| New Hampshire Republican primary, January 10, 2012 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Candidate | Votes | Percentage | Projected delegate count | ||||
| FOX | CNN | MSNBC | |||||
| Mitt Romney | 97,600 | 39.28% | 7 | 7 | 7 | ||
| Ron Paul | 56,872 | 22.89% | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||
| Jon Huntsman | 41,783 | 16.89% | 2 | 2 | 2 | ||
| Rick Santorum | 23,362 | 9.43% | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Newt Gingrich | 23,291 | 9.42% | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Rick Perry | 1,764 | 0.71% | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Buddy Roemer | 950 | 0.38% | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Michele Bachmann | 350 | 0.14% | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Fred Karger | 345 | 0.14% | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Kevin Rubash | 250 | 0.10% | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Gary Johnson | 181 | 0.07% | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Herman Cain | 161 | 0.06% | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Jeff Lawman | 119 | 0.05% | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Christopher Hill | 108 | 0.04% | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Other* | 682 | 0.27% | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Unprojected delegates: | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Total: | 248,448 | 100.0% | 12 | 12 | 12 | ||
Mitt Romney won the New Hampshire primary handily with Ron Paul taking a distant second place in the field. Jon Huntsman rounded out the top 3.
Jan 10, 2012 (90% of precincts reporting)
Mitt Romney - 90,090 39.4%
Ron Paul - 52,292 22.9%
Jon Huntsman - 38,394 16.8%
Newt Gingrich - 21,505 9.4%
Rick Santorum -21,338 9.3%
Rick Perry - 1,588 0.7%
Report from Fox News:
Mitt Romney scored a decisive victory in the New Hampshire primary Tuesday, securing his second win in the first two contests of the presidential nominating season and trying to turn his front-running campaign into a steamroller.
His New Hampshire performance puts Romney's campaign in strong position going into South Carolina, the next primary on the calendar and one that historically has been key to the GOP presidential nomination. But Romney still has a fight on his hands, as the five other candidates vowed to press on and meet him in the Palmetto State.
In New Hampshire, Ron Paul finished in second and Jon Huntsman finished in third. Rick Perry finished in sixth place. Any remaining drama in the state was shaping up to be a race for fourth, between Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. Both candidates were pulling in 10 percent of the vote.
With 81 percent of precincts reporting, Romney was leading with 38 percent of the vote. Paul has 23 percent and Huntsman has 17 percent.
Romney's victory was apparent almost from the moment polls closed on Tuesday, and the frontrunning candidate addressed a jubilant and rowdy crowd in Manchester. The audience frequently broke out into cheers and chants of "Mitt! Mitt! Mitt!" as the candidate vowed to take the fight into South Carolina, whose contest is Saturday, Jan. 21.
Heading to South Carolina, Mitt Romney comes in with a palpable advantage given his victories in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Auto-Generated Tags:
- nh democratic primary 2012 results
- nh democratic primary results
- new hampshire democratic primary results 2012
- final new hampshire results
- new hampshire final results
- new hampshire democratic primary results
- new hampshire primary democratic results
- final results new hampshire primary
- Presidential primary results 2012
- new hampshire 2012 democratic primary results
- 2012 new hampshire democratic primary results
- nh primary final results
Ron Paul 2012!
Amen
YES!
ROMNEY 2012!!!!!! YEAH!
Hey mark I have a better idea: RON PAUL 2012
RON PAUL all the way.
Listen to what Paul is saying not what others are saying about Paul!
The question is, what happens when we're down to Mitt, Paul and one other. There is still a significant anti-Mitt sentiment. There's also an anti-Paul sentiment, and those certainly overlap. Among the people who don't like either of them, who will they pick when it's just the two of them. And who will the third player be?
Everything up to Florida is just a process of winnowing the field.
I already chose Paul. Not a difficult choice.
If it's not romney or paul, it's obviously going to be RON PAUL 2012
If it ends up being Romney there will be not reason to have an election. Obama wins. To be honest there really is very little difference between them so it really does not matter.
I don't understand, Youtube is filled with Ron Paul fans, ….but they don't vote? Why isn't Ron Paul winning if he has such a huge support. I don't know who I'm voting for yet, but something seems fishy to me
The simple answer is… having the loudest voices doesn't mean you have the most votes.
Romney is Mormon. All the Mormons voted for him.
I'm mormon, and I wholeheartedly support Ron Paul. Romney has caused thousands of regular working folks to lose their jobs with his ventures in Bain Capital. He's no good, and is another insider.
RON PAUL 2012
The problem is many, if not most, voters don't look past the D or the R when casting a ballot. In a primary, this intellectual dishonesty is the reason the media has such a easy time manipulating the voter's decision. Hence the rollercoaster. In the general election the D's and the R's will generally vote for their nominee. The issue and challenge is enticing the growing independent voter. A group that is disillusioned with both major parties and our corrupt political system in general. They want real change. After 20 years, Paul's ideas are starting to be noticed and discused, especially since what he has been warning has come to fruition.
Paul has the nickname President of the Internet. There are several reasons for this:
- Paul's supporters are disproportionately young (thus more likely to use the Internet).
