vote Fraud issues. I doubt it will.

If Ron Paul is not chosen (he may be forced out via the fraud) then I think many people will give up on the election.

Spook !

steven andresen said...


I suspect the amount of press given to Paul has been limited even more in the last two weeks. The positioning of Paul in these first few primaries has been suspiciously rigged, I think, and may already turning people off.

I have to say that it seems that there has not been enough pushback by Paul on the issues of corruption and election fraud. If he wanted to maintain his momentum in the face of where he has come out in these primaries, he has to show that the system can be made fair and that his candidacy can win. If he can't do that, then he will lose momentum. His potential voters will begin to quickly understand that the election is stacked against them.

They will then not come out to vote for him because they will see it to be useless.


steven andresen said...


I still believe Paul speaks for the Confederacy, and yet he may be the lesser of three evils. I want you to consider Roberts' argument in this piece, which included,

"...Instead of hitting hard on the serious threat to Social Security and Medicare posed by Obama and Republican candidates for the nomination, all of whom serve Wall Street, the military/security complex, and the Israel Lobby, Ron Paul has been positioned both by his supporters and his opponents as the danger to Social Security and Medicare. This is an amazing strategic mistake by the Ron Paul campaign.

The mistake is somewhat understandable. Ron Paul’s supporters are mainly among the young. The importance to them of Social Security and Medicare will not register for many years, but for the vast majority of the population Social Security and Medicare are essential for survival. A candidate who is positioned as the destroyer of what scant economic protection the American elderly have is not positioned to win an election for president.

Many libertarians regard Social Security and Medicare as welfare handouts and as Ponzi schemes, when in fact these programs are a form of private property. People pay for these programs all their working lives, just as they pay premiums for private medical policies and make their deposits into private pension plans. Libertarians are great defenders of private property, so why don’t they defend the elderly’s private property rights in Social Security and Medicare benefits? Social Security and Medicare are contracts that government made with citizens. These contracts are as valid and enforceable as any other contracts. If Social Security and Medicare are in dire trouble, why is the government wasting trillions of dollars in behalf of private armaments industries, a neocon ideology, and Israel’s territorial ambitions? Why isn’t this question the most important issue in the campaign?"

He goes on at:

Might Roberts have a point that, for older voters in these primary states, even though he is a fiscal conservative better than the others, his stingyness will effect the older voters personally, and not primarily the scruffy hippies over in the Democratic party.

I suspect their conservatism is strongly held only when it won't effect them personally.


Spookypunkos said...

Roberts' observation is right on the money. Politically, and contract wise, scrapping social security is a wrong move.

As I recall, Prez Clinton looted social security in the 90's, to 'balance' the budget. There's nothing left but IOUs of what was taken.

Thanks for the words from Roberts.

I still think we will see a move by Paul against corruption, but you are right that his campaign is not doing enough to draw attention to the fact the are getting stooged via his own party and the msm. I can only hope they will make the right moves in the near future!