58 votes

Mississippi Votes stolen from Paul

Well a few screen shots of just one county at different times and this is what I found... This is Mississippi

http://i42.tinypic.com/15rnpz5.jpg - 100% Carroll County

http://i41.tinypic.com/11rrvh1.png - 43% & 64% Carroll County

Way off!!

so at 43% he has 132 votes in that 1 county, and at 100% he has 47 votes in that same county.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

duplicate, sorry.

duplicate, sorry.


To confirm your belief that the voting is manipulated, all you have do is go to CNN - look at the vote results state-by-state and see how many end with results of a winner and 50/50 spli of second or third. Also, a few of the contest have rough 50/50 split for the winner - such as Paul vs. Romney in Maine. If Paul goes third-party. He wouldn't get a large percentage of the general electorate in my opinion and if he did it would be stolen from him. We now live in a country where Murdochs media and news is in with the parties and the parties choose their man base don who is in charge of the power positions within. Therefore, after this election I will try to determine how to be part of the local party and get chairman position or At-large delegate position etc. Thing is, there will never be another Ron Paul. Cherish that you are supporting a great man of history.

It would be nice to see lots of screen shots throughout the


Can someone work up a script that saves a static copy of webpages on a periodic basis?

If so, that could give us the evidence to show the manipulation across the state.

Ideally, this needs to be done for the official results site, not a media outlet, but I guess it wouldn't hurt to do those in addition.

It would also be interesting to compare totals and updates across various sites to see if say Google reported it correctly all the way through and it was only CNN that got it wrong.

If anyone has a screen shot of each county at two different times before 100%, or at least once before 100%, I'll mock up the spreadsheet that shows the variances.

I'll say this, first, you are using two different sites to

compare results.

I wouldn't do that to stay consistent.

The CNN site shows him at 47 votes right now with 100% reporting. (Same as the Google site, but still, be consistent)

Now, there is something wrong with the earlier CNN results, because the 64% reporting where he has 43 votes has a time stamp of 6:33pm ET

But the 43% reporting popout graphic, where he has 132 votes, has a LATER time stamp of 9:21pm ET.

(the final results have a time stamp of 9:46pm ET)

So presumably, following the time stamps, Paul's votes went from 43 to 132, then down to 47.

Clearly, the 64% reporting was either erroneous or the 43% was as it is impossible to have less reporting at a later time.

However, the problems don't end with Paul.

Each candidate's numbers are all over the map across those time stamps:

Gingrich 289 - 192 - 489
Santorum 238 - 156 - 389
Romney 268 - 169 - 468
Paul 43 - 132 - 47
Total 838 - 649 - 1393

No matter how you slice it, the 132 came sometime before the final 47.

According to the time stamps, they took votes away from the other three and gave some, but not all to Paul. (that doesn't make sense)

If the time stamps are wrong, but the reporting percentages are correct, then it makes more sense as then they took votes from Paul, no one else, and then all candidates picked up more votes, Paul getting the least.

Using the time stamps then we get this:

Santorum 289 -> 192 (loss!! of 33.56%) -> 489 (gain of 154.69%)
Gingrich 238 -> 156 (loss!! of 34.45%) -> 389 (gain of 149.36%)
Romney 268 -> 169 (loss!! of 36.94%) -> 468 (gain of 176.92%)
Paul 43 -> 132 (gain of 206.98%) -> 47 (loss!! of 64.39%)
Total 838 -> 649 (loss!! of 22.55%) -> 1393 (gain of 114.64%)

Using the percent reporting we get this:

Santorum 192 -> 289 (gain of 50.52%) -> 489 (gain of 69.20%)
Gingrich 156 -> 238 (gain of 52.56%) -> 389 (gain of 63.45%)
Romney 169 -> 268 (gain of 58.58%) -> 468 (gain of 74.63%)
Paul 132 -> 43 (loss!! of 67.42) -> 47 (gain of 9.30%)
Total 649 -> 838 (gain of 29.12%) -> 1393 (gain of 66.23%)

We all know as MORE votes are counted, it is IMPOSSIBLE to LOSE votes. You can drop in percentage, because you aren't rising as fast, but you can't have less votes than before.

Clearly, these results at some point are erroneous.