- the mainstream media dislikes Paul, thus people that like him are far more likely to have read about him on the Internet than on TV.
- Paul's supporters are more fervent and thus more likely to take the effort to comment.
You add all of this up and a candidate that polls 8%-12% among Republicans nationally has 50+% of Internet commenters.
well said perfect explination
"The mainstream media dislikes Paul, thus people are far more likely to have read about him on the internet than on TV."
So, the internet is not 'mainstream'? CNN.com is run by teenage hackers? Maybe you can explain why the first thousand results on Google News are always, ALWAYS about Romney and Gingrich? Not a very well thought out comment. The bottom line is that anyone who dislikes Paul is either obsessed with the abortion/pot legalization issues (using the term 'issue' lightly), or is in $150,000 of DEBT and doesn't understand that this country needs fiscal responsibility, as in yesterday. I'm guessing Ryan is in the debt category. By the way, I'm 33 and still watch network news, am debt free, and don't want to see this country die in a war with Iran and North Korea (Romney), or go through another sex-related impeachment (Gingrich).
Well I live in Minnesota, a caucus state. I don't have time with a job and classes to sit there for a couple hours and show my support for Ron Paul. I have responsibilities. Some of the stoned slackers need to get out and vote for him. I'm sure they support him unless they are looking for government handouts from Obama
If Romney wins, the republicans have no chance in November. Only Paul has the persona and views to get people interested in the republicans again, especially younger generations.
True
thats exactly what they want.
ron paul has been ignored since 2007 (or even 1967)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb5aGgQXhXo
Romney talks out of his ass 99 percent of the time it seems. All he says is..Obamas trash!..I'm better..if you want change..vote for me. Ron Paul has many great and intelligent ideas that will actually help and benefit our country. Its another politician selling us complete bull shit vs. someone who truly wants change to benefit America. Vote Ron Paul!
Mitt Romney Quotes
"This is a global effort we're going to have to lead to overcome this jihadist effort. It's more than Osama bin Laden. But he is going to pay, and he will die."
"We will strengthen our security by building missile defense, restoring our military might, and standing by and strengthening our intelligence officers."
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney fielded a question on the National Defense Authorization Act amendment at a December 11, 2011 town hall meeting with voters in Hudson, NH. "Let me take a look at the particular authorization," Romney said, suggesting he had not yet heard about an issue that has been in making headlines for weeks now.
National Defense Authorization Act
Allows indefinite detention of US Citizens without trial or attorney
John McCain and Lindsey Graham wrote the bill.
Obama signed the NDAA bill on Sat. Dec. 31 2011
John McCain supports Mitt Romney.
I put 2 and 2 together!
"On our watch, the conversation with a would-be suicide bomber will not begin with the words, 'You have the right to remain silent"
"We should double Guantanamo!"
Nov. 12 at Wofford College in Spartanburg, South Carolina. Mitt Romney said in the debate that he supported the order by President Barack Obama that authorized the killing overseas of an American citizen suspected of terrorist activity. Romney said it “absolutely” is appropriate for the president to issue such an order.
He said he too would work covertly to “encourage” Iranian dissidents. Romney said it would be “unacceptable” for Iran to have nuclear weapons, and that he’d order a military strike as a last resort.
Mitt Romney said that if he were president he would propose creating a global trade body that would be of a "higher-standard" than the World Trade Organization.
"Corporations are people, my friend," he said. "Of course they are!"
"If you don’t like my answer, you can go vote for someone else."
I put 2 and 2 together, Mitt Romney is the status quo.
RON PAUL IS FOR THE PEOPLE 2012
Well said but furthermore, all Mitt talks about now (during campaign season) is beating Obama.
Then what? Am I the only person who thinks that beating Obama is a short-sighted & foundationless platform? Any candidate who spouts about Iran getting this & beating Obama that will flounder worse that the approval rating of our gaunt, ill-looking, chain smoking president. Obama is twisting in the wind & a stiff wind will blow him right over.
My concern is for my kids (2yrs, 1yr & due in 5mos) in the next 4 years & thereafter. I'm 24 years old & really didn't understand the adults around me who, on one hand complained about the corruption of politicians but on the other hand, said,"Well, this is just how its always been done," as though I should just take it too.
When there's an opportunity to put guts, brains & a respect for the people who seated a president, I'm going to take it. And this is meerly the next step. Then we can prune the congress down to a stronger yield of reps who support freedoms & who cut away the regulations to keep their jobs.
Mamabear1138
Amen Mamabear! This statement is so powerful!
"I'm 24 years old & really didn't understand the adults around me who, on one hand complained about the corruption of politicians but on the other hand, said, "Well, this is just how its always been done," as though I should just take it too.
When there's an opportunity to put guts, brains & a respect for the people who seated a president, I'm going to take it. And this is meerly the next step. Then we can prune the congress down to a stronger yield of reps who support freedoms & who cut away the regulations to keep their jobs'"
No matter how it's spun THERE IS NO EXCUSE TO VOTE FOR THE STATUS-QUO AGAIN!
RON PAUL 2012 COURAGE, HONOR AND WISDOM~~~FOR THE PEOPLE!
