Bluegrassrivals

"Authorities in Florida said Thursday they would not proceed with their case against Donald Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, saying there wasn't enough evidence to convict him of attacking a reporter at a rally last month."
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/auth...ki-n556051


After all the fluster and brouhaha, we see the inevitable outcome of the molehill-made-mountain affair involving Michelle Fields and Corey Lewandowski. It's true, one actually can believe his own eyes!! What? Does this mean Hannity is not quite the fool for the ages, and does that mean Glen Beck, who seemingly would go into the Lion's den to fetch a bone for the conservative media hierarchy to which he aspires, is a goof after all?

It's all an act folks. Like Bill Nye 'The Science Guy,' it is a mixture of fact and fantasy. Nye is a mechanical engineer, not a scientist; And 'the science guy' is reportedly a fictional character from one of the comedy skits of his youth. But, dress that character up, and project the correct authority and viola, court jesters become leaders in the scientific community. Or the DJ gets his dreadlocks cut off, dons a suit and with the appropriate change in demeanor, becomes a financial consultant.

Trump et-al handled the whole side show with class. Knowing the emotion fueled hatred and contempt worn on the sleeves of the #NeverTrumpsters and their mob mentality driven brethren, they did not kneejerk react to the furor of this particular fabrication. Trump acted with dignity, refusing to fire Lewandowski just because the haters were demanding it. Instead, they let all the liars and self appointed judges run their mouths and when the evidence came in, there was literally no there there. In fact Lewandowski handed over his phone records which proved he had tried to call Michelle to make concession on the very night it all hit the internet. On the other hand, Cruz, a constitutional lawyer, demanded immediate action against Lewandowski. So I ask, which man looks Presidential in all of this? The man who demands rational and measured consideration, or the guy who leaps because it seems to be the politically correct thing to do? Trump has much more on the ball than his opponents would ever admit.

The VAST majority of criticisms against Trump are fabrications of the same kind.

Lewandowski said he never touched Michelle Fields, and she has consistently alleged that Lewandowski attempted to throw her to the floor. I've watched this video from several angles, and have always thought it was sensationalized. Lewandowski absolutely DID put his hands on her, but no more than she put her hands on Trump; and definitely not enough to throw her to the floor.

I'm so over all of this hypersensitivity.

Granny Bear Wrote:Lewandowski said he never touched Michelle Fields, and she has consistently alleged that Lewandowski attempted to throw her to the floor. I've watched this video from several angles, and have always thought it was sensationalized. Lewandowski absolutely DID put his hands on her, but no more than she put her hands on Trump; and definitely not enough to throw her to the floor.

I'm so over all of this hypersensitivity.

Yeah he reached for her arm. And if she'd been nearly yanked to the floor that would have shown on the videos. So she was touched, just not nearly as hard as she said. Did she recognize an opportunity after the fact? Impossible to discern her true motivations but, she was mad about something and gave it her best shot in any case.

Michelle don't let them republican pushed you around. :lmao:

64SUR Wrote:Michelle don't let them republican pushed you around. :lmao:

It wasn't a Republican campaign pushing her around. It was Trump's.

Lewandowski lied. Trump lied. Trump supporters are used to being on the receiving end of Trump and his staff's lies and they don't seem to mind. They don't mind the whining either. Trump winning seems to be all that matters to Trump and the zealots among his supporters.

Granny Bear Wrote:Lewandowski said he never touched Michelle Fields, and she has consistently alleged that Lewandowski attempted to throw her to the floor. I've watched this video from several angles, and have always thought it was sensationalized. Lewandowski absolutely DID put his hands on her, but no more than she put her hands on Trump; and definitely not enough to throw her to the floor.

I'm so over all of this hypersensitivity.

I agree, Granny. Lewandowski absolutely DID grab Fields - enough to stop her forward progress. I am not surprised that the prosecutor decided to exercise his prosecutorial discretion in this case, but escaping criminal prosecution does not excuse Lewandowski's behavior.

Trump let Lewandowski keep his title but he effectively stripped him of much of his authority. Maybe the timing was just a coincidence, but I suspect Trump was furious at Lewandowski for all of the negative attention he has brought to the campaign. Newly hired Paul Manafort, Trump's Convention Manager, would have normally reported to Lewandowski, but he insists that he only answers directly to Trump.

Cruz is likely to complete his sweep of Wyoming delegates today when the state holds its convention. Expect even more whining from Trump about voter disenfranchisement despite the fact that he has won 45 percent of the pledged delegates with only 37 percent of the popular votes. As Trump has admitted himself, he only whines when he loses.

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]

I think this is a situation the media used to get the Republican bases of Trump and Cruz going at each other. I believe everybody involved lied to some degree. I don't trust reporters as it is, and given our fantastic media's bent on bringing Trump or Cruz down I know they will go to any length to do so. When Michelle Fields posted the video of her arm being bruised, I became even more suspicious because it certainly would have taken a lot of strength to bruise it to the extent it was. If he just grabbed her and pulled her down as she proclaimed, she might have had a mark on her arm but I wouldn't have expected it to be bruised to the extent it was.

Corey's mistake was an outright denial that the situation happened. He is on record tweeting at Michelle Fields that he never touched her or even met her. I personally don't think that what he did was a big deal, but the fact that he denied even touching her is what hurts him in this situation. I think he just saw her approaching Trump and reacted, not sure what she was going to do.

All in all, both sides have erred. From here on out, any Republican camp needs to be careful of set up situations like this. I honestly wouldn't have expected this coming out of Breitbart (Michelle was a reporter there) who has actually given Trump pretty favorable coverage compared to some of the other candidates.