While I'd say the second version is more likely to happen (all candidates should be increasing their votes, though not necessarily all by higher and higher percentages) however, TIME STAMPS are not likely to be "fudged" as easily. Really, there would be no reason to fudge them unless you wanted to show lower vote totals having an EARLIER time stamp, rather than the normal later one.

So what we see here is that CNN reported LOWER vote totals for ALL candidates at a LATER time stamp.

THEN, they increased everyone's totals 15 minutes later to a final tally, but only increasing Paul's amount by a mere 9.3% while increasing the others north of 63% each.

It is obvious, that high shenanigans are going on. And it may not be CNN. This is more likely just reporting of numbers from the State. Thus THEY are the ones to go after on this.

The 9:21 time was in MS...I'm

The 9:21 time was in MS...I'm in California, so there will be a different time showing ...3 hr difference

Okay, as I noted, I get that. But that isn't what I'm talking


The graphic shows 6:33 EASTERN time. That's the same no matter where you are. It's an absolute reference.

The 9:21 taken in Mississipi being in Central Time, is thus 10:21 ET - nearly 4 hours after the 6:33 ET time stamp.

The data showing Paul with more votes and the others with less, is stamped AFTER the other shot. I'm not talking about file stamps, I'm talking about the time stamps in the graphic itself that is generated when someone updates the data on CNN's site.

Besides, it seems CNN is not even showing local time in the map graphic stamp. At least not now. It shows 10:46 pm (no time zone given) as the stamp for the final data in the map graphic for Carroll county.

But in the tabular screen it shows 9:46pm ET.

Thus one can only surmise that the map graphic is showing Atlantic Time which as far as I know, no U.S. State is in. (so why show it?)

So if the 9:21 is Atlantic Time, (certainly not Central in MS) then the ET correlation is 9:21. That's still nearly 2 hours after the 6:33 stamp showing higher votes for all but Paul.

Here, let's do it by timezone: (assuming the map stamp is local time - aka Central)

Pacific - tabular image - 3:33pm
Pacific - map image - 7:21pm

Central - tabular image - 5:33pm
Central - map image - 9:21pm (matches graphic)

Eastern - tabular image - 6:33pm (matches graphic)
Eastern - map image - 10:21pm

If you adjust the times to match correctly no matter the time zone, the images show the data has been recorded nearly 4 hours apart. (despite that the file stamps are the same, it means CNN has either incorrect time stamps, or incorrect data)

Let's now presume the map graphic stamp of 9:21 is instead Atlantic Time to match what we see today.

Pacific - tabular image - 3:33pm
Pacific - map image - 5:21pm

Central - tabular image - 5:33pm
Central - map image - 7:21pm

Eastern - tabular image - 6:33pm (matches graphic)
Eastern - map image - 8:21pm

Atlantic - tabular image - 7:33pm
Atlantic - map image - 9:21pm (matches graphic)

Again, though only now nearly two hours apart, the DATA is shown by CNN to be erroneous via their time stamps.

A time stamp of 9:21 pm be it Central or Atlantic CANNOT show data that has LOWER numbers of total votes compared to data that is stamped 6:33pm Eastern. This is because no matter how you slice it, the map stamp equates to either 8:21 ET or 10:21 ET. Both of which are later than 6:33 ET.

If the map stamp is Eastern (regardless of what your local time is) then you took a screen shot at 6:48 local or 9:48 Eastern. If the 9:21 is ET, and we already know the 6:33 is because it says so, then it is still certainly afterwards.

So, either the 6:33 numbers really came AFTER the 9:21 set, and the 6:33 time stamp is wrong. OR, they came out just like the time stamps show, and thus Paul somehow "lost" votes from 6:33 to 9:21. (the alternative is Paul gained and the others lost votes between those two reports)

Either way, something is whacked with the time stamps and either the correlation to the percentage or their correlation to the votes reported, AND something is whacked with the votes in general since no matter what order you put them in, someone LOST votes from one report to the next.

You're looking into the

You're looking into the "time" way too much...who cares what time it was! the fact is at 43% he has 132 votes in that 1 county, and at 100% he has 47 votes in that same county. that's what matters, not what time it was...look at % of votes in.