Romney - used car salesman persona
Paul - sincere, however seems somewhat crazy
Gingrich - highly intelligent and very experienced
Santorum - sincere straight shooter with emphasis on family values
Perry - seems like a nice guy but not quite up to the job
Huntsman - not quite what the country needs right now
Gingrich is not for the people. He is out to make money and will be another big business backing president. I don't what you mean by Ron Paul is kind of crazy because every comment he makes is consistent and makes perfect sense to a rational individual.
I'm ultra conservative and I don't support Mitt or Paul. I'd prefer Santorum or Newt. I understand people likeing Paul in domestic issues but I can't stand his forgien policy. This policy was tried by none other that Neville Chamberlain, and Britian relized they had made a mistake durning a little thing they called the BLitz. It really offends me he claims we weren't attack. Maybe he slept in on 9/11 but the rest of us weren't, and even he supported the war in Afganistan then, so he has changed his mind (He doesn't do it often). I don't think he could win the general election I'm sorry, but the thought of 4 more years of Obama scares me to the thought of moving to New Zealand (Not that I will but it's a thought). I don't think he's to old to be president at all, but if any of you live in a liberal county of a liberal state it got really annoying hear people say McCain would DIE in office under the pressure, and we all know the way the liberal media hammered Palin so he really didn't look good to these people. I respect the enthusiasm of pauls followers, but he doesn't have a HUGE following he has a CULT-LIKE one. That's not an insult I'm not calling you crazy but enthusiastic please no that.
On the subject of Mitt he's not conservative and althought I understand people saying he's electible because he's more moderate, but he's really not. THe problem is Romney Care. I realize there are big differences between this and Obama Care, but when Obama's billion $ campaign gets underway people won't and people who know them will begin to wonder. Obama Care is the crown jewel of this administrations failures and Mitt being our candidate eliminates that. He looks electible now but wait until Obama's campaign gets going. I also would like to mention that I don't trust him on issues like the 2nd amendment and abortion that he has flip-flopped on. Could he get the economey going? Maybe but will he have that chance I don't really no. It will be close. I would also like to add that I wnet and saw Obama making a speech in my liberal county. I went not because I like him but because I wanted to see a sitting president and I hoped he would acually talk about the American Jobs Act which he was supposed to but didn't. He will run a mud-slinging campaign, and unleash on Mitt for the few business that failed under him and his stupid comment abotu firing people that was taken out of contex. I'd support him over Obama, but I'd also support a tin can over Obama.
I like Santorum because he's an all around conservative like me and Reagan, and others. Once people relize he's not just socially conservative but in all sences of the word. Newt is very similar, and is a great debater which would do great in the general.
I relize Mitt is doing good but once the field thins and there's one true conservative left standing (most likely Santorum or Newt) then It will be a long drwn out primary that could last until May. That's my two cents.
P.S. Ron Paul isnt' stupid enough to run as a third party. He would just split the Republican vote letting Obama walk into the WHite House. We don't need another 1912. Imagine 100 years of elections and us Republicans make the same mistake again. Let's remember the real goal here to beat Obama
What are you talking about again with 9/11? Remember most of the hijackers where from Saudi Arabia (15 of them).
None from Irak. None trained in Irak. There was no WMD in Irak. And even human right abuses in Irak were lower than in Saudi Arabia.
What you are supporting is like Chamblerlain pushing for war with say Angola…
Iraq is spelled with a Q and I was saying that 9/11 was the reason for attacking Afanganistan because the Taliban was letting Al-Qaeda have training grounds. It doesn't matter that they were born in Saudia Arabia. The Saudis weren't supporting Al-Qarda. With Iraq EVERY MAJOR intellegence service in the WORLD said Iraq had WMD's including our own. If a president doesn't trust our own intelligent services then we shouldn't trust him, and unlike your presious Ron Paul, Bush understands that we can't let violent hostile nations like Iraq was and Iran is today haveing WMD's.
Most western nations supported the war in Afghanistan so that one may have been right - if it is ever right to do a war.
Not so much for IraQ apart from the british (and only the brits government btw) and other little ones. I don't believe other civilized nations believed IraQ was such a threat. There was no UN resolution remember ?
I would guess that a good half of the extermist fanatic Wahhabi schools in the world are funded by the Saudi. But we just can't investigate these guys. Why?
Thank you for seeing what I mean about Afganistan. I understand your uneasiness about Iraq, but I belive that it was better of us to act and be wrong than not to act and be right.
Double B,
first off, I read everything that you wrote so please read what i wrote…
Almost all politicians are becoming the same at this point besides Obama and Ron Paul. All of them are force fed what big governments wants them, and us to think. Ron Paul is a real republican, unlike every other candidate, because he believes in actual republican values. Obama is a democrat leaning onto socialism, which is by no means a "bad thing". Socialism is not fascism or communism or a dictatorship or whatever other crazy thing it's been compared to. The economy was weakened under the Bush administration and fell because of lack of socialism. The banks bet against their poor investments and fell hard from it. Socialism could of saved the economy and not brought us into a almost depression (The only reason it wasn't a depression was the stimulus- which did everything it was supposed to do.) This country's politics was founded on checks and balances, so why can't the economy? Capitalism is one of the finest economic systems ever invented and works brilliantly here in America, except that it's been abused over the past 30 years. Big businesses wrote the tax codes under Reagan, whom let them do whatever they want to do and destroyed the middle class. Socialism isn't total government take over, but put into place that greedy businessmen abuse. (Is it right that a juvenile prison keeps kids that were meant to be there 2 months, there for a year so that they can make more money? of course not… that's where socialism saves the day). Obamacare, although I know it seems harsh that you now have to pay taxes to save someone else's life who can't support themselves because of our extreme capitalism that Reagan set up, is a necessity in a country like this. If we voted to have governments destroy the middle class, we have to face the consequences and help the less fortunate who suffer from this.
