[Hoot Gibson]

This is a county by county 2012 GOP Primary election map for Colorado. You know, the last time voters were allowed to take part in their own elective process? Republican elites took that privilege away from them last August when it became apparent that Trump has the support of the American public. Thusly disenfranchised in 2016 by team NeverTrump, they are understandably incensed. Don't tell us it's not a departure for Colorado GOP bosses to suddenly decide that delegate selection would become a privilege afforded to themselves. :please: The Colorado GOP didn't tweet "We did it!" for no good reason.

Orange = Romney win
Purple = Gingrich
Green = Santorum


CLICK ME
[attachment=o3365]

There was no primary election in 2012. There were caucuses that led to a presidential preference poll. The votes were not used to apportion delegates, a fact that you have still failed to acknowledge.

Honest huh? I love how you make subtle wording changes to redirect the attention to a matter only somewhat relative to the conversation. What I said was you could not cite something I was wrong about. I didn't say you couldn't twist the intent of my post to make it wrong. The Colorado delegates were bound. And they were bound under party rules which at the time were governed by popular vote. I posted the map to prove it and even provided a link to a Denver Post article which was written explicitly to explain the whole situation and, that specifically refutes your slurve-ball reasoning disorder as to how the process worked then, that would be 2012, and how it works presently. So, if you would be so kind, please point the statement in which I said, Colorado ever had a primary election. I did use those words as a defining term to refer to the map which shows the results of the 2012 caucus vote under which the delegates were bound. Which even if you're trying to nit-pick your way into the debate hall of fame, that is a pretty thin case on which to stake your claim.

So, let me understand this. According to you the disenfranchised voters in Colorado are protesting because the heretofore unbound Colorado delegates are still unbound? Here is what happened whether the truth matters to you or not. Voters did not get to participate in the Colorado Primary process this time around, non binding or otherwise.

Again, there was no Colorado primary election in 2012. You incorrectly used the term twice and repeatedly refused to acknowledge that you were wrong. Finally, you apparently took the time to notice that even the map that you posted indicated that Colorado held caucuses in 2012. Now you are attempting to minimize your stubbornness in not admitting your mistake with your claim that I am nitpicking, even though you issued the challenge for me to show where you had made a mistake and refused to admit the error after it was pointed out to you.

Therefore I suggest you try reading the article.

I suggest that you read the Denver Post article to which you linked yourself. I did read it. You obviously either did not read it, or you did not understand what you read.

Excerpt from the Denver Post article that you posted in post #20:

In 2008 and 2012, die-hard Republican voters gathered at caucus meetings to begin the delegate-selection process of selecting delegates to the national convention and voice support for presidential candidates in a straw poll.

The votes, however, didn't require Colorado delegates to support any particular candidate at the national conventions. This allowed for delegates that supported a losing candidate to vote for the nominee and demonstrate party unity at the convention.

But the freedom also opened the door for political mischief, as Colorado saw in 2012 when Ron Paul supporters managed to win a significant portion of the delegate slots, even though Paul finished far behind other candidates in the Colorado caucuses.

After you read the Denver Post article to which you linked and cited as proof that (TA DA!) the rules bound Colorado delegates in 2012 to candidates, based on candidates' share of the popular vote - if you still need convincing that you were wrong, I provided you with three additional links to the same information.

After that I suggest you look up the words nitpicking and debating and try and make an objective comparison. You couldn't win a debate point, much less the debate, so you at some point turned to making it personal. Calling me dishonest, a cultist, and then to question my manhood which in your case is questionable in and of itself, and on and on it went. You've, how did you put it, 'corrected' not only me; Add GrannyBear, RIUTG, DemarcusWare, jetpilot and anybody else who tried to add to the discussion. And why would you do that? Possibly because you're a #frothing neverTrumpster who comes on the forum wanting to seem nearly infallible in order to try and campaign for Ted Cruz?

Somebody who has hurled as many insults at me as you have to now wants to play the victimhood card?! Don't expect any sympathy from me.

Also, don't bother admitting that you were wrong about the binding of delegates in 2012 either. Extracting a simple admission of the truth from you is just not worth the effort.

Ted is a very good man according to Alan Dershowitz. And we could certainly do worse it would seem. Frankly it would seem time better spent speaking of the harm done the last 8 years and the major players involved, one of them being the front runner shoo-in Hillary Clinton. Instead, It's Trump who has come under the fire not only from the right but the left too, and as I keep saying, that's a real head scratcher. And in my view, a pursuit unworthy of honest people. So, when you blast anything Trump including Corey Lewandowski, with what looks to me to be slanderous conjectures I might just speak up about it. Lewandowski was innocent of the charges brought against him. He did not jerk Michelle Fields nearly to the ground, but the 'campaign' did reach out to her about it and by no less than Lewandowski himself. Both of which are in direct contradiction with Michelle's sworn assertions. But like I said, I did predict all of this. :biggrin:

Yes, the Trump campaign has run such a squeaky clean campaign, how dare anybody suggest those paragons of virtue have lied about Ted Cruz. Cruz has still not proven that he did not have affairs with five different women, so the rumor that Trump spread must be true, right? Maybe he should go to court and ask for a declaratory judgment that he is "innocent" of that charge. nicker:

[TheRealThing]

There was no primary election in 2012. There were caucuses that led to a presidential preference poll. The votes were not used to apportion delegates, a fact that you have still failed to acknowledge.
Again, there was no Colorado primary election in 2012. You incorrectly used the term twice and repeatedly refused to acknowledge that you were wrong. Finally, you apparently took the time to notice that even the map that you posted indicated that Colorado held caucuses in 2012. Now you are attempting to minimize your stubbornness in not admitting your mistake with your claim that I am nitpicking, even though you issued the challenge for me to show where you had made a mistake and refused to admit the error after it was pointed out to you.



I suggest that you read the Denver Post article to which you linked yourself. I did read it. You obviously either did not read it, or you did not understand what you read.


After you read the Denver Post article to which you linked and cited as proof that (TA DA!) the rules bound Colorado delegates in 2012 to candidates, based on candidates' share of the popular vote - if you still need convincing that you were wrong, I provided you with three additional links to the same information.


Somebody who has hurled as many insults at me as you have to now wants to play the victimhood card?! Don't expect any sympathy from me.

Also, don't bother admitting that you were wrong about the binding of delegates in 2012 either. Extracting a simple admission of the truth from you is just not worth the effort.

Yes, the Trump campaign has run such a squeaky clean campaign, how dare anybody suggest those paragons of virtue have lied about Ted Cruz. Cruz has still not proven that he did not have affairs with five different women, so the rumor that Trump spread must be true, right? Maybe he should go to court and ask for a declaratory judgment that he is "innocent" of that charge. nicker:

FROM THE DENVER POST
"The GOP executive committee has voted to cancel the traditional presidential preference poll after the national party changed its rules to require a state's delegates to support the candidate who wins the caucus vote."
END EXCERPT


That happened last August FTR, and Rick Santorum won the caucus vote in 2012. None the less, the Colorado delegation was bound to vote for him on the first ballot. Since Romney was the nominee, results of the first ballot, the Colorado votes were wasted. But the voter was still part of the process. Now to the really hilarious in trying to feature a way in my mind that you could ever victimize me... I might need a little help on that one. :biggrin:

[Hoot Gibson]

FROM THE DENVER POST
"The GOP executive committee has voted to cancel the traditional presidential preference poll after the national party changed its rules to require a state's delegates to support the candidate who wins the caucus vote."
END EXCERPT


That happened last August FTR, and Rick Santorum won the caucus vote in 2012. None the less, the Colorado delegation was bound to vote for him on the first ballot. Since Romney was the nominee, results of the first ballot, the Colorado votes were wasted. But the voter was still part of the process. Now to the really hilarious in trying to feature a way in my mind that you could ever victimize me... I might need a little help on that one. :biggrin:

What a non-responsive response. Your mind is either fried, or you simply are not man enough to admit you are wrong. Either way, I am finished trying to reason with you. Enjoy life as a cult member.

[TheRealThing]

What a non-responsive response. Your mind is either fried, or you simply are not man enough to admit you are wrong. Either way, I am finished trying to reason with you. Enjoy life as a cult member.

Said the guy who doesn't understand what a cult even is.

But yeah, there's no longer any question you are in a class by yourself. And FTR, the Colorado voter issue is not a case that I am making by myself. There are ample enough media putting it out there so that I don't necessarily feel like Gilligan here. Tell you what, just as soon as they all retract their (according to you) errant reporting, I will then admit I am wrong. But it's going to take more than a guy with Donald Trump obsession backed up by #NeverTrump conspirators to tell me what I should think. Until then you can continue looking for a spelling error, or something equally offensive with which to trivialize the conversation.

After all, you proved your mettle in making mountains out of molehills, when you made a criminal case out of a reach with an invisible outcome in the Lewandowski case.

[TheRealThing]

Michael Savage and Alex Jones are jumping up and down about the theft in Colorado. Both BTW say they do not trust Ted Cruz. Savage asked as I did, why Cruz who purports to be a constitutional purist, accepts the rigged election in Colorado. Savage also reports that Colorado Republicans are burning their Republican registration documents en masse.

According to Jones and Savage, there are so many lies being told one cannot keep up with them. George Orwell----- "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

Again according to Savage, Cruz and Trump must unite in the ultimate anti-establishment end run. Hopefully prior to the election.

[Hoot Gibson]

Said the guy who doesn't understand what a cult even is.

But yeah, there's no longer any question you are in a class by yourself. And FTR, the Colorado voter issue is not a case that I am making by myself. There are ample enough media putting it out there so that I don't necessarily feel like Gilligan here. Tell you what, just as soon as they all retract their (according to you) errant reporting, I will then admit I am wrong. But it's going to take more than a guy with Donald Trump obsession backed up by #NeverTrump conspirators to tell me what I should think. Until then you can continue looking for a spelling error, or something equally offensive with which to trivialize the conversation.

