Republican Insider: GOP Establishment Plans To Subvert Iowa to Prevent Ron Paul Win

Quote from Lucrum:

Ooh you hear that? It's the sound of someones credibility going down the drain.

Specifics are good.
More...
I was mainly occupied studying. And you, spending a lot of time in the COCKpit? :D
 
Quote from Mercor:

What happen to this big issue in 2008....McCain and his age

McCain 72 years old / Paul 78 years old

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12884.html

But, c’mon, McCain’s age is a legitimate issue, and it is a disservice to try to sweep it under the table and pretend like he is just another middle-aged white Republican male running for president. The age difference between McCain and Obama (25 years) is the largest in American history between the two major-party nominees. If elected, he would be the oldest man ever inaugurated as a first-term president — three years older than Ronald Reagan, and fours years older than William Henry Harrison, the current record holders.

The average life expectancy for an American male at present is 75.4 years. As of today, McCain is just three and half years short of that statistic — and a presidential term is four years long, as we all know. Despite McCain’s history as an ace fighter pilot and a fighter squadron trainer, he is today too old by 12 years to legally fly a commercial airliner. Even in the ancient confines of the Vatican, cardinals who run major departments must retire at age 75.

No matter what people are now telling pollsters, and despite McCain’s attempt to laugh it off, his age will be an issue with some voters this fall. This is not just conjecture — or wishful thinking — on my part. It is based on fairly recent experience with a candidate who was the exact same age McCain is today.
More...
On the upside, Paul would probably show the fewest signs of the aging that the office inevitably inflicts on its occupant!
 
Quote from Ricter:

I was mainly occupied studying.
More...
What do you know, me too. Cambered flat plate airfoil lift slopes to be specific. Is this your dodge? As in you have no specific freedoms you feared losing?
And you, spending a lot of time in the COCKpit? :D
More...
As a matter a fact yes.
 
Quote from Lucrum:

What do you know, me too. Cambered flat plate airfoil lift slopes to be specific. Is this your dodge? As in you have no specific freedoms you feared losing? As a matter a fact yes.
More...

Well, I'm a fair sport, and now that I've got a workout behind me and a drink within, it occurs to me that my reply may qualify under the "first insult" rule.

Judges!?
 
Quote from Ricter:

Well, I'm a fair sport, and now that I've got a workout behind me and a drink within, it occurs to me that my reply may qualify under the "first insult" rule.

Judges!?
More...
Well I'm not a judge, but trust me it qualifies.

Disclaimer: I have two drinks in me. (Buffalo Trace)
 
Quote from Trader666:

Ron Paul came in third. Is that because of the Zionist shill neocon warmongers who want us to fight Israel's wars? :p
More...

They each picked up 6 delegates. Perry drops out. Santorum goes nowhere after this. This is between mittens and Paul. Everything is going according to plan for Paul at this point.
 
Quote from Daxtrader:

They each picked up 6 delegates. Perry drops out. Santorum goes nowhere after this. This is between mittens and Paul. Everything is going according to plan for Paul at this point.
More...

I wish that were true. Gingrich holds a commanding lead in SC and FLA - big delegate states with an older demographic. Newt plans to survive the early primary states, then take the South, to rebuild his warchest. Romney is polling in the mid-20's, in SC and FLA - within shooting distance. Ron doesn't even make double digits. NH is a lock for Romney. Paul will show strong, but given the GOP plan to scuttle his numbers in Iowa, I wouldn't be surprised if Santorum, that POS, "comes from behind" and earns another surprising finish in New Hampshire

I looked at the entry polls for Iowa, and they don't add up. The week prior, between 17-22% of "registered republicans" said they would vote for Paul. According to CNN entry polls, only 14% did. That's a ~5% drop in 3 fucking days. Most polls in the lead-up week underestimated the indie turnout. 25%, and Paul won 43% of it. Assuming Paul held his *minimum* 17% GOP base, he should have finished at 23.5%. A three-way tie, at minimum. If Paul held on to his 20% reported GOP base, he should have finished first at ~26%.

We all saw Newt take a huge dive after the attacks came on in full force. So it's possible, and the media absolutely hammered Ron. On the otherhand, the Iowa state party said they'd rig the numbers if Ron polled first. Ron has to win SC, or it's going to be real hard to maintain credibility as a "winner". Sure, we've got the money, and some delegates along the way for leverage, but the campaign for Liberty has to pick it up now, and hard.
 
Quote from Trader666:

Ron Paul came in third. Is that because of the Zionist shill neocon warmongers who want us to fight Israel's wars? :p
More...

Well yeah!
But seriously, did you catch the 'lost signal' by CNN when the Army Veteran came on to discuss his full support for Ron, and the illegality of the recent wars?
Oops, Wolf Blitzkreig said, we lost the feed.
Fact - this was the only time all night that CNN lost their feed.

Anyways, clearly America is rotting from the inside out when a piece of shit like Santorum (the froth on your cock that you get from anal sex, a combination of lube and fecal matter) gets those numbers. Really makes no sense. Guy was polling in mid single digits just 3 weeks ago.

I'm sure that most Iowans are idiots, but how that could turn out is beyond belief.

Wait until these idiots find out who they voted for: pro war, anti-gay, pro-bank bailout...huge scumbag. Everything that is wrong with America. Guy doesn't even know basic history of Iran. Unreal blowies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top