Ron Paul on Obama

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

So your theory is that Paul only won states that didn't support McCain? Do you know how much Paul's ideas differ from McCain? Your assumption is incorrect, because Paul won states that are Libertarian strongholds. Anytime an entire state(s) stand behind a candidate, that candidate holds clout in my book.

Paul outraised Obama in military contributions, don't get it twisted. Of course overall Obama has raised more (see: snowball effect of primaries), but if you think Obama is more qualified than Paul to speak on foreign policy, our troops would disagree. Read up on Paul's knowledge of foreign policy vs Obama's, you may be surprised.

Ron Paul didn't win any states.

As for what 'our troops' would think, that's an incredibly broad statement that you can't possibly support. I know I for one used to be one of 'our troops' and I consider Obama's foreign policy much more realistic and useful then Paul's.

He won Louisiana unofficially, LAGOP said McCain "appeared" to have won when he didn't (they didn't count all the provisional ballots that leaned heavily to Paul), and to this day all the votes haven't been counted. So yes, Paul did win a state and he has beaten McCain in other contests as well (such as Nevada). Educate yourself on the controversy in LA: Text

I'm supporting my statement with the fact that the military is speaking through donations. You said you were in the military: would you donate money to someone you don't agree with (foreign policy wise)?

You say you think that Obama's foreign policy is "more realistic", but do you think that occupying Afghanistan indefinitely (Obama's plan) is going to help our economy (and the federal deficit)? To me, Paul's makes more sense: get the hell out of there and fix our problems at home first.

Last but not least, IIRC you supported Kucinich's impeachment bill of Bush. If you didn't know, Kucinich has said his running mate would be Ron Paul if he was ever elected. Text

 

[ericlp]

What if Oboma choose RP to be the VP? That would be awesome!

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: ericlp
What if Oboma choose RP to be the VP? That would be awesome!

He would never ask RP to be his VP, and RP would never accept it anyway.

 

[GTaudiophile]

We all know the media decided to ignore RP. Hard to get anywhere that way, but he still did very well.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

He won Louisiana unofficially, LAGOP said McCain "appeared" to have won when he didn't (they didn't count all the provisional ballots that leaned heavily to Paul), and to this day all the votes haven't been counted. So yes, Paul did win a state and he has beaten McCain in other contests as well (such as Nevada). Educate yourself on the controversy in LA: Text

I'm supporting my statement with the fact that the military is speaking through donations. You said you were in the military: would you donate money to someone you don't agree with (foreign policy wise)?

You say you think that Obama's foreign policy is "more realistic", but do you think that occupying Afghanistan indefinitely (Obama's plan) is going to help our economy (and the federal deficit)? To me, Paul's makes more sense: get the hell out of there and fix our problems at home first.

Last but not least, IIRC you supported Kucinich's impeachment bill of Bush. If you didn't know, Kucinich has said his running mate would be Ron Paul if he was ever elected. Text

A few things, you are claiming that Ron Paul won a state where you say all of the votes haven't been counted based on your idea of what provisional balloters would have said, and without actual numbers. That's not "Ron Paul won a state". (and by the way apparently all of the candidates lost to the "reagan" option which was just a generalized pro-life thing.

The whole 'The Military Supports Ron Paul' thing is based upon very very weak evidence, ie. voluntary disclosure. In addition Paul has gotten donations from a bit over a thousand military people. This is out of approximately a million people in the DoD. I don't think you can make a meaningful statement about what people in the military think when you are taking the voluntarily disclosed preferences of .1% of them.

The 'fix our problems at home first' argument is always there. Our problems will never all be fixed at home and so the argument is we should never try to enforce our interests elsewhere. I think that is a simplistic and unrealistic policy considering the globalized nature of America's interest and influence. Obama is basing his assessment of these on a risk/reward basis and Iraq doesn't meet it as opposed to an ideological opposition to all foreign engagement. I agree with Obama on this.

As far as the Kucinich thing, uhm... great? I like Dennis Kucinich very much, but who his imaginary vice president would be doesn't really factor into my thought process.

