Ron Paul Wins South Carolina!

reply to post by Cynicaleye

Sorry, I forgot you couldn't criticize your Jesus.

That's okay....but please don't let it happen again.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by vor78

 

If someones supporters actions offend you to the point where you vote for another candidate with polar opposite political beliefs, then you my friend need to do some ideological soul searching as you have no idea what you really believe or support.

Thank you for proving my point. Your best argument to convince me that I should vote for Ron Paul is to throw insults. Again, this is why I'm having second thoughts. It looks like a damned cult.

So, Mr. CynicalEye, I am waiting with bated breath to hear which STELLAR candidate you will be voting for............

Ok, he lost..... big deal!

At least he's being consistent!!

Originally posted by vor78

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by vor78

 

If someones supporters actions offend you to the point where you vote for another candidate with polar opposite political beliefs, then you my friend need to do some ideological soul searching as you have no idea what you really believe or support.

Thank you for proving my point. Your best argument to convince me that I should vote for Ron Paul is to throw insults. Again, this is why I'm having second thoughts. It looks like a damned cult.

It is. It's commonly known as the "Cult of Ron Paul." Don't try to argue with them, you will be labelled a "dis-info" agent.

reply to post by vor78

Agreed. Its the type of pathetic display that turns people off from voting for him. Its certainly having that affect on me as an undecided GOP voter (and, while I'm not a huge fan, I'm leaning ever so slightly to voting for him). If they're representative of the people who support Ron Paul, I think maybe I need to look elsewhere.

Since you place more weight on the actions of a candidate's supporters than you do on the candidate's individual merit, your vote will not be made from a truly informed standpoint. Maybe you should just refrain from voting this time around until you can handle the election process in a more mature manner.

reply to post by Cynicaleye

Don't try to argue with them, you will be labelled a "dis-info" agent.

Oh, come on.....that's not exactly accurate! We use a plethora of other names besides "dis-info agent!"

I see, so now the meme of why Ron Paul did so poorly is because residents of South Carolina are stupid or uneducated, and South Carolina is “backwards.” You DO realize how elitist and snobbish this is, don’t you? I would encourage our members from the South to say your piece about this prejudicial attitude of our elitist fellow citizens who consider themselves smarter than you dumb hick southerners. For the record, here are a few statistics comparing, in this case, California, New York, South Carolina and the US average in terms of educational attainment. Figures are from 2010:

California: High School = 80.6%, College: 29.9%, Graduate: 10.7%
New York: High School=84.7%, College=32.4%, Graduate=14.0%
South Carolina: Hugh School=83.6%, College=24.3%, Graduate=8.4%
USA Average: High School=85.3%, College=27.9%, Graduate=10.3%

Stats from US Census Bureau.

Oh, yeah. That’s a HUGE disparity all right. I think you Paulistas are not going to get very far with your, “Ron Paul lost because the voters are stupid” rhetoric. That kind of exposes you for what a lot of people have long expected. Paul supporters don’t give one hoot about democracy. They want in control and they will do anything at all to get there.

Originally posted by NightGypsy
Since you place more weight on the actions of a candidate's supporters than you do on the candidate's individual merit, your vote will not be made from a truly informed standpoint. Maybe you should just refrain from voting this time around until you can handle the election process in a more mature manner.

Speaking of maturity issues, maybe you shouldn't be telling others what to do, much less trying to infer what they think. That said, I've got bad news for ya, buddy. I don't support Ron Paul's platform 100%. Quite a bit less, actually. The main reason I've been leaning in his direction is because I trust him more than the others. Not a lot more, but a little more. Still, I've got to find some reason to differentiate one of these guys, and when I see behavior like this from Ron Paul's supporters...you know, the people who will actually have influence with him if he's elected...it doesn't inspire trust in his campaign. Without that, he's just another candidate in the race who hasn't broken away from the pack.

Yes, Ron Paul is a loser in this election, there is no further need of proof.

13% is probably a little higher than a national average that he will get so all the paulistinians who are calling Carolinians every dirty name in the book and the dumbest animal around should realize they are only a little dumb, maybe an extra 1% or 2% who voted Ron Paul.

The silence of the lambs is very telling.
All the "Iowa was rigged" threads have no meaning after these results.

reply to post by vor78

Still, I've got to find some reason to differentiate one of these guys, and when I see behavior like this from Ron Paul's supporters...you know, the people who will actually have influence with him if he's elected...it doesn't inspire trust in his campaign. Without that, he's just another candidate in the race who hasn't broken away from the pack.

"The people who will actually have influence on with him if he's elected?" HAHAHAHAHA.....Here's a news flash for you: that would be the entire population of voters in America, not just Ron Paul supporters!

You believe you can trust Ron Paul, but you don't like the way his supporters act, so you might not vote for him?

Are you listening to yourself? I don't think so, because every argument you've offered up in support of your views only confounds the mind.

reply to post by schuyler

Oh, yeah. That’s a HUGE disparity all right. I think you Paulistas are not going to get very far with your, “Ron Paul lost because the voters are stupid” rhetoric. That kind of exposes you for what a lot of people have long expected. Paul supporters don’t give one hoot about democracy. They want in control and they will do anything at all to get there.

