Newt Gingrich with 40% Of Vote? -- SC Primary

Originally posted by Indellkoffer

As someone in that older age bracket, I think you may not be aware of how we assess political candidates. And I think your characterization of us as "dumbed down" is unkind and unfounded.

Just because we're not voting for YOUR favorite candidate doesn't mean we're stupid, blind, inept, unaware of law, incapable of remembering history, intellectually challenged, unable to decypher the logic of statements, fact-check statements and so forth.

We rely less on YouTube and more on reading, however, where you can go back, reexamine statements, and check references.

Not all of us are geniuses, but we're not a pack of idiot savants. We're just like you, only with gray hair and a lot more history that we've lived through.

Indel, please don't take what I say as a generalization of all middle-aged/older folks. I'm simply looking at the votes & overall tendency of this age bracket to go with their gut as opposed to truly looking at their candidate --- voting records, political history, personal vices & all. Yet of course I acknowledge not all are 'dumbed down'.

Being dumbed down in part includes: Einsteins defining of insanity. We keep voting these warhawks & obvious liars into office; and look at the path we stay on. One that is eating America from the inside. There is no justification for voting for somebody like Gingrich. The man is truly a serial hypocrite like none I've ever seen; and I'm beyond amazed how anyone could rationalize a vote for this toad.

Lastly, I did not call you an idiot savant. You seem like a relatively intelligent & articulate individual.

If one hates the black man who occupies the White House, if one hates his "Kenyan, anticolonial behavior" (Newt's words), if one hates the Communist Muslim POTUS, and if one hates that person who so hates America he's out to destroy it (just as your "way of life" was destroyed forever by those damn elite Yankees/Northerners), then Newt's your hit man.

Afterall, if you hate your spouse, neighbor, or boss enough to hire a hit man to do harm to that person, you don't ask questions. In fact, you want a junk yard dog. The meaner the better! In order to destroy the person created in the dark side of your mind, you need someone worse but on your side.

Hey, only 40% of Germans voted for Hitler, but he "solved their problems". Elect a mentally unstable person, put up with a mentally unstable dictator?...there are past and current precedences.

It's funny cause Newt only got 4% of the vote of the total population of the state of South Carolina.
So then the whole state are a bunch of imbeciles.
And the game ain't over folks,jeez.

www.google.com...

obviously no one knew there are so many unhappily married men in south carolina that want open relationships...

Well it goes to show that soundbites are the only things that matter. Newt will probably win Georgia and Florida off the same thing.

Its not the south anymore...

reply to post by SuperTripps


In their defense (not an SC native, thank God), people have always categorized them as dumb, and the non-city lowland schools in the state had such horrible funding that they had 50 year old textbooks and desks until about 2005.

Originally posted by kdog1982
It's funny cause Newt only got 4% of the vote of the total population of the state of South Carolina.
So then the whole state are a bunch of imbeciles.

Not the whole state, just 40 percent of the voters. However, even that 4 percent in part represents the mentality of the general SC populous . There are other factors to include I'm sure.

Currently I reside in Maine & if 40 percent of our caucus-goers choose Newt, I will say the same thing. :]

History is fun, you should try reading some of it. Clinton's impeachment was about perjury and obstruction of justice. Not quite the same thing in Newt's case. If Newt wins the nod as the republican presidential candidate I will support him. I do believe he can win. Newt has the ability to think on his feet, and he capitalized on the folly of a leftist news organization's smear campaign. Obama isn't the natural orator he was supposed to be and Newt would have a clear advantage in the presidential debates. The momentum shift generated by the debates clearly shows that they have weight amongst voters. While hard core supporters are not going to be swayed by opinions expressed by other candidates, the independent amongst us are.

While Newt may not be the ideal candidate for a lot of people there is one more important factor to this equation that is being forgotten about. We will be voting for more Legislative Branch positions. If the 2010 voting is any indication, the political makeup on the hill is going to keep even the most liberal or moderate or "conservative" president in check. This election year is going to be fun. Most people have no idea.