 

[toekramp]

RP rEVOLution

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: toekramp

1% not .1%

LOL, I caught you before the edit. Nice math skills sparky.

That about sums up RP supporters.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: toekramp
RP rEVOLution

Haha, nice edit

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
We all know the media decided to ignore RP. Hard to get anywhere that way, but he still did very well.

1. How many of you are there rattling around in your head?

2. Were you a big Harold Stassen fan as well?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
He won Louisiana unofficially, LAGOP said McCain "appeared" to have won when he didn't (they didn't count all the provisional ballots that leaned heavily to Paul), and to this day all the votes haven't been counted. So yes, Paul did win a state and he has beaten McCain in other contests as well (such as Nevada). Educate yourself on the controversy in LA: Text

Ladies and gentlemen, your standard insane RP supporter. I think it's clear which candidate's supporters are really the stuff of hopes and dreams.

LA results:

MSNBC:
Huckabee 69,665 43%
McCain 67,609 42%
Romney 10,232 6%
Paul 8,595 5%

CNN
Huckabee 69,665 43%
McCain 67,609 42%
Paul 8,595 5%

Fox
Huckabee 69,665 43.18%
McCain 67,609 41.91%
Romney 10,232 6.34%
Paul 8,595 5.33%
Thompson 1,604 0.99%
Giuliani 1,593 0.99%
Hunter 368 0.23%
Tancredo 108 0.07%

ABC
Huckabee 69,665 43%
McCain 67,609 42%
Romney 10,232 7%
Paul 8,595 5%

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
He won Louisiana unofficially, LAGOP said McCain "appeared" to have won when he didn't (they didn't count all the provisional ballots that leaned heavily to Paul), and to this day all the votes haven't been counted. So yes, Paul did win a state and he has beaten McCain in other contests as well (such as Nevada). Educate yourself on the controversy in LA: Text

Ladies and gentlemen, your standard insane RP supporter. I think it's clear which candidate's supporters are really the stuff of hopes and dreams.

LA results:

MSNBC:
Huckabee 69,665 43%
McCain 67,609 42%
Romney 10,232 6%
Paul 8,595 5%

CNN
Huckabee 69,665 43%
McCain 67,609 42%
Paul 8,595 5%

Fox
Huckabee 69,665 43.18%
McCain 67,609 41.91%
Romney 10,232 6.34%
Paul 8,595 5.33%
Thompson 1,604 0.99%
Giuliani 1,593 0.99%
Hunter 368 0.23%
Tancredo 108 0.07%

ABC
Huckabee 69,665 43%
McCain 67,609 42%
Romney 10,232 7%
Paul 8,595 5%

Only a homer would link the results to the wrong state, as you have just done. Want to try again?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
He won Louisiana unofficially, LAGOP said McCain "appeared" to have won when he didn't (they didn't count all the provisional ballots that leaned heavily to Paul), and to this day all the votes haven't been counted. So yes, Paul did win a state and he has beaten McCain in other contests as well (such as Nevada). Educate yourself on the controversy in LA: Text

Ladies and gentlemen, your standard insane RP supporter. I think it's clear which candidate's supporters are really the stuff of hopes and dreams.

LA results:

MSNBC:
Huckabee 69,665 43%
McCain 67,609 42%
Romney 10,232 6%
Paul 8,595 5%

CNN
Huckabee 69,665 43%
McCain 67,609 42%
Paul 8,595 5%

Fox
Huckabee 69,665 43.18%
McCain 67,609 41.91%
Romney 10,232 6.34%
Paul 8,595 5.33%
Thompson 1,604 0.99%
Giuliani 1,593 0.99%
Hunter 368 0.23%
Tancredo 108 0.07%

ABC
Huckabee 69,665 43%
McCain 67,609 42%
Romney 10,232 7%
Paul 8,595 5%

Only a homer would link the results to the wrong state, as you have just done. Want to try again?

What's a homer? Anyway the state is correct, it's just that those are the Louisiana Republican Primary results. Argue with the caucus results all you want, the primary makes it pretty clear what percentage of the population supports RP.