Whatever you say, boss.

Haven't they all, with the exception of Romney, had a 4th place finish, in what, 3 states now?

With Paul's message of liberty and a hope for a better tomorrow we might expect he would be taking each race with substantial numbers. He does pose a threat to the protected interests of corruption and greed. They have long been nurtured by the system and have become powerful forces to battle.

The US is not lost yet, just disoriented.

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
Yes, Ron Paul is a loser in this election, there is no further need of proof.

13% is probably a little higher than a national average that he will get so all the paulistinians who are calling Carolinians every dirty name in the book and the dumbest animal around should realize they are only a little dumb, maybe an extra 1% or 2% who voted Ron Paul.

The silence of the lambs is very telling.
All the "Iowa was rigged" threads have no meaning after these results.

So, you think Ron Paul has no chance, then?

Let's see...

Iowa: Newt Gingrich 16,163 13.30%
New Hampshire: Newt Gingrich – 21,505 9.4%

And of course, South Carolina
Newt Gingrich - 243,153 40%
www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com...

If what you say is true, Gingrich didn't have a chance pre-South Carolina since he polled even BELOW what Paul got in South Carolina, yet he came out ahead of Romney out of the blue. I fail to see how 13% means Paul should drop out, especially in a state he barely touched.

Originally posted by HangTheTraitors
South Carolina is a very backwards place that has yet to evolve yet to modern day. A people who are not very bright. Average IQ is very very low. That of a rock in most cases.

So its no surprise to see these results from them. Are women even allowed to vote there yet?? Anyone graduate high-school there yet?

Very un-evolved, unintelligent, and backwards state so what can you expect really?

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

Oh yeah, well you're ignorant if you think that. Or you're just being mean. Or you think it's funny to degrade people like me, who live in South Carolina, have a Master's Degree, and an I.Q. of 127. So... take it back, you and all your little copy-cat posters after you!!!

Paul may not have the resources to spend like the other candidates. To pick up all the undecided voters who make up their mind in the last few days, people watch debates and see how well they do. I believe that is why Gringich won. Most people don't research the candidates IMO because they feel they are too busy with their lives. Unfortunately that makes it appear that the guy with the most money wins. Unless he looks really bad in a debate he often does. Americans in general have accepted this rich guy almost always wins for years. I believe it takes $25,000 just to get your name on a South Carolina ballot. A modern day Abraham Lincoln wouldn't stand a chance unless he quickly got power and funds. Getting power and support quickly might make others wonder what kind of sneaky deals you made if you weren't already rich IMO. So everything is proceeding as one might expect. Our election process is flawed.
Lol, I typed this message on my iPad while walking and walked several extra minutes. I guess I got an extra benefit.

Originally posted by vor78

Originally posted by Fitch303
There are a bunch of bitter ass people on here. "you don't agree with me??? you must be a big stupid head idiot" literally that's how some of you sound.

Agreed. Its the type of pathetic display that turns people off from voting for him. Its certainly having that affect on me as an undecided GOP voter (and, while I'm not a huge fan, I'm leaning ever so slightly to voting for him). If they're representative of the people who support Ron Paul, I think maybe I need to look elsewhere.

So you pick your candidates based on what other people do and say rather then thinking for yourself and judging the man on his own merits... Ok Gotcha...

Granted I do believe Ron Paul won in Iowa and the "Establishment" didn't want him to have momentum coming out of that caucus. That contest is done and over with and there is no way to change it.

Gingrich and Santorum have no way to win the nomination at all. That is unless they win through a "brokered convention". This is when the first vote at the convention fails to pick a candidate then the will of the voters are thrown out and they have a ballot. At this point any candidate can win even one who didn't run in the primaries.

Gingrich and Santorum failed to qualify to get on the ballot in multiple states therefore are right from the start losing 564 delegates because they can't compete in those states. The only way possible to win for them would be for one to win all the other states and that's very unlikely.

So Gingrich winning SC actually helped Ron Paul taking away those delegates away from Romney. The longer Santorum and Gingrich stay in does neither one any good, the only thing it does is pull delegates from the only 2 candidates that can win the nomination by delegate vote.

Ron Paul supporters will get the last laugh. With Ron Paul as the nominee the GOP stands a chance to beat Obama.

Without Ron Paul as the nominee, if even 1% of the GOP is swayed to vote for him anyways or else vote for a 3rd party like the Libertarian ... the GOP WILL lose. There is no if ands or buts. Nominate Paul and have a chance. Nominate one of the Neocons and lose by the will of your own party's fringe. That's a fact.

I suppose it's foolish to jump into a heated debate with dull questions, but I'll ask anyway. (I don't have a favorite candidate, since my primary is a ways off I'm waiting to see who's left before I start looking at them.)

1) What are Paul's flaws, if any?
2) If Paul doesn't win the nomination, what will his supporters do? (In general)
3) Does any candidate have the ability to work with Congress?
4) Which candidates can win debates against Obama?

I'd appreciate whatever answers anyone has to give.