After all, you proved your mettle in making mountains out of molehills, when you made a criminal case out of a reach with an invisible outcome in the Lewandowski case.

It doesn't matter what you or I think. It doesn't matter how we feel. It does not matter how many people have told you that there was a Colorado Primary election in 2012 and that delegates were awarded proportionally based on popular vote.

What happened in Colorado in 2012 is history. It was in all the papers.

The Denver Post's 2012 account of events that took place Colorado in 2012 seems pretty credible to me. It's hard for me to believe that the newspaper having the largest daily circulation in Colorado would have botched a big story like the 2012 GOP Caucuses, which were held in their own backyard. Thank you for posting the link to that article.

[TheRealThing]

It doesn't matter what you or I think. It doesn't matter how we feel. It does not matter how many people have told you that there was a Colorado Primary election in 2012 and that delegates were awarded proportionally based on popular vote.

What happened in Colorado in 2012 is history. It was in all the papers.

The Denver Post's 2012 account of events that took place Colorado in 2012 seems pretty credible to me. It's hard for me to believe that the newspaper having the largest daily circulation in Colorado would have botched a big story like the 2012 GOP Caucuses, which were held in their own backyard. Thank you for posting the link to that article.

LOL, the caucuses are part of the primary process here in this country. But since you are having so much trouble with all of this, Denver Post political reporter Joey Bunch does a very nice job explaining the whole thing. And for convenience sake, he does so in a video which comes up automatically upon going to the page, (MY DENVER POST LINK ABOVE). According to him, the Colorado delegation of 2012 was "pledged to the winner of the caucus all the way through." (to the convention) Which as I said happened to be Rick Santorum last time around.

OH and BTW, I believe if one were to have another look at the map I put up way back in post #7 for the 2012 vote, he would readily be able to verify it's accuracy.

[Hoot Gibson]

LOL, the caucuses are part of the primary process here in this country. But since you are having so much trouble with all of this, Denver Post political reporter Joey Bunch does a very nice job explaining the whole thing. And for convenience sake, he does so in a video which comes up automatically upon going to the page, (MY DENVER POST LINK ABOVE). According to him, the Colorado delegation of 2012 was "pledged to the winner of the caucus all the way through." (to the convention) Which as I said happened to be Rick Santorum last time around.

OH and BTW, I believe if one were to have another look at the map I posted for the 2012 vote, one would readily be able to verify it's accuracy.

You keep saying that Santorum won the caucus (when you are not incorrectly calling it a primary), which is true. Explain how Santorum, winner of the caucus straw poll, emerged from Colorado with only 6 pledged delegates to runner-up Romney's 13 delegates. Ron Paul was blown out in the popular vote and still had 5 delegates pledged to him. Gingrich received more votes than Ron Paul and had zero pledged delegates.

How do you reconcile those numbers if the popular votes were used to apportion delegates? The answer should be obvious to you by now. The delegate pledges were voluntary and were unrelated to the votes each candidate received. A straw poll and an election are not the same thing. The straw poll was nothing more than an opinion poll. 12 delegates elected not to pledge their support to any candidate, but none of the delegates were required to pledge their support.

As I said, the 2012 Colorado Caucuses and the non-binding straw poll that was held are a well documented part of history, not a matter of opinion. The map that you posted does nothing more than show the results of the straw poll. It is probably 100 percent accurate, but it does not change history.

[TheRealThing]

You keep saying that Santorum won the caucus (when you are not incorrectly calling it a primary), which is true. Explain how Santorum, winner of the caucus straw poll, emerged from Colorado with only 6 pledged delegates to runner-up Romney's 13 delegates. Ron Paul was blown out in the popular vote and still had 5 delegates pledged to him. Gingrich received more votes than Ron Paul and had zero pledged delegates.

How do you reconcile those numbers if the popular votes were used to apportion delegates? The answer should be obvious to you by now. The delegate pledges were voluntary and were unrelated to the votes each candidate received. A straw poll and an election are not the same thing. The straw poll was nothing more than an opinion poll. 12 delegates elected not to pledge their support to any candidate, but none of the delegates were required to pledge their support.

As I said, the 2012 Colorado Caucuses and the non-binding straw poll that was held are a well documented part of history, not a matter of opinion. The map that you posted does nothing more than show the results of the straw poll. It is probably 100 percent accurate, but it does not change history.

Fine, I and my fried mind prefer the sage insight of those such as Michael Savage, Denver Post political reporter Joey Bunch and literally hundreds of highly regarded professionals in the field on all of this. The fact is you got so far up on your high horse about this deal out in Colorado, which was clear cut voter disenfranchisement, you had to allow yourself 3 hours to free fall back to earth.

I'd rather we were friends again, at least on here. But if that means I must support you when I think you're wrong, I respectfully decline. None the less the truth is, I have always respected your point of view on the many stories and issues that we discuss on this forum.