The percent may be wrong, that was my point on the time.

Yes, no matter how you slice the time, the vote is whacked.

But the time issue just exposes another problem.

Not only is the vote whacked no matter what, but the way it was updated, shows that there was vote manipulation.

If you only look at 6:33 (aka 64%) vs. 100% there isn't much to get fussy about.

It's the 9:21 (aka 43%) that's the problem. It doesn't jive with EITHER the 6:33 (64%) or the 100% numbers for ANY candidate.

As it stands on the images, CNN reported a 64% at 6:33pm ET

Some hours later, they reported a DECREASE in the vote down to 43%. This panned out as a decrease for everyone but Paul who saw a massive increase.

Then at 9:46 the final results show very large increase for everyone but Paul who saw only a massive decrease.

None of that is possible.

You can't have 64% reporting at 6:33pm and then have 43% reporting in the same county at 9:21pm.

You also can't have less votes for any one candidate (much less all 4 at some point) from one report to the next. You certainly can't have less votes overall.

You can't count votes down, only up over time. That's why the time IS important.

It either shows the time stamps were wrong, (not likely) or the data is wrong. (very probable)

It's the time stamps that prove it is manipulation. Without that fact, one could simply ignore the Map graphic results and only compare the 64% and 100% numbers.

The discrepancy on the map graphic time stamp proves something is definitely not right.

Ok, I see what you're saying,

Ok, I see what you're saying, but I think the way i explained it may have been confusing.

The shot of the "map" that shows 9:21pm was MS local time, 6:21pm was the actual time for CA, and CNN had nothing to do with it, nor could they change it...The "map" was embedded onto CNN's site. An embedded system is a computer system designed for specific control functions within a larger system, often with real-time computing constraints...something CNN as no control over. I may be wrong...

The second shot taken 12 minutes later at 6:33pm, you can see it was directly apart of CNN's site and not embedded.

so really the time of the screen shots was..
6:21pm & 6:33pm

Does that make sense?

But I do understand your point :)

Nope, but thanks.

You see, the 6:33pm is specified as Eastern Time on the CNN site. Look at it closely. It shows "ET" for Eastern Time. If there were no time zone there, or if it said "PT" for Pacific Time, I'd agree with you.

But it is there.

That 6:33 time is NOT your local time (Pacific). Thus it wasn't posted on CNN at 9:33 Mississippi time. (Central) It was posted at 5:33 CT and 3:33 PT. Or the timestamps are all wrong, but I doubt it.

Besides, 9:21 Central is 7:21 California (Pacific) not 6:21. There are only two hours difference. This means according to what you just posted:

One shot, the first one, was taken at 9:21 CT, aka 7:21 PT and 10:21 ET, but somehow a second screen shot was taken 12 minutes later at 6:33 PT, that magically shows 6:33 ET. (which translates to 5:33 CT)

That can't happen either. It can't be 6:33 in both PT and ET at the same time.

There is no evidence that shows the tabular data was uploaded to CNN at any time OTHER than 6:33 EASTERN. (that's one hour ahead of MS) And no matter how you slice the 9:21 into either CT, ET or AT, it is always AFTER the 6:33 tabular shot and thus is also impossible because it shows votes going DOWN for three candidates and in total. (as well as the percent reporting) It is thus impossible for the 9:21 shot to take place under normal laws of the universe BEFORE the 6:33 shot. It just can't happen.

Anyway - we otherwise agree, this is all fubar.

So this other person took two screenshots, both time stamped at

6:48pm by their OS.

However, if you look at the images themselves, one has a CNN data stamp of 6:33pm (makes sense)

But the other one has a data stamp of 9:21pm? Impossible.

The same person can't take two screen shots within the same minute and have different time stamps within the image. (well, unless CNN was showing different results AND timestamps at the same exact time)

If one stamp was from you and the other from someone 3 time zones away, THAT makes sense. (except for the different numbers reporting and different vote total amounts)

But what you are showing here is that the SAME person took both shots one right after the other at 6:48pm, yet within the images, the data is stamped 3 hours apart.

You've lost me.

If, you mean that the 9:21 really was 6:21 to match with the other shot, then I see what you are getting at.