 

[techs]

As opposed to Bush whose firmly held convictions plunged us into a needless war and economic debacle.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

He won Louisiana unofficially, LAGOP said McCain "appeared" to have won when he didn't (they didn't count all the provisional ballots that leaned heavily to Paul), and to this day all the votes haven't been counted. So yes, Paul did win a state and he has beaten McCain in other contests as well (such as Nevada). Educate yourself on the controversy in LA: Text

I'm supporting my statement with the fact that the military is speaking through donations. You said you were in the military: would you donate money to someone you don't agree with (foreign policy wise)?

You say you think that Obama's foreign policy is "more realistic", but do you think that occupying Afghanistan indefinitely (Obama's plan) is going to help our economy (and the federal deficit)? To me, Paul's makes more sense: get the hell out of there and fix our problems at home first.

Last but not least, IIRC you supported Kucinich's impeachment bill of Bush. If you didn't know, Kucinich has said his running mate would be Ron Paul if he was ever elected. Text

A few things, you are claiming that Ron Paul won a state where you say all of the votes haven't been counted based on your idea of what provisional balloters would have said, and without actual numbers. That's not "Ron Paul won a state". (and by the way apparently all of the candidates lost to the "reagan" option which was just a generalized pro-life thing.

The whole 'The Military Supports Ron Paul' thing is based upon very very weak evidence, ie. voluntary disclosure. In addition Paul has gotten donations from a bit over a thousand military people. This is out of approximately a million people in the DoD. I don't think you can make a meaningful statement about what people in the military think when you are taking the voluntarily disclosed preferences of .1% of them.

The 'fix our problems at home first' argument is always there. Our problems will never all be fixed at home and so the argument is we should never try to enforce our interests elsewhere. I think that is a simplistic and unrealistic policy considering the globalized nature of America's interest and influence. Obama is basing his assessment of these on a risk/reward basis and Iraq doesn't meet it as opposed to an ideological opposition to all foreign engagement. I agree with Obama on this.

As far as the Kucinich thing, uhm... great? I like Dennis Kucinich very much, but who his imaginary vice president would be doesn't really factor into my thought process.

The votes were based on pre-polling results which projected Paul a winner for prov ballots.

I'd like to see where you're getting a "thousand" people from? If you can prove it, yes .1% doesn't constitute much it's still more than Obama, Hillary, or any Republican's military donation. I think it's a fair statement to say that most troops in Iraq do not want to be there (and Paul's plan for an immediate but well planned pullout of Iraq would probably be supported by many in Iraq).

While yes, ALL of our problems at home will "never be fixed", we're in the midst of a economic crisis. Do you think it's fiscally responsible to increase our troops in Afghanistan (no, I don't see any "reward" here if Osama hasn't been caught by now) in the middle of an economic crisis? If you do, then we can agree to disagree.

To associate such statements ("we should NEVER try to enforce our interests elsewhere") with Paul show that you don't understand his beliefs of nonintervention. A statement like that sounds isolationist, just as McCain erroneously labeled him. Not saying that your understanding of Paul's principles could possibly be on the level of McCain's, but...

Last point was that if you support Kucinich (Bush impeachment bill), then that means you take what he has to say seriously. His endorsement of RP as his "imagined" running mate shows that RP has the respect of people who are logical thinkers such as you or I.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Paul dominated 3 states, and that may not be a lot of "ACTUAL" American support, but it's not insignificant. The fact that he has the highest campaign donations from our military (see: foreign policy) is not insignificant. The fact that he was raising more campaign money than almost all of his peers (Republican and Democratic) is not insignificant.

Second, you call him "nothing but a partisan hack" but then proceed to say that had the question been more specific, we might find that Obama is "far closer" to RP on foreign policy and that Obama/McCain are both out there on domestic policy. You can't have it both ways.

It is insignificant in that he's running against McCain who many (R)'s can't even stand. Paul had a brief period of uber-hyped support and faded into nothingness. Obama *crushed* him in campaign donations. Ron Paul was a flash in the pan. He's Ross Perot 2008.