Ron Paul, although radical in some points, is the only candidate that the GOP has that is decent enough to bring up a proper, fair, fun election. Ron Paul isn't anti 9/11 but he makes the point that we messed that situation up bad. George Bush's family was friends with the Saudi royal family and the Bin Ladin family before any of this happened. a month before the attacks on the world trade center, GWB got his information from his intelligence agencies that this attack was coming, and for whatever reason, he didn't act on it and decided to read a book about a little duck to some kindergardeners instead. The next days, he flew the saudi family and bin ladin family out of this country for free… oh, and did i forget to mention but all but 2 of the hijackers of the planes were from Saudi Arabia. So why did we go to Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan? why didn't we just confront Saudi Arabia? idk, bush didn't want to fight with his buddy. Ron Paul actually looked at he facts on 9/11 and we've had it coming for all the meddling we've been doing- the same kind of interfering that people like Romney, Santorum, Newt, perry, bachman are all advocating we do. what happens over there is not our business except for our allies such as Israel. We are not in charge of the world. we don't need to go and help people over there or start fights. we have domestic issues that are far more important to the american people that bombing iran.
I also can't stand any of the ignorance that swarms the GOP considering human being's rights as people. Why should gay people be treated harshly? They aren't forcing you to suck dicks or join them. They can't help the fact that they are gay, because if it was a choice, no one would choose it from all the hate ignorant people give them. They have every right to marry whoever they want and it isn't up to other people to decide that. It isn't anyone's business but theirs… If two dudes start humping on your property, then call the cops, but you can't control what other people do. You're so afraid of socialism, but you want to control what people can or can't do for ridiculous things like not allowing their happiness or protection under the constitution. Marriages should become obsolete if people are going to make such a big fuss over it like they do, and it can be done because we have the first amendment which says separation of church and state. Religion is hypocrisy until proven correctly, so misleadings of the bible aren't actual arguments against this.
Thanks for the reply Cale. I read everything that you said, I always do.
You obivously suport Obama somewhat even though you have a soft spot for Ron Paul? I don't understand how that's possible, but whatever. On the topic of socialism could you explain what country you would like to be more like. Greece, Italy, Spain… or any other euro zone countrys that are colapsing as we speak. Granted we're in it pretty deep ourselves but mimicking them would make us even worse. This terrible economic system causes TRUE conservatives like Margret Thatcher to make statments like (This isn't an exact quote nut it's pretty close) -The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money to spend.- Thats's a TRUE conservative statment. The most out of touch issue you mentioned is the tax code. Yes, the tax code does need reform. For individuals and bussinesses that get away with unfare deals. However, if you all the facts you wouldn't accuse Reagan of letting the rich write the tax code. Three are three distinct reasons for this. One, we have the HIGHEST corporate tax rate in the WORLD. Higher than your precious socialist Europe and communist China. Next time you pick up a pencil read the "Made in China" and stop to think. They have a billion people people they put to work and we can't do that with 300 million. Two, the top 1% that the occupy wall street idiots keep protesting about pay 50% of the taxes collected in this country. No rich person wrote that. Three, 50% of people don't pay any income tax at all. The rich DIDN'T write this. Think about it.
On the topic of 9/11 we had no knowledge of any of it prior to this, and if you get your information from so nutjob conspiricy therorist you should stop. Just because these people were from Saudi Arabia doesn't mean it was thier fault. They were trained in AFGANISTAN in training camps that the taliban government allow and supported. It was vital to go into Afganistan or it would happen again. You can't reaspn with these people. We helped them when fighting the Russians which was the right thing to do. They hurt us when we help them. They don't care if they live or die. All they care about is that when they do die they take as many of us with them as they can. It would've happened again and again until we did somehting. They're not attacking us for our bases in Arabia. They're attacking us because that's all they know. It's what they teach them in school. They attcked us because we didn't stop these regimes from takeing over. It started because we did nothing for decades. THey attacked us 3 times in the Clinton administration and he did nothing, and look what happened. Unless we act it will NEVER go away.