Of course, then, my latter scenario holds true - Everyone else had a vote increase while Paul had a vote decrease, (impossible) and at the end, all but Paul had a massive vote increase. (unlikely)

the shot of the "map" shows

the shot of the "map" shows Mississippi time 9:21...it would have been 6:21 local, CNN shows local time of the user in the second shot taken.

2 different screen shots taken ...one of them 12 min later. they were not taken at the same time. I didn't post his screen shot because of this reason...it's confusing.

See my above reply why this doesn't make sense.

The 6:33pm in the tabular graphic has nothing to do with when it was taken in California and the image shows that as ET for Eastern Time. The 6:33pm ET is an absolute time reference. Thus when CNN recorded that data update it was 3:33 in California. (though you took the screen shot nearly 3 hours later at 6:48 pacific time)

If the 9:21 in the map image was Central time, that means that data correlates to being updated on the CNN site at 10:21 ET and 7:21 California time. Regardless of when the shots were taken, 10:21ET is AFTER 6:33ET and 7:21 PT is AFTER 3:33PT.

Maybe you misunderstood what I was comparing. I'm comparing the time stamps that CNN shows when they updated the data on their site. I'm not looking at time stamps on the image files generated by your computer or the one in MS.

The kicker here is that the tabular image has a hard coded Eastern Time displayed that shows all candidates but Paul with MORE votes (and a higher percentage reporting) than does the map graphic data which no matter how you slice it in which time zone HAD to be updated on the CNN site after the Tabular one.

I've been emailing back in

I've been emailing back in forth with Doug Wead all morning and he will be posting about this and I'm sure everything else that others have found on his blog. I've also sent him other things I found...http://www.dailypaul.com/220499/some-good-news-some-bad - but this is now unpublished for some reason so in case it's unreadable, this is what i sent him...

Romney and Obama's backer, Goldman-Sachs, just "happens" to be the sole partner of the company that puts out ELECTION SOFTWARE for electronic voting machines that tally the vote!

The public should know about what this guy has been doing!!Please help expose the author of this sabotage article. http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/unruly-ron-p...
Here's some evidence to consider.
A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON THE WRITER OF THIS "ARTICLE": In the three links below, you will see Joe Newby participating in various Facebook conversations that promote racist, highly unethical and possibly illegal activities (dressing up as KKK at Ron Paul rallies, calling and berating voters and then saying that they work for Ron Paul, etc). One such on-line conversation involved a Mr. Jere Brower posting plans to have "Stop Ron Paul 2012" members, which includes Joe Newby, show up at Ron Paul rallies dressed in fake KKK hoods and outfits. Here is a link to a YouTube video showing Mr. Newby's, and others, participation in that discussion. Mr. Newby shown around the 6 min mark.
In this second link, you will see Joe Newby, Jere Brower and others discussing phone calls, which those in their group said that they made to potential voters in South Carolina, while pretending to be Ron Paul campaign staff:
In this final link, you will see a screen shot of Joe Newby participating in this particular conversation:



Posted on Twitter.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

I saw the same thing in 2008

In WVA. Someone got a screenshot:

Vote fraud against Ron Paul in West Virginia (he loses votes on the final tally)

I Have an Idea

Have you tried contacting Google?

The Google Ron Paul campaign was well-received. Google must pride itself on its data. They don't like to be used anymore than anyone else.

Call them. See if you can get an explanation.

It took them several months to correct something I sent them on a Google map (business address listed on the wrong side of the street), but they did it. If you call instead of e-mail, maybe it will go faster.

They want traffic to their maps. They would not want them to be inaccurate in such a sleazy, underhanded way.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

There really is a predictable pattern state after state

beginning with Iowa. Paul begins like a house on fire. Then at some point crashes and burns.

Who cares what to call it-it is predictable.

Right after I posted this I went to another post on DP ( HOLEY-WTF? Gold-Sack Resignation = URGENT.) and the first video I watch addresses none other than this 'predictable pattern' I've noticed state after state....

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina

You mean the post that said this...

Romney and Obama's backer, Goldman-Sachs, just "happens" to be the sole partner of the company that puts out ELECTION SOFTWARE for electronic voting machines that tally the vote!

If the system is rigged, what

If the system is rigged, what is the answer ?