So your theory is that Paul only won states that didn't support McCain? Do you know how much Paul's ideas differ from McCain? Your assumption is incorrect, because Paul won states that are Libertarian strongholds. Anytime an entire state(s) stand behind a candidate, that candidate holds clout in my book.

Paul outraised Obama in military contributions, don't get it twisted. Of course overall Obama has raised more (see: snowball effect of primaries), but if you think Obama is more qualified than Paul to speak on foreign policy, our troops would disagree. Read up on Paul's knowledge of foreign policy vs Obama's, you may be surprised.

no offense, but i could give a fuck what the troops think. I always liked the idea from starship troopers that the people charged with enforcing the policies of the governemnt were not allowed to decide those policies, or in this case, active duty military, amound plenty of other, should not be allowed to vote.

 

[rockyct]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
He won Louisiana unofficially, LAGOP said McCain "appeared" to have won when he didn't (they didn't count all the provisional ballots that leaned heavily to Paul), and to this day all the votes haven't been counted. So yes, Paul did win a state and he has beaten McCain in other contests as well (such as Nevada). Educate yourself on the controversy in LA: Text

Ladies and gentlemen, your standard insane RP supporter. I think it's clear which candidate's supporters are really the stuff of hopes and dreams.

LA results:

MSNBC:
Huckabee 69,665 43%
McCain 67,609 42%
Romney 10,232 6%
Paul 8,595 5%

CNN
Huckabee 69,665 43%
McCain 67,609 42%
Paul 8,595 5%

Fox
Huckabee 69,665 43.18%
McCain 67,609 41.91%
Romney 10,232 6.34%
Paul 8,595 5.33%
Thompson 1,604 0.99%
Giuliani 1,593 0.99%
Hunter 368 0.23%
Tancredo 108 0.07%

ABC
Huckabee 69,665 43%
McCain 67,609 42%
Romney 10,232 7%
Paul 8,595 5%

Only a homer would link the results to the wrong state, as you have just done. Want to try again?

lol, you're dismissing the primary results from LA by saying it was from a different state. Wow, that's pretty desperate.

 

[miketheidiot]

ron paul never had a rational or coherant thought in his life, he is just a moonbat that came to a bunch of conclusions that just happen to resemble some sort of libertarianism.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
He won Louisiana unofficially, LAGOP said McCain "appeared" to have won when he didn't (they didn't count all the provisional ballots that leaned heavily to Paul), and to this day all the votes haven't been counted. So yes, Paul did win a state and he has beaten McCain in other contests as well (such as Nevada). Educate yourself on the controversy in LA: Text

Ladies and gentlemen, your standard insane RP supporter. I think it's clear which candidate's supporters are really the stuff of hopes and dreams.

LA results:

MSNBC:
Huckabee 69,665 43%
McCain 67,609 42%
Romney 10,232 6%
Paul 8,595 5%

CNN
Huckabee 69,665 43%
McCain 67,609 42%
Paul 8,595 5%

Fox
Huckabee 69,665 43.18%
McCain 67,609 41.91%
Romney 10,232 6.34%
Paul 8,595 5.33%
Thompson 1,604 0.99%
Giuliani 1,593 0.99%
Hunter 368 0.23%
Tancredo 108 0.07%

ABC
Huckabee 69,665 43%
McCain 67,609 42%
Romney 10,232 7%
Paul 8,595 5%

Only a homer would link the results to the wrong state, as you have just done. Want to try again?

What's a homer? Anyway the state is correct, it's just that those are the Louisiana Republican Primary results. Argue with the caucus results all you want, the primary makes it pretty clear what percentage of the population supports RP.

It's clear that you don't understand how delegates are assigned in LA. From your link: "Under Louisiana Republican Party rules, since no candidate received a majority of the vote, no delegates are pledged as a result of this primary."

