Reply With Quote
It don't mean a thing if you don't got that win.
Evangelical State
Poll: Ron Paul ties Rick Santorum for third in South Carolina
Read more: http://www.thestatecolumn.com/south-...#ixzz1jGC0ofTy
Among the elderly (65+) Mr. Romney also took first place with 34.5 percent of the votes, but Mr. Paul pulled in the most votes among voters 30-44 years of age with 23.0 percent of the votes. Mr. Paul also leads among Independent voters with 29.1 percent of the votes.
After celebrating his second place finish Tuesday night, Mr. Paul traveled down to South Carolina to rally supporters Wednesday. “The numbers are growing. They grew exponentially in New Hampshire, and they’re going to grow contagiously here in South Carolina,” Mr. Paul said in West Columbia, South Carolina, according to The Los Angeles Times.
Mr. Paul is kicking off a new round of campaign fundraising with a “South Carolina” money bomb on Saturday, January 14th. Mr. Paul and the rest of the Republican candidates have until January 21st to convince South Carolina voters that they are worthy of the Republican presidential nomination.
It don't mean a thing if you don't got that win.
Known as Mr. Paul in the US house. Using the honorific would be quaint were it not so obsequious.
http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/ai...-newt-gingrich
Romney 23%
Gingrich 21%
Undecided/someone else 17%
Santorum 14%
Paul 13%
Huntsman 7%
Perry 5 %
So where does it say he is now in third?
Independents can't vote in the primary in S.C.Mr. Paul also leads among Independent voters with 29.1 percent of the votes.
Even if he finishes 3rd it just means he drops from 1st loser to 2nd loser.
New poll. Ron Paul surges 11 points to 20%
According to an American Research Group survey released Friday morning, 29 percent of likely Palmetto State GOP primary voters say they're backing Mitt Romney, with 25 percent supporting former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Romney's four-point margin over Gingrich is within the poll's sampling error.
The survey indicates Rep. Ron Paul of Texas at 20 percent, Texas Gov. Rick Perry at 9 percent, former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania at 7 percent, and former Utah Gov. and former U.S. ambassador to China Jon Huntsman at 1 percent, with 7 percent undecided.
Read more: http://www.ksbw.com/politics/3020649...#ixzz1jMJDxN9K
I hope just keeps on going.
Who won 3rd in the 2008 South Carolina primary?
Exactly.
Lol @ "surges to 3rd"
SC has only 8 electoral votes, but Paul won't be the nominee.
People for Paul are so ing confused and/or ignorant of what his fantasies would mean, but he'll never have the power to realize them.
let's see the last 2 presidents' fantasies brought us Iraq and Obamacare
funny. Bush had the fantasy of spreading christianity, and democracy around the world and profiting from it
now Obama has the fantasy of turning America's healthcare into a socialist european country's
yeah, those really meant something
"funny. Bush had the fantasy of spreading christianity, and democracy around the world and profiting from it"
you're confusing the neocon's lies to justify the war with their real objective of grabbing Iraq oiol
"now Obama has the fantasy of turning America's healthcare into a socialist european country's"
... where EVERYBODY has health care, MUCH cheaper than USA, and without nightmares of falling sick and into unending poverty or bankruptcy. calling ACA socialism is parroting the Repug/VRWC/Medical industrial complex's LIES.
Scottish Rugby Player chastised for calling Obama a
Lamont disciplined for Obama tweet
http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/2012/0113/lamontr.html
"The rise of (Republican presidential hopeful) Ron Paul in the US has to be the most inspiring story in western politics. He doesn't work for wall street like that Obama."
Paul Skyrockets in South Carolina
http://reason.com/blog/2012/01/13/th...kets-while-ric
Trashing RP's historical lies
Ron Paul’s False Founding Narrative
Exclusive: Rep. Ron Paul and other right-wingers have lured many average Americans into their camp by creating a false narrative about America’s Founding, claiming that the drafters of the Cons ution wanted a weak central government. But that’s not the real history, Robert Parry writes.
By Robert Parry
Ron Paul, the libertarian congressman from Texas who has topped 20 percent in the first two Republican contests, is fond of claiming that the U.S. Cons ution was written “to protect your liberty and to restrain the federal government,” thus making modern laws — from Social Security, to civil rights statutes, to health-care reform – uncons utional. But that isn’t really true.
While the framers of the Cons ution in 1787 undeniably cared about liberty – at least for white men – they were also practical individuals who wanted a vibrant central government that would enable the new nation to protect itself both militarily and economically, especially against European rivals.
Rep. Ron Paul speaking to a crowd of supporters
The broad powers that the Cons ution granted Congress were designed to let this central government address national problems that existed then as well as others that would arise in the future. For instance, the Cons ution gave control over interstate commerce to Congress in order to counter economic advantages enjoyed by foreign compe ors.
Far from Paul’s assertions that the Founders wanted a weak central government, the Founders – at least those at the Cons utional Convention in Philadelphia – understood that a great danger came from having a national authority that was too weak, what they had experienced under the Articles of Confederation, which governed the nation from 1777 to 1787.
The Articles of Confederation embraced the concept of state “sovereignty” and called the United States not a government or even a nation, but “a firm league of friendship” among the states. The Confederation’s Article II declared: “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated.” And very few powers were delegated to the federal government.
The result had been severe problems for the young country, ranging from the failure of states to make voluntary contributions in support of the Continental Army to opening regional divisions that foreign rivals could exploit.
So, in 1787, the framers of the Cons ution – led by Gen. George Washington, James Madison and others in the Virginia delegation – scrapped the Articles and put forward a very different plan, eliminating state sovereignty and creating a strong central government with broad powers, including control over “interstate commerce.”
The Commerce Clause wasn’t some afterthought, either. It was part of the original proposal outlined on the Cons utional Convention’s first day of substantive business on May 29, 1787. The Virginia delegation had one of its members, Edmund Randolph, include it in his opening presentation.
Virginia’s plan laid out the framework that would later become the U.S. Cons ution, transferring sovereignty from the 13 original states to “we the people of the United States” as represented by a new national Republic.
http://consortiumnews.com/2012/01/13...ing-narrative/
SC-2012 Primary: 29% Romney, 24% Gingrich, 15% Paul (PPP 1/11-13)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1205258.html
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