Human rights are for the right to live. Something conservatives stand for internationally and here at home. Gay righs is something different, but nobody is trying to pass laws that prohibit what they do in their own home. That's left wing people trying to distourt what we stand for. Just because we belive they're makeing the wrong joice doesn't mean we want to persicute them, but this has nothing to do with marrage. Which has always been a religious thing and the government has no right to intrude on religious beleives. Even though it says NOTHING about a seperation of church and state anywhere in the constitiution at all. Even if your not a religious person science doesn't support it not being a choice. The only acception would be XXY or X which is a treatable genetic disorder that the body itself usually will fix. Scientifially we're here to reproduce and ensure the continualtion of live. We're scientifically supposed to be attracted to the opposite sex. These to syndromes aren't increadibaly rare but rare enough and the fact that the body almost always corrects them means that not everyone who is gay has them, therefore it's a choice. I don't know why they choose it. I don't know why liberals think the way they do or the way you think. I don't know why people choose this, but they.
I've tried to present only factual information I hope you respond or anyone else too. I would also like to know if anyone has any other oppions on anything else I said.
Thanks!
why are you so stupid? This right here folks is the problem with the republican party. What is up with you people who want to micro-manage every freaking thing in the world? Its extremely frustrating to see people that are unable to make logical connections between things and instead blindly follow whatever someone (media) spoon-feeds them. Why is the goal just to beat Obama, especially if you put someone just like him (Romney) in office? You're going to have 4 more years of the same stuff, yet the blame will lie with the republicans. Santorum is a moron and Newt is a scumbag. It blows my mind that people are unaffected by this pestilence. By the way, who cares if people are gay by choice or by genetics so long as they aren't telling you how to live your life. I just wish people would start minding their own damn business. People don't harass me because I am straight, what gives anyone the right to bash a person who isn't? Sorry for my rant, I'm just so sick of dumb people who can't think straight.
How about instead of just ranting on you tell me what's wrong with what I said ok? Plus I don't trust Romney, but he would be alot better than Obama they're not just like eachother. And if you don't think the goal is to beat Obama than you can't call yourself a Republican. What I was saying was being gay is a choice, the wrong one, but nobody's trying to tell them how to live their life. All i'm saying is we shouldn't completely transform our socoiety because a few people make the wrong choice. They have the right to make the wrong choice but it shouldn't affect things like marrage.
Double B…First off who are you to say that being gay is the wrong choice? Who are you to say it is even a choice? I am not gay but I do not think it is anybody's decision to make whether or not someone should be able to be gay or whether it is appropriate. That is one reason I like Ron Paul, he doesn't think we should make these choices either. You don't think our involvement in being in Iraq is just because of wmds and terrorist attacks do you? Seriously….we are over there for the oil and if you can't see that by now then you are nil of any reasoning and logical thoughts. We went over for wmds…there were none…and so why did we stay? They come up with a reason for them to stay whether it be terrorist attacks or helping them gain their political freedom. We blow up their buildings and then send them temporary units to live in. We spend billions of dollars on a war we don't need to be in…billions on bailing out large companies that apparently can't sustain themselves(like chevy…and have you noticed the police vehicles have been changing to chevy….wonder what kind of deal was worked out there in the bailout) and all of this is done why? Because the politicians are governed by money and not by what the people want. Lowering of the taxes for large companies would help bring those companies back or start new ones in this country and that would provide jobs. It's not hard to hire billions of people in China considering the wage rates are extremely low. You say 50% of the people don't pay taxes but that's not exactly true. A lot of people make a certain amount which allows them to get all of their income tax back when they file. The income tax is only a small portion of the money the government uses. There are way too many government facilities that we don't need and can be eliminated. We don't need to police the world we need to take care of our own country first. When we get into a position(such as not in debt)before we can help other countries…then sure help away as long as it doesn't hurt us in the process. Why else would politicians put us further into debt? Personal gain of course. Ron Paul is one of the only ones that has been consistent and made sense with everything he has said. Sadly even the news doesn't play anything for Ron Paul…why you ask? It is because he wants to change things for the people and that would mean less money for government officials. I mean why else would they not even include Ron Paul in on some things on the news? I honestly believed it is fixed regardless, one way or another and it may be best Ron Paul not get elected because I am sure someone in the government would have him knocked off.
As one who follows politics relatively close, it never ceases to amaze me how people have such wide ranges of expectations of their country, politicians, government, and even the world in general. Watching the Ron Paul supporters has become quite entertaining, as it seems so many of you have bought into his isolationist stance for America. No doubt Ron Paul is saying things that need to be said. He is 100% correct about the overspending and failed political system that we have in Washington. However, you Ron Paul supporters need to realize just exactly what America is to the rest of the world. Our economy is so large and so influential, that the wealth of America makes up for over half of the wealth of the ENTIRE WORLD. With that wealth, our economy affects ALL countries directly or indirectly. The American dollar is what influences all economies of the world…period.
Knowing that, it is ridiculously insane to adopt this attitude that we need to stop being involved in the world stage in so many areas that Ron Paul is admonishing. We cannot help it, we are a reluctant empire, like it or not. Walmart, for all it's good and bad, plays a major role in any small town's economy simply because their size dictates that influence. You Ron Paul supporters need to realize this. America, for all it's good and bad, is the major player on the world stage and it is America which dictates how the world economy moves.