In Layman's, since no candidate received over 50% in the primary, the caucus winner got all the delegates (see: McCain's stolen 30+ from Paul). It was basically an inside job by the LAGOP on the Caucus to ensure that Paul didn't beat McCain in the caucus (read my link from above).

Regarding your statement about "population support", why are voters going to come out when the delegates are already decided? From your link: "the state party chair congratulated McCain on winning those 41 delegates, before the primary was held on February 9, 2008". Sounds a little fishy, eh?

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Paul dominated 3 states, and that may not be a lot of "ACTUAL" American support, but it's not insignificant. The fact that he has the highest campaign donations from our military (see: foreign policy) is not insignificant. The fact that he was raising more campaign money than almost all of his peers (Republican and Democratic) is not insignificant.

Second, you call him "nothing but a partisan hack" but then proceed to say that had the question been more specific, we might find that Obama is "far closer" to RP on foreign policy and that Obama/McCain are both out there on domestic policy. You can't have it both ways.

It is insignificant in that he's running against McCain who many (R)'s can't even stand. Paul had a brief period of uber-hyped support and faded into nothingness. Obama *crushed* him in campaign donations. Ron Paul was a flash in the pan. He's Ross Perot 2008.

So your theory is that Paul only won states that didn't support McCain? Do you know how much Paul's ideas differ from McCain? Your assumption is incorrect, because Paul won states that are Libertarian strongholds. Anytime an entire state(s) stand behind a candidate, that candidate holds clout in my book.

Paul outraised Obama in military contributions, don't get it twisted. Of course overall Obama has raised more (see: snowball effect of primaries), but if you think Obama is more qualified than Paul to speak on foreign policy, our troops would disagree. Read up on Paul's knowledge of foreign policy vs Obama's, you may be surprised.

no offense, but i could give a fuck what the troops think. I always liked the idea from starship troopers that the people charged with enforcing the policies of the governemnt were not allowed to decide those policies, or in this case, active duty military, amound plenty of other, should not be allowed to vote.

So the military shouldn't be allowed to vote because of an episode you saw of Starship Troopers? Profound thoughts there.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Paul dominated 3 states, and that may not be a lot of "ACTUAL" American support, but it's not insignificant. The fact that he has the highest campaign donations from our military (see: foreign policy) is not insignificant. The fact that he was raising more campaign money than almost all of his peers (Republican and Democratic) is not insignificant.

Second, you call him "nothing but a partisan hack" but then proceed to say that had the question been more specific, we might find that Obama is "far closer" to RP on foreign policy and that Obama/McCain are both out there on domestic policy. You can't have it both ways.

It is insignificant in that he's running against McCain who many (R)'s can't even stand. Paul had a brief period of uber-hyped support and faded into nothingness. Obama *crushed* him in campaign donations. Ron Paul was a flash in the pan. He's Ross Perot 2008.

So your theory is that Paul only won states that didn't support McCain? Do you know how much Paul's ideas differ from McCain? Your assumption is incorrect, because Paul won states that are Libertarian strongholds. Anytime an entire state(s) stand behind a candidate, that candidate holds clout in my book.

Paul outraised Obama in military contributions, don't get it twisted. Of course overall Obama has raised more (see: snowball effect of primaries), but if you think Obama is more qualified than Paul to speak on foreign policy, our troops would disagree. Read up on Paul's knowledge of foreign policy vs Obama's, you may be surprised.

no offense, but i could give a fuck what the troops think. I always liked the idea from starship troopers that the people charged with enforcing the policies of the governemnt were not allowed to decide those policies, or in this case, active duty military, amound plenty of other, should not be allowed to vote.

So the military shouldn't be allowed to vote because of an episode you saw of Starship Troopers? Profound thoughts there.

the book, imbecile. And that was neither the first or the last time that it has been suggested.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

no offense, but i could give a fuck what the troops think. I always liked the idea from starship troopers that the people charged with enforcing the policies of the governemnt were not allowed to decide those policies, or in this case, active duty military, amound plenty of other, should not be allowed to vote.