The republican party is getting ready to implode.

Mr Gingrich will be thrilled with his victory. The Republican establishment, however, will be horrified, because its members think he is unelectable and tarnished in a general election.

If Mr Gingrich wins Florida, expect a huge campaign against him, not from the White House, but from within the Republican party itself.

www.ft.com...

It is about time that we need a third party that takes the good things from the two party system we have now and throws away the bad things.

It has been back and forth the last few years

Time to find a middle ground.
If Ron Paul could get a strong third party going,that would be our answer.
But,I am waiting on his son,Rand Paul.
I think he has a future and maybe something can be done.

Originally posted by Raelsatu

Originally posted by kdog1982
It's funny cause Newt only got 4% of the vote of the total population of the state of South Carolina.
So then the whole state are a bunch of imbeciles.

Not the whole state, just 40 percent of the voters. However, even that 4 percent in part represents the mentality of the general SC populous . There are other factors to include I'm sure.

Currently I reside in Maine & if 40 percent of our caucus-goers choose Newt, I will say the same thing. :]

You are right,can't disagree there.
It is all f%^ked up.

Originally posted by Raelsatu
Indel, please don't take what I say as a generalization of all middle-aged/older folks. I'm simply looking at the votes & overall tendency of this age bracket to go with their gut as opposed to truly looking at their candidate --- voting records, political history, personal vices & all. Yet of course I acknowledge not all are 'dumbed down'.

Well, I'm as old as dirt, too. Are you sure that you're not just putting us down because we don't vote for Ron Paul? You may not be aware of it, but it's retirees who are out there doing community service, manning the polls, monitoring the polls, and getting active in a lot of political causes. Now, "vote with your gut" may be true of the people you know, but given the activists I see and work with, that picture is as inaccurate as saying that all young people vote with their gut.

Being dumbed down in part includes: Einsteins defining of insanity. We keep voting these warhawks & obvious liars into office; and look at the path we stay on.

Sometimes the warhawks were necessary. And I would dearly love to see a human being who doesn't lie, particularly when they're thrust into the public eye and every move they do is scrutinized and criticized (as a group of manipulators and hardcore fans throw themselves at the person.) I'm not saying I approve. I do say that I understand politicians are human and not saints.

There is no justification for voting for somebody like Gingrich. The man is truly a serial hypocrite like none I've ever seen; and I'm beyond amazed how anyone could rationalize a vote for this toad.

I don't care for him, and won't vote for him. But remember that different values count for different people. He won the hearts of the people who were tired of mudslinging with his takedown of John King on the "tattling" of Newt's wife (I am slightly skeptical of the report, and the timing backfired on whoever wanted her to come forth so Newt could be knocked out.) The ones who went to him were for Romney in the first place, and after watching Romney flounder around and Newt's two "home runs" (with releasing his taxes and with the answer about his ex wife's attack) won them over. They're traditional conservative Republicans (not interested in voting Independent) and his position as a former House Speaker is also a selling point to them -- unlike the other candidates, he has a history of being able to smack the House Republican members around and get them to present a united front.

Let me give you a clear example of just how devastatingly effective he can be as a speaker. We heard this on Thursday night.

PAUL: [to Gingrich]: There's no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to be dealing with education. We should get rid of the student loan programs.

GINGRICH: The student loan program began when Lyndon Johnson announced it, I think, with a $15 million program. It's an absurdity. What does it do? It expands the ability of students to stay in college longer because they don't see the cost. It actually means they take fewer hours per semester on average. It takes longer for them to get through school. It allows them to tolerate tuitions going up absurdly. Now, let me give you a contrast that's very startling. The College of the Ozarks is a work-study college. You have to work 20 hours a week during the year to pay tuition and books. Now, that is a model so different, it will be culture shock for the students of America to learn we actually expect them to go to class, study, get out quickly, charge as little as possible, and emerge debt free by doing the right things for 4 years.