How did we get like this? History shows us that capitalism, despite it's shortcomings is the only social system that has allowed America to create such wealth. Please name any system that has created more wealth and had a bigger influence on eradicating poverty, freeing tens of millions from tyranny and brutal dictatorships, sending billions to aid across the planet during times of natural disasters, and given hope for millions to seek freedoms we take for granted on our shores. It is a capitalistic system. Granted, it is not perfect. But, for all you folks that proclaim a more liberal left leaning direction is better, please tell me which country or system most closely resembles the model you want America to become. Sweden? France? Both of which are bankrupt as well, and turn toward America to assist in their own Euro debacle playing out in Western Europe right now. China: Which essentially uses slave labor and some form of capitalism combined to create wealth yet prohibit free speech and critical thought? You want to become like these countries?
We all must be realistic about not only what America is and how we became like we are. Term limits to reduce the career politician from seeking multiple terms not to serve his constituency but to allow himself to become a stronger lobbyer after his elected time in office needs to be changed. Limiting lobbyists influence in Washington needs to be changed, and perhaps doing some of the things Rick Perry has said about cutting legislators pay, length of time in Washington, and making them be subject to the same laws and health care plans the rest of us must use. These are starters.
Newt Gingrich is an excellent debater and very intelligent, but could never be elected. He has too much baggage and cannot keep his mouth shut because of his arrogance feeds his need to drop bombs that in today's media becomes targets for his candidacy. Plus, it brings back reminders of the enemies he made when he was Speaker.
Rick Santorum, who is a career politician, is wanting us all to vote for him because he keeps yelling that he is the only conservative in this field. For me, who I consider myself to be a conservative, voting for someone because he yells the loudest that he is the most conservative does little to describe how he would fix the problems America is facing today. He wants us to vote for him not for his ideas, but rather because he wants us all to believe his Catholic-influenced social conservatism is enough to convince him to hold the most powerful job on the planet. I find that approach insulting to me as a voter.
Rick Perry, although he has done well to allow Texas to become a magnet for corporations and companies to seek the tax shelters they need to become profitable, does not seem to have a chance because of other things he has said, and actions he has done as governor of Texas that are too controversial. He could not be elected.
Jon Huntsman, for all his good, has tired the voter electorate with his routine political spins and regular sound bytes. Personally, as noble as it is, I am tired of him using his two sons in the Navy as political capital to try and impress us how patriotic he is and that we should consider voting for him because he has two kids in the Military. I find this mundane and repetitive for him to use this approach over and over, because in the end, him having two boys in the Navy describes little how he would run America. He certainly likes to be critical of the other candidates, but he has done little to promote his ideas and solutions. I think Jon Huntsman wants to become a FOX news analyst similar to Mike Huckabee.
I have stated Ron Paul's weaknesses, especially his close minded unrealistic ideas about America and the world stage.
That leaves Mitt Romney. For all his shortcomings, Romney appears the only candidate that can beat Obama. You folks out there must realize NO CANDIDATE can win the Presidential election unless he can appeal himself to the independent voter in America, which makes up 45% of the population. Despite all the charges against Romney, I have often wondered why the criticism of him being a "flip flopper" is a hindrance? I kind of like a politician who admits he can reconsider and change his mind. I would rather have someone like that rather than one who proclaims, like Santorum seems to do, " I have always had this stance and refuse to change my position." Being able to reconsider and change your mind is not that bad of a thing, is it? Especially if the decision or position is one you agree with? I certainly like it when my wife reconsiders her decisions after we have had discussions about certain topics.
In the end, it appears Romney is our best bet to oust Obama. Make no mistake, this election decides which direction or country is headed. We will move towards a more socialized government controlled economy that will send us to bankruptcy quicker, or one that gets pulled back to some degree with a Republican candidate. To make the claim that socialism would have prevented the economic collapse like a previous blogger suggested is laughable…ask Greece how they are doing today. Quite simply, Ron Paul could never be elected from a general electorate. Despite his good ideas on cutting back government, he cannot win a general election. We all must realistically look at these candidates and choose one who has a realistic chance of defeating Obama. If we do not, then perhaps we deserve to move towards a failed socialistic model that has proved through history to be a terrible model for governments to promote prosperity to their populace.
Argen Tina
I find it extremely tiresome to see the 'ism' word, used interchangeably with non-intervention. You know very well that isolationism is a national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries so you intentionally use it as a kind of slur.
Ron Paul supports open and friendly relations within a free trade model and a STRONG NATIONAL DEFENSE AND NON-INTERVENTION IN PRE-EMPTIVE CONFLICTS. This is a secure, prepared, self-confident, strong, productive, positive, courageous, open-minded and humane view which is widely accepted as the manner which mature and healthy adults should conduct themselves in America and this is how we should conduct ourselves in the world.
I won't vote for Mitt, Gingrich, Perry or Santorum, none are acceptable to me or the general electorate so perhaps you should realistically unite with the millions of us who will be voting for Ron Paul.
"The American dollar is what influences all economies of the world…period." Quite true and it is also true that a collapsed American dollar will not only devastate America but also the world. It is time to strengthen America in order to prevent a collapse, Mitt Romney will only continue to borrow and spend trillions of dollars on perpetuating the middle-east conflicts. Bullying wouldn't work with your neighbor or your co-workers and it's not working in the middle-east or for America. I choose the healthy alternative.
