The elections that are occuring in 08 are fixed against ron paul

ok, with all the publicity that is coming for Ron Paul there is no way he keeps placing in 5th place for all of them. the people that are coming in places higher than him are more likely to be the ones coming in lower places than him.

My next point brings me to the different ways that the balletts are taken. the hand voting balletts are more likely to be accurate because there are wittnesses counting every single one. sure there is human error to take into consideration but there is only going to be a very small percentage that is error, this is because these are trained professionals.

the computerized ballotts are the ones that are going to be inaccurate. some people dont realize how easy it is to hack into one of the computers and give a candidate some extra votes. i conspirthize that the govermnent dosent want ron paul to become the next president so they are hacking in and giving some of the other candidates votes, or just taking some away from ron paul. this is why we need people to do the same but in favor of ron paul

LETS GO!!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]UTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Publicity and popularity do not correlate with the number of voters that will actually go to the polls. The majority of Ron Paul's fan base is college and high school kids - many of who can not even vote yet, or do not care enough more than to put a bumper sticker on their dorm room door, and yell "LETS GO!!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]UTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" around campus. Ron Paul is a fad to these kids, because of his liberal ideas about drug policy and such. He does not draw in as large amount of serious party voters as you may think, because his liberal views conflict with his Republican party affiliation.

"the people that are coming in places higher than him are more likely to be the ones coming in lower places than him."

I will not refute this, as the claim "more likely" is an opinion and is not supported by factual evidence. Please provide some statistics that show the likelihood of other candidates scoring lower in the polls than Ron Paul.

Also, the "trained professionals" that count the ballots are actually regular people off the street who are typically paid about $6.00 an hour for their work for the day. Not that this is entirely relevant, but just a note.

I assume that by "fixed", you mean rigged. The elections are most certainly not rigged against one particular candidate by the current administration. I do not deny that the government has the capability to do so, but in this case there is no motive. I would understand the suspicion if Bush were running for re-election, as we have seen Watergate and similar situations in the past, but as Bush is ending his final term, his administration would have no reason to sabotage Ron Paul's campaign. Additionally, Ron Paul is a Republican. If the government were to "hack in and giving some of the other candidates votes, or just taking some away from him", don't you think they would target a Democratic candidate? Parties tend to like to continue thier political legacy, if you will.

I look forward to your response.

you see vantagepoint, you clearly state that all that is ron paul is that he is clearly a fad. for what i have seen at my school, i agree with you in that. but in your argument you dont argue the main point of my argument. and that is that there is a possibility that the elections may be fixed against ron paul or one of the other candidates. with all that goes on with politics there is many possibilities that an election can be either fixed against one of the opponents. my example of this is how ron paul has placed in some of the recent primary elections. in some of the states he should have placed in 4th, and there was once a chance he could have come in 3rd but some of them. but 5th place and 7th place are relalistic for how you say that he is a fad. but with how popular he is in some states, there is possibilities that the electronic computer ballotts can be fixed against a candidate because of poltics being scared they might not get the votes they should be. all i am saying in a nutshell is that the elections that go on today can be fixed against some one.

i apoligize if you did not understand my previous argument, i didnt have much time to write it.
- i look forward to your rebuttle

sincerly,
DeATHNOTE

Actually, I did refute your main argument in my final paragraph. Here it is again:

"I assume that by "fixed", you mean rigged. The elections are most certainly not rigged against one particular candidate by the current administration. I do not deny that the government has the capability to do so, but in this case there is no motive. I would understand the suspicion if Bush were running for re-election, as we have seen Watergate and similar situations in the past, but as Bush is ending his final term, his administration would have no reason to sabotage Ron Paul's campaign. Additionally, Ron Paul is a Republican. If the government were to "hack in and giving some of the other candidates votes, or just taking some away from him", don't you think they would target a Democratic candidate? Parties tend to like to continue their political legacy, if you will."

I am not naive enough to believe that there is no deception in politics or even manipulations during the voting process. I just don't agree with your original argument: that the current administration is targeting Ron Paul, or attempting to sabotage his campaign, and I give my reasons why in the paragraph above. Even assuming that you're right, the government wouldn't risk being caught manipulating numbers of votes on just primaries. Also, your friend that helped you with information cited an incident in which human error was the huge factor. As you originally stated that "there is human error to take into consideration but there is only going to be a very small percentage that is error", and you were shown to be wrong, I cannot see how I can trust the rest of your argument - I don't know how much is a guess or just made up.