Now, just for a second, roleplay that you're a 40 year old woman, just divorced, working a menial job and you've just gotten into nursing school so you can get a better job. You have no money, really, but you took out student loans.

Paul says "take all the student loans away."
Gingrich says "Make colleges work study so you can go to school and emerge debt free."

The nursing student isn't going to vote for Paul, who will take away her only chance for education.

He's also for improving assisted living and assistance for senior citizens -- and, believe me, once you live on this retirement income, you'll see why people would want to vote for him. Grandparents helping a child who has children of their own (and no spouse) would vote for someone who would help their children and grandchildren get some assistance so they can get on their feet.

We all have different agendas, different lives, different histories, different economic situations. I'm not sure what would change before I would consider voting for Newt over Obama, but I acknowledge the possibility that Obama might manage to offend me so horribly that I would vote for Newt.

BTW, my generation tends to be dedicated voters in all elections, state, local, regional, national. I've voted in all elections ever since I turned 18 (in the Jurassic era).

How come they claim the delegates is distributed proportional when it is not the truth?

I can't get into my head why Americans accept this failed system of "winner takes all", it's fraud and makes your election look retarded in other "Democratic" countries. What justifies that America try to enforce democracy in other countries, when your own system is total failure??? Why does people in "the land of the free" accept this instead of demanding a honest system?

South Carolina's delegate allocation rules award 11 delegates to the statewide winner - declared by The New York Times and other organizations to be Newt Gingrich.

The state then awards two delegates to the winner in each of its seven Congressional districts.

In total, Mr. Gingrich is likely to win at least five of seven Congressional districts tonight, which would give him at least 21 of the state's 25 delegates. And he could get a clean sweep. Source

If Mr Gingrich wins Florida it would surprise me.

Newt my win in bible states but Florida has a lot of retirees and many got enough of that money the hard way by working for it.

I believe Romney will take Florida

There are two GOP groups the bible thumpers and the people that dislike the bible thumpers but hate democrats even more
and there is only a small number of bible states.

Calif will go to Romney.

reply to post by Byrd


Thank you for the post. I'm about to get some sleep though, so I'll read over again later today.

There's something very odd about GOP primary pre-polling and vote
www.activistpost.com...

Gingrich 40, Romney 27, Santorum 17

Gingrich up 14% in a day.

Electronic voting machines only gave Ron Paul 13%.

11% drop in a day.

That is a 24 hour crash that defies belief.

It only makes sense when you tie it to Gingrich's surge.

Vote fraud doesn't get more blatant than this.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Indellkoffer

Originally posted by Raelsatu
reply to post by Count Chocula

 

You're right. & If you check the exit polls, you can see that Ron Paul came in first with the age group 18-29. As the age group rises, the more Gingrich dominates. The older generation is sadly/unfortunately dumbed down, easily convinced & uses an American Idol type criteria when evaluating their candidate of choice.

As someone in that older age bracket, I think you may not be aware of how we assess political candidates. And I think your characterization of us as "dumbed down" is unkind and unfounded.

Just because we're not voting for YOUR favorite candidate doesn't mean we're stupid, blind, inept, unaware of law, incapable of remembering history, intellectually challenged, unable to decypher the logic of statements, fact-check statements and so forth.

We rely less on YouTube and more on reading, however, where you can go back, reexamine statements, and check references.

Not all of us are geniuses, but we're not a pack of idiot savants. We're just like you, only with gray hair and a lot more history that we've lived through.

The fact that the "older" generation is voting for Gingrich, Romney or Santorum pretty much shows how demented the older generations have become.

This is why I say this election will be the end of the Republican Party. Because the 30 and under crowd will permanently leave. Leaving the demented Gingrich, Santorum and Romney supporters to to wither out and in their weakest years be the most hated and disenfranchised demograph in America.