RON PAUL BRAVE, HONOR, WISDOM 2012!
'Argen Tina' is using 'isolationism' out of context. Ron Paul wants to bring troops home and save 1.4 TRILLION in war spending (limited to war spending, he does not want to drastically cut defense spending). Ron Paul isn't going to put up walls and abolish trade. That's a ridiculous statement. Follow politics a little more 'close' next time.
America makes up for over half of the wealth of the ENTIRE WORLD ?
GDP is not everything, but it gives an idea:
World GDP: 62 trillions $
Europe GDP: 16 trillions $
US GDP: 14 trillions $
However looking at military spending…
US: 687 bil$
China: 114 bil$
France: 61 bil$
…
I've read some crazy banter on these comments. God help us.
"nuff said" seems like a bit of an understatement at this point
So ture.
Vote Ron Paul for President!
The current one just lied to us!
Rudiger Volk
8 Sussex Street
Boston, MA 02120
First off, I am an independent.
I have noticed that the vast majority of people who comment on these things are Ron Paul supporters. The reason behind that seems to be the age of many of his supporters (young) and their fervor.
I, too, am a young voter, with this only being the second presidential election in which i have been able to vote.
As I see it, Ron Paul has a lot of good stances on many things. I do not agree with all of them, but I can understand their appeal, especially to young voters.
But…
Call me a cynic, world-weary, old for my age, whatever you would like, even if Ron Paul somehow managed to beat both the other Republicans AND Obama, nothing would get done while he was in the White House! I mean, how on earth does he expect to get 90% of his spending cuts passed? Does he REALLY think he can convince congressmen, Republicans or Democrats, to vote on cuts to their own salaries and benefits? Does he really think he will be able to eliminate five government departments? Does he really think that he can convince congress to make airlines pay for their own security when so many airlines are struggling financially when so many of them have airline companies as members of their supporters? Does he expect the rest of the world to take it lying down when we cut off foreign aid?
So basically, my point is this: Ron Paul is an idealist who stands for many good things, but if he were president, his only choices would be to either break a whole lot of promises while making the ever necessary compromises in Washington, or be known as the veto president during whose administration nothing would get done.
You're right. He would be known as the veto President, and that would be a good thing. When TARP or Obamacare type bills are placed on his desk, he'll veto them. Isn't that a step in the right direction?
Hi Andrew,
.
It appears to me that you think yourself as some kind of a "realist" - as against other "idealist" folks. I'm not going to judge you or take a stance against such a view; I'm only expressing my opinion.
.
A vote for Dr Paul will send a really STRONG signal to everyone - from legislators to law-enforcing authorities to judiciary to wall-streeters. More of the same / status-quo will mean problems. A vote for Dr Paul will mean more Congressmen & Sentors & other power-holders in both DC & other state-level personnel will have to necessarily wake up from their intentional slumber. The next mid-term election, unlike the last one that was influenced by Tea Party, will be a complete sweep for "REVOLUTION".
.
Just the fear that the actual Average Joe in America will finally get back the power that was always meant for them will incite a lot of negative / adverse reactions from most lame-stream media & their friends & funding-agents. This (kneejerk / hot-headed response) will in turn spur more average people on the street to support Dr Paul. The new congress with more representation for liberty will be able to pass these so-called radical laws swiftly with people-power.
.
Now, you may say those things are a "long shot" - but didn't the lame-stream media say Dr Paul getting even a few votes was a "long shot" a few months back? Never say never, my friend.
.
And, for Pete's sake - I'm from India. Even half-way across the world the message of Individual Liberty & Personal Freedom makes sense - and so does the GOLDEN RULE (for which south Caarolina's audience boo-ed). Doesn't it make sense back in the USA, then?
.
MN
It's pretty sad when people vote for Romney just because he used to live in NH, and was a Gov. of Mass., I thought you people were smarter than that, well looks like you are just a bunch of puppets
Agreed Fred, there is no hope
GO ROMNEY!!!!!!!!!!!! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT
And, uh, California is my home state, and I was born and raised conservative republican-
And as much as Ron Paul rocks, he's not a turn-around expert like Romney, which is PRECISELY what we need now.
So there Ron Paul loving- mitt haters, an out of stater who's a conservative and loves the mittster!
ROMNEY!!!!!!!!!! GO GO GO GO GO GO GO!!!!!!!!!! WOOOOOOOOOT!!!!!!!!!
Yeah, Romney is going to 'turn-around' our wars with Iraq and Afghanistan, and ADD wars with Iran and North Korea. Is there a direct flight from California to Tehran? If so you can GO!!!!!! WOOOOOOOOOOT!!!!!
He is not a turn around president unless you are referring to him helping the people…then he will turn around walk away. As far as Ron Paul not being a turn around president…he has the largest ideas ever for turning around this country and making it great again.