They tried to bury us, they didn't know we were seeds. -mexican proverb

Not a lot at this moment,

Not a lot at this moment, unfortunately. A lot of this has to do with stuff out of our control. I think we can help improve the situation though with caucus states. We can change how future elections are run. Get involved at your local GOP. Take control of your precinct. Take control of the county GOP. Take control of the state GOP. Set standards that all votes must be read out loud and video recorded on the spot before ballots leave the area.

that sort of stuff.

I'm with you: the $50k question is what is to be done.

Would require lengthy discussions, debate, and yet another movement....no doubt. But we have to get a grip on it.

I think most people agree that the biggest problem of all is WHOSE counting the votes.

With todays technology, I don't know why we couldn't have transparency from precinct to state level instead of these multiple opaque chain of custody steps.

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina

Exit polling is the answer.

Also, we must get rid of diebold, state by state, after the election.

I agree. Diebold MUST GO.

I agree. Diebold MUST GO.

They tried to bury us, they didn't know we were seeds. -mexican proverb

duplicate comment, sorry


"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina

I guess the best thing

would be to continue on with the local efforts and get elected to positions(on election committee?) that make the decisions on how the votes are counted and chain of custody protected. Paper ballot, electronic... etc. Local and transparent.

I'd be interested to hear how supporters are elected or appointed to these positions.

I don't know if this suggests

I don't know if this suggests fraud. I would not be surprised considering what has been taking place. Even Paul himself has spoke about it. HOWEVER what is interesting is the reaction a poster will get from other DP members when FRAUD is mentioned. Especially interesting when those who pounce on the poster make these wildly broad sweeping and factually unfounded accusations that the reason Paul is losing is not because of fraud rather he is losing because the majority of voters don't know about him.

After being in 20+ debates over the past 5 months I think it is reasonable to conclude the average GOP voter knows who Ron Paul is.

They tried to bury us, they didn't know we were seeds. -mexican proverb

Nope. They know his name and

Nope. They know his name and what he looks like, but they do not know who he is or what his message really is.

The media is still powerful in this country and if they want to portray Ron Paul as an extremist and kooky fringe element, then they will succeed. If he had been treated with respect from the beginning, he would be the front-runner right now.

Show your support for Ron Paul and inspire others at new grassroots site:
( Consider uploading a picture or video of your sign or event, etc .)

Knowing Ron Paul

If Ron Paul had been given the attention that the other three candidates have been given you would be correct. He hasn’t.

Both the Democrats and the Republicans are scared to death of him. His message must be suppressed by them. They like the status quo and Ron Paul, as the president, will actually use the office to bring about smaller, constitutional, government. Santorum. Romney and Gingrich talk a pretty good game of smaller government but their records show them to be not only pretenders but also liars.

What is unfortunate is that GOP voters are not doing the homework that would expose Romney, Santorum and Gingrich for what they, are pretenders to the title of “conservative Republicans.” In reality they have are and have been moderate to liberal (depending on what their career demanded at a given time) Establishment Republicans and are hell bent on preserving the status quo in Washington, even at the risk of losing the election to Obama. A big “sieg heil” to establishment Washington politics---Republican and Democrat.

The nomination isn’t being won by Santorum, Romney or Gingrich. It is being stolen by local Republican Party establishment hacks. They know that if Ron Paul wins the nomination that he will beat Obama hands down and then they’re out of a job and won’t be privileged party cronies anymore.

The GOP local hacks are being abetted by the liberal and conservative news media. Ron Paul’s danger to them is his anti-establishment, libertarian - really, really small, really really, less intrusive government platform. It is the antithesis of both camp’s political ideologies but for different reasons.

It only takes one to KEEP AMERICANS FREE. Know your duties & rights as a juror. Stop the unconstitutional conviction of innocents in federal custody. The Fully Informed Jury CALL 1-800-TEL-JURY www.fija.org IMMEDIATELY if not sooner. It's that important.

people it wouldnt matter if we had the majority of people..

behind us! But we dont have cause most people dont know about Dr. Paul!

We are losing the info war big time!!!
Its on US to change that!

Once people know what the Dr. stands for without the media spinning his message he wins their minds and hearts!

My idea: