It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Live South Carolina Election Results Here

page: 9
22
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stryc9nine

go newt and mrs. newt, you are what we need in the white house!!!!


This will now haunt my dreams.

Thanks =/

edit on 22-1-2012 by Byrd because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by aTwistofReality
 


I don't think it's a good strategy at all if your campaign goal is to skip focus on Florida because it is 'big and costs alot of money', and only to focus on caucus states. After Ron Paul's interview tonight, I realized that his campaign isn't really focused on winning the GOP nomination at all, it's about going to the GOP convention with some deal to make.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


He has stated before there is no point of him going there due to costs and if he went there and didn't have the money he would be no better then the people who are running the country so I can see why and yes it is a shame but you can only do what your budget allows does it not?



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by vor78

Originally posted by Gerizo
Im not sure how anyone can declare a winner when only 1% has been counted. Doesn't anyone question how the heck they announced the winner when they are still counting and only have 1% tallied? Oh right, they already know the outcome, why wait for the count when you already "know" who won.


Exit polling. They interview voters as they leave the polling booth and can get a good idea of the outcome before the official returns are in. For the networks to announce so early the exit polls must be overwhelmingly in Gingrich's favor and he is probably going to post a double digit win.


You mentioned the exiting polling....Hmmmm



edit on 22-1-2012 by Byrd because: (questionable link deleted)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by toochaos4u
My vote confirmation window kept flipping over to Gingrich.
The Paul section of the screen was also very hard to push and wouldn't select him and kept flipping to GreenGrinch (sarcasm) on the preview. I had to push so hard that I feared that the screen would crack before it would select. I went with my parents. My dad said Paul's selection was hard to push but, selected fine. My mom (old lady) had to get help because her touchscreen was calibrated so to push on Paul sent in a Gingrich.

Strange or the worst touch screens in history.


It appears they are working as intended.

Welcome to the New Order of the Ages.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by spire



This is exactly what A. Jones was worried about when he
heard that they were going to "fix" the problem.

After this primary is over, if people of the US let this
corruption stand, they should be stripped of calling themselves
a democracy.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gerizo
You mentioned the exiting polling....Hmmmm




I don't know anything about the historical accuracy of the pollster. Regardless, even they believed that Gingrich would win rather easily, a conclusion also reached by the pollsters for the major networks.

It generally seems to be in line with the rest of the results from last night, aside from Ron Paul' in 2nd. If they're the only one that believed he'd finish 2nd, I tend to lean towards a more mundane explanation: they need to re-check their methodology.
edit on 22-1-2012 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 07:29 AM
link   
You know, since little Newt seems to be popular with the war mongering Christian Right in SC, a thought occured to me.

Isn't 'ol Newt due for a change in the wife catagory again? I mean he's been with this broad several years now and she's old news. Maybe he's waiting till she has cancer so he can serve her papers on her death bed.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by aTwistofReality
 


I don't think it's a good strategy at all if your campaign goal is to skip focus on Florida because it is 'big and costs alot of money', and only to focus on caucus states. After Ron Paul's interview tonight, I realized that his campaign isn't really focused on winning the GOP nomination at all, it's about going to the GOP convention with some deal to make.


It is because Florida is a "all or nothing" state for delegates. He cannot in good faith spend money hard earned from us, knowing that Romney will carry it.
And, as someone who has given much to him, I agree.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by toochaos4u
 


Much like gambling machines. They are calibrated so the house wins most of the time. Would not surprise me if a good percentage of the votes for Ron Paul found their way into another camp. It is a simple matter of adjusting the programing.

I wonder what kind of oversight they have on these machines and who programmed them.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Please read comment above .
F.I.X


edit on 22-1-2012 by GreatScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by romanmel
You know, since little Newt seems to be popular with the war mongering Christian Right in SC, a thought occured to me.

Isn't 'ol Newt due for a change in the wife catagory again? I mean he's been with this broad several years now and she's old news. Maybe he's waiting till she has cancer so he can serve her papers on her death bed.


I wonder if you and people like you ever said that about Elizabeth taylor???? Or oh I dunno Angelina Jolie who wanted an open relationahip and was afraid to commit to marriage even to Brad Pit. But she's a liberal so that's okay right?
www.hollywoodlife.com...

edit on 22-1-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-1-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-1-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor78

Originally posted by Gerizo
You mentioned the exiting polling....Hmmmm




I don't know anything about the historical accuracy of the pollster. Regardless, even they believed that Gingrich would win rather easily, a conclusion also reached by the pollsters for the major networks.

It generally seems to be in line with the rest of the results from last night, aside from Ron Paul' in 2nd. If they're the only one that believed he'd finish 2nd, I tend to lean towards a more mundane explanation: they need to re-check their methodology.


The historical accuracy of the pollster is irrelevant, my point was that some exit polls where showing a higher percentage for Paul and what the actual outcome became. When you hear stories of dead people's names being used to vote in New Hampshire and irregularities at 53 different polling stations in Iowa in the year 2012 its quite troubling. Secure financial transactions crisscross the US daily without one cent being lost. Bottom line, in the US, in the year 2012, the votes should be secured in the same manner.
edit on 22-1-2012 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by romanmel
You know, since little Newt seems to be popular with the war mongering Christian Right in SC, a thought occured to me.

Isn't 'ol Newt due for a change in the wife catagory again? I mean he's been with this broad several years now and she's old news. Maybe he's waiting till she has cancer so he can serve her papers on her death bed.


I wonder if you and people like you ever said that about Elizabeth taylor???? Or oh I dunno Angelina Jolie who wanted an open relationahip and was afraid to commit to marriage even to Brad Pit. But she's a liberal so that's okay right?
www.hollywoodlife.com...

edit on 22-1-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-1-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-1-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


Ah-hem...

S'cuse me, but I must point out these Hollywood sluts are not running for President.

Little Newt oozes sleazy corruption, imo.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gerizo

Originally posted by vor78

Originally posted by Gerizo
Im not sure how anyone can declare a winner when only 1% has been counted. Doesn't anyone question how the heck they announced the winner when they are still counting and only have 1% tallied? Oh right, they already know the outcome, why wait for the count when you already "know" who won.


Exit polling. They interview voters as they leave the polling booth and can get a good idea of the outcome before the official returns are in. For the networks to announce so early the exit polls must be overwhelmingly in Gingrich's favor and he is probably going to post a double digit win.


You mentioned the exiting polling....Hmmmm



edit on 22-1-2012 by Byrd because: (questionable link deleted)


Why did you remove my youtube link? There is nothing questionable about it as I got it straight from youtube and its currently posted on whatreallyhappened.com.
Again, well here you go. www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   
(note for folks -- due to reports of the video linked site being a major channel for viruses, I've nuked those links (if you can find the same content on Youtube.com, that's okay, however.) I apologize for any inconvenience, here, but I'd rather play it safe. Am investigating the site right now.)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gerizo
[
Why did you remove my youtube link? There is nothing questionable about it as I got it straight from youtube and its currently posted on whatreallyhappened.com.
Again, well here you go. www.youtube.com...

Sorry. Caught that one on the fly and didn't see the full URL.

Also, after investigation, I did find that "Youtu.be" is a legitimate "Youtube.com" shortener (I don't watch videos so I'm late to the news here). Apologies for any inconvenience, but we did receive a virus alert about this and initial scans showed a lot of virus alert messages on this.

Anyway, all clear now.
edit on 22-1-2012 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join