When gingrich or santorum talk about people needing to get a job….it shows they r out of touch…..the real question is if there was a job available…where r the jobs? No wonder so many people need food stamps! Newtsy is out of touch
If Ron Paul doesn't get the republican nomination I am voting for Obama. Mitt, from what I can tell has no actual ideas or platform, just uses grandeur to attempt to get majority votes. No one with actual intelligence would vote for him, sadly in today's America that doesn't mean he won't win. Obama has not done a terrible job as president, the economy is better, the troops are coming home from Iraq, and when congress actually passed his programs they did not seem to harm anything and did at least a little bit of good for people who needed it. When Ron Paul speaks he voices things I have thought for years and the idea of someone like that being in office actually excites me. It has been a very long time since I have been excited about politics.
Tom, let me say that anyone who even remotely thinks that NOBAMA deserves another four years is either unconscious or demented. All these people for Ron Paul, yet he does not win primaries. I'll pretty much vote for whomever can get that impotent socialist that yes, I did not vote for, out of there. He fooled most of the ppl now complaining about him. Just get Obama out.
Pavel, Since this is a republican primary I would guess that the majority of people following it are going to be anti-Obama. However if Romney wins the republican candidacy it is going to be a repeat of the 2008 "I am voting for Bush because he is not Kerry" or "I am voting for Kerry because he is not Bush". This is not how elections should be but I fear with Romney that is exactly how 2012 will play out. There has not been enough primaries to say "Ron Paul does not win primaries" and I hope that as things start to really play out he will start to be a clear choice above Romney. You stuck on my "I am voting for Obama over Romney" statement because you hate Obama. Let me state that I do not want to vote for Obama and to be completely honest if Romney gets the republican nomination I will probably either not vote or vote for a 3rd party. However between the two I dislike Romney more then I dislike Obama. Romney obviously plays political games and does not make statements that are controversial just to maintain popularity. He is a incredible businessman, but businesses operate on intimidation and manipulation of systems and that is how Romney wants to run America. I am not ok with a political stand that centers around intimidation as the primary source of security and peaceful relations. Romney was probably a bully in grade school based on his ideas of relationships with other nations. He has put out no plans or ideas on how to change our economy just cites his successful business ventures. He turned around the Mass. shortfall by increasing state taxes and pulling funding from city and county Governments (which fund education, local police, etc.) which in turn increased local taxes. Again nothing about this guy is something I would want in the white house and as painful as it might be I would rather put up with 4 more years of Obama. I may have made it sound like I am pro Obama, I am not. My main point I was attempting to make was Obama will win if Ron Paul does not get the nomination because many people supporting Ron Paul would vote for Obama over Romney. Many people voting for Romney are just anti Obama and will vote for whomever wins the republican nominations. So if you want Obama out, Ron Paul needs to get the nomination. That was the point I was trying to make.
You want to know how I feel about Ron Paul well to be honest I know forsure that Ron Paul WILL ABIDE by his oath of office to defend the Constituion. Now as far as Every other person running in this race i will State one reason each why I think They wont. Obama said straight out in the press after becoming president that he did not think the constituon was viable workable Document well Sorry Obama but If the people in washington (like you) would actually honor thier Oaths of office the constitution would work very well in fact. Next We have Mitt well Mitt said that his tax rate was about 15% the other Day …..I looked up the Tax Brackets after hearing this and that mean Mitt either exploited some loophole(and probably unfairly) or he has no idea what the Tax bracket are in this country and that Rate would put him near the bottom (less then 35000 a year) of wage earners in this country Mitt I do not like exploitation of legal codes in a man who has made more money than I probably ever will…Your fired! Rick you are not a leader you are a Steady and I believe you Believe you are a good man and that is not up for debate you are a good man but you are not a good leader and as a matter of fact if you enter into a debate with Obama he will eat you alive No SIr i think you should contiune to take care of your family and be a good man but sit this one out please and throw your support to ron Paul. Newt what can I say you are a great Idea man but you are shady and well if you and a fish got into a flip-flop competition I think you would win ….No consistancy so please sit down and support your betters.
Ron Paul The only thing that is stoping you from winning this election is information you have great answers but you are not able to adaquatly get your message out to the nation without the money of a huge grossly huge finacial backing you would need to do that.Thus here is my recommendation If I was the puppet master of the Republican Party I would Allow Rick Santaorum to win the primary with Paul a Close second then Rick Being a great man should step aside and ask his delgates at time to vote to vote for ron paul as Rick Had agreed that he would be Ron Pauls Vice President Thusly uniting the ticket and the republican Party in such a way that you would seen an election that would topple obama before all 50 states was in. It would be one of the most humiliating Defeats in the history of the Democratic Party and Dr ron Paul would Have a Excellent running mate who he could teach so that after four years he could run and win and win re elect That is once he learns about what being a Constitutionlist is all about from one of the greatest Modern day constitutionlist in our country Dr. Ron Paul. Remember Rick Christian Values and What You think is good for the contry must take a back seat sometimes to an oath and an oath to uphold or to defend the constitution well At this point in time I do not think you are truly capable of doing that.Maybe someday though.
Your comments provoked me into studying Ron Paul's politics. Why this guy is not kicking ass right now is beyond me. I'm sold. Thanks guys for making me think more about the right candidate rather than just wanting Obama out.
Pavel Chekov
Love it, Ron Paul, the thinking person's candidate for freedom!
FAIL. Obama FTW. None of these people are sane.
Obama hasn't done crap to help even the half educated black people will tell you that.