Ron Paul even left a cop out compromise that would of allowed some programs to phase out with those currently relying upon them, which is way more generous then the supposedly "greatest" generation deserves, and insanely generous to the older boomers.

Still you oldmoderator edit: profanity block the future we would seek to create for ourselves. So in a very really sense this is a deceleration of inter generational war. It is official, the older generations who have made the wrong decisions their ENTIRE LIVES! Is set to cannibalize the younger generation's future as well as well being in order so that they can feel "in charge" and a sense of "self satisfaction".

Originally posted by Raelsatu

Originally posted by Indellkoffer

As someone in that older age bracket, I think you may not be aware of how we assess political candidates. And I think your characterization of us as "dumbed down" is unkind and unfounded.

Just because we're not voting for YOUR favorite candidate doesn't mean we're stupid, blind, inept, unaware of law, incapable of remembering history, intellectually challenged, unable to decypher the logic of statements, fact-check statements and so forth.

We rely less on YouTube and more on reading, however, where you can go back, reexamine statements, and check references.

Not all of us are geniuses, but we're not a pack of idiot savants. We're just like you, only with gray hair and a lot more history that we've lived through.

Indel, please don't take what I say as a generalization of all middle-aged/older folks. I'm simply looking at the votes & overall tendency of this age bracket to go with their gut as opposed to truly looking at their candidate --- voting records, political history, personal vices & all. Yet of course I acknowledge not all are 'dumbed down'.

Being dumbed down in part includes: Einsteins defining of insanity. We keep voting these warhawks & obvious liars into office; and look at the path we stay on. One that is eating America from the inside. There is no justification for voting for somebody like Gingrich. The man is truly a serial hypocrite like none I've ever seen; and I'm beyond amazed how anyone could rationalize a vote for this toad.

Lastly, I did not call you an idiot savant. You seem like a relatively intelligent & articulate individual.

edit on 21-1-2012 by Raelsatu because: (no reason given)

Actually I am part of that generation and you are correct most of my generation and older are dumbed down imbeciles! I have been trying to educate them for over 25 years trust me I know. However I will say even though it is more the younger generation that are embracing Dr Paul's message still the vast majority of that generation are also imbeciles. It seems that ignorance and laziness knows no generational lines. However the younger generation is more easily converted then the older generation who are more crystallized in their long held false beliefs in my experience.

reply to post by Byrd

And I would dearly love to see a human being who doesn't lie, particularly when they're thrust into the public eye and every move they do is scrutinized and criticized (as a group of manipulators and hardcore fans throw themselves at the person.) I'm not saying I approve. I do say that I understand politicians are human and not saints.

Ron Paul is your man. He doesn't lie and has a proven track record of honesty and integrity over 20 years of service lobbyist do not darken his door because of it...

reply to post by burdman30ott6

You said that perfectly. I wouldn't have said it so nicely ...

Obama can't do much of anything without his teleprompter whereas Gingrich could easily grind Obama into the dirt beneath his shoe during a debate. Obama is clueless about the world whereas Gingrich knows all the players and the situation. Obama strolls through his job totally disengaged whereas Gingrich has the energy and focus to get things done.

And you are sooooo right .. back in the 1990s when we had Bill Clinton and Monica doing their thing, we were all told that was a private matter and didn't effect Clintons job as POTUS. Therefore, according to that 'logic', Gingrichs marriage problems shouldn't matter either. (I totally disagree with all this .. I think these things DO matter for both Clinton and Gingrich .. but the left wing press has said in the past that it doesnt )

That being said - I can't stand Newt or Obama and probably won't be voting this year.
But I can see Newt squashing Obama like the bug he is.

Two questions for whoever .... 1 - Romeny is the crown prince so what happened to that? 2 - How the heck did Gingrich get his numbers jacked so high so quickly? Did the Palin non-endorsement endorsement push it that high??