Wasn't the idea behind Starship Troopers that if you joined the military then you automatically gained citizenship and were thus allowed to vote? I only saw the movie but I think you got it backwards.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

no offense, but i could give a fuck what the troops think. I always liked the idea from starship troopers that the people charged with enforcing the policies of the governemnt were not allowed to decide those policies, or in this case, active duty military, amound plenty of other, should not be allowed to vote.

Wasn't the idea behind Starship Troopers that if you joined the military then you automatically gained citizenship and were thus allowed to vote? I think you got it backwards.

you weren't allowed to vote until you service was over.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

no offense, but i could give a fuck what the troops think. I always liked the idea from starship troopers that the people charged with enforcing the policies of the governemnt were not allowed to decide those policies, or in this case, active duty military, amound plenty of other, should not be allowed to vote.

Wasn't the idea behind Starship Troopers that if you joined the military then you automatically gained citizenship and were thus allowed to vote? I think you got it backwards.

you weren't allowed to vote until you service was over.

Still doesn't make sense to me regardless. I don't know how about you but I have known a shit ton of enlisted military personnel that are as dumb as rocks. Likewise, I have met plenty that are quite intelligent as well. My point is that being in the military or any other profession for that matter really doesn't make you a better or worse voter.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
He won Louisiana unofficially, LAGOP said McCain "appeared" to have won when he didn't (they didn't count all the provisional ballots that leaned heavily to Paul), and to this day all the votes haven't been counted. So yes, Paul did win a state and he has beaten McCain in other contests as well (such as Nevada). Educate yourself on the controversy in LA: Text

Ladies and gentlemen, your standard insane RP supporter. I think it's clear which candidate's supporters are really the stuff of hopes and dreams.

LA results:

MSNBC:
Huckabee 69,665 43%
McCain 67,609 42%
Romney 10,232 6%
Paul 8,595 5%

CNN
Huckabee 69,665 43%
McCain 67,609 42%
Paul 8,595 5%

Fox
Huckabee 69,665 43.18%
McCain 67,609 41.91%
Romney 10,232 6.34%
Paul 8,595 5.33%
Thompson 1,604 0.99%
Giuliani 1,593 0.99%
Hunter 368 0.23%
Tancredo 108 0.07%

ABC
Huckabee 69,665 43%
McCain 67,609 42%
Romney 10,232 7%
Paul 8,595 5%

Only a homer would link the results to the wrong state, as you have just done. Want to try again?

What's a homer? Anyway the state is correct, it's just that those are the Louisiana Republican Primary results. Argue with the caucus results all you want, the primary makes it pretty clear what percentage of the population supports RP.

It's clear that you don't understand how delegates are assigned in LA. From your link: "Under Louisiana Republican Party rules, since no candidate received a majority of the vote, no delegates are pledged as a result of this primary."

In Layman's, since no candidate received over 50% in the primary, the caucus winner got all the delegates (see: McCain's stolen 30+ from Paul). It was basically an inside job by the LAGOP on the Caucus to ensure that Paul didn't beat McCain in the caucus (read my link from above).

I read the link and the caucus rules are friggydiggy weird. Many have admitted it's too convoluted. And "your link above" links to a RP fansite that claims the MM conspiracy ignores RP, which itself ignores that McCain secured front-runner status and essentially tied up the nom after super tuesday, days before the LA primary.

Regarding your statement about "population support", why are voters going to come out when the delegates are already decided? From your link: "the state party chair congratulated McCain on winning those 41 delegates, before the primary was held on February 9, 2008". Sounds a little fishy, eh?

In the LA primary RP got 5% in the pop vote just as he did in the overwhelming number of primary contests held before the serious contenders dropped out. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/20...esults/candidates/#302

You ask "why are voters going to come out when delegates are already decided", but ignore that, in fact, about 150,000 people DID come out to vote, and surprise surprise, RP got 5% of the vote. Can you point to any evidence that RP supporters came out in smaller numbers than supporters of the other candidate because they felt the vote didn't count?

 

[bamacre]

This argument is rather silly. It doesn't matter anymore, the nominations are locked up.