As for the analysts' opinions on the issue, TRT, I think both are at fault. Beck has certainly made his share of mistakes with his bias against Donald Trump but so has Sean Hannity in his bias for Donald Trump. I'm lightening up on Beck a bit since he has actually admitted his error and tried to change.

The bottom line, this whole election has me scratching my head. We are all acting like a bunch of liberals, the people we complain about for doing the same stuff we are.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:It wasn't a Republican campaign pushing her around. It was Trump's.

Lewandowski lied. Trump lied. Trump supporters are used to being on the receiving end of Trump and his staff's lies and they don't seem to mind. They don't mind the whining either. Trump winning seems to be all that matters to Trump and the zealots among his supporters.

You left out Michelle's name when you were listing the liars. It's important to retain our objectivity in such an emotionally charged situation. I do want you to know that I'm not a Trump zealot, and him winning is not all that matters to me. I do; however, resent votes for ANY candidate being effectively neutralized because it isn't what the RNC thinks is an appropriate vote.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:I agree, Granny. Lewandowski absolutely DID grab Fields - enough to stop her forward progress. I am not surprised that the prosecutor decided to exercise his prosecutorial discretion in this case, but escaping criminal prosecution does not excuse Lewandowski's behavior.

Trump let Lewandowski keep his title but he effectively stripped him of much of his authority. Maybe the timing was just a coincidence, but I suspect Trump was furious at Lewandowski for all of the negative attention he has brought to the campaign. Newly hired Paul Manafort, Trump's Convention Manager, would have normally reported to Lewandowski, but he insists that he only answers directly to Trump.

Cruz is likely to complete his sweep of Wyoming delegates today when the state holds its convention. Expect even more whining from Trump about voter disenfranchisement despite the fact that he has won 45 percent of the pledged delegates with only 37 percent of the popular votes. As Trump has admitted himself, he only whines when he loses.

Perhaps Lewandowski escaped criminal prosecution because what he did wasn't "criminal". As far as negative attention is concerned, there is more than enough being heaped upon this campaign by the RNC.

I once signed myself out of the hospital in order to vote. I won't ever make that mistake again. You speak of voter disenfranchisement, but when a vote can be reduced to nothing by a political power house that assumes to know what I want more than I do.......how else could you describe it?

Trump supporters or not, this is wrong. Our right to vote, and to have that vote counted, is or should be our basic right.

Political parties are private organizations. They are free in this country to set their own rules for nominating candidates. Trump only whines when he loses. Trump chose not to participate in the Colorado delegate selection process. He has whined nonstop since he lost a contest in which he chose not to participate.

Colorado did not have a GOP primary in 2012. The last Colorado GOP presidential primary was held in 1998. In 2012, Colorado GOP held closed caucuses, just as they did this year. About 66,000 voters selected delegates in 2012, which is about the same as it was this year. The voting at the 2012 was nothing but a nonbinding straw poll.

The difference is that there was no straw poll this year for presidential preference after the RNC adopted a rule that would have required the binding of delegates if a preference poll had been taken at the caucuses. The Colorado GOP wanted to send unbound delegates to the national Republican convention, just as it did in 2012.

If Trump wanted Colorado's delegates, then he should have campaigned for them. He was a no show. He lost. He is a sore loser. He is a whiner. His whining will not change the results. Trump screwed up and is refusing to take responsibility for his mistake. There is no reason his supporters should emulate his behavior.

Hoot, I am just not smart enough to figure out how your post relates to mine. Sorry. I'll read it again and sleep on it.

I do agree that anyone shouldn't emulate actions from another person JUST because of who that person may be; be it supporters or opponents.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:Political parties are private organizations. They are free in this country to set their own rules for nominating candidates. Trump only whines when he loses. Trump chose not to participate in the Colorado delegate selection process. He has whined nonstop since he lost a contest in which he chose not to participate.

Colorado did not have a GOP primary in 2012. The last Colorado GOP presidential primary was held in 1998. In 2012, Colorado GOP held closed caucuses, just as they did this year. About 66,000 voters selected delegates in 2012, which is about the same as it was this year. The voting at the 2012 was nothing but a nonbinding straw poll.

The difference is that there was no straw poll this year for presidential preference after the RNC adopted a rule that would have required the binding of delegates if a preference poll had been taken at the caucuses. The Colorado GOP wanted to send unbound delegates to the national Republican convention, just as it did in 2012.

If Trump wanted Colorado's delegates, then he should have campaigned for them. He was a no show. He lost. He is a sore loser. He is a whiner. His whining will not change the results. Trump screwed up and is refusing to take responsibility for his mistake. There is no reason his supporters should emulate his behavior.

I see had to adjust your rationale to include certain things you chose to ignore in the recent past.
[SIZE="3"]
"UNREAL. Colorado GOP Tweets Out: ‘We Did It #NeverTrump’ [/SIZE] http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/04/...evertrump/

Granny Bear Wrote:You left out Michelle's name when you were listing the liars. It's important to retain our objectivity in such an emotionally charged situation. I do want you to know that I'm not a Trump zealot, and him winning is not all that matters to me. I do; however, resent votes for ANY candidate being effectively neutralized because it isn't what the RNC thinks is an appropriate vote.

I left Fields' name out because she is not running for office, nor is she working for a candidate. In addition, she has been widely misquoted. I believe that she exaggerated her story, but she certainly never claimed that she was tossed to the ground. In contrast, the Trump campaign called Fields delusional after Lewandowski claimed that he never touched Fields. Fields may have been less than truthful, but Lewandowski was not even partially truthful about the event.

Granny Bear Wrote:Perhaps Lewandowski escaped criminal prosecution because what he did wasn't "criminal". As far as negative attention is concerned, there is more than enough being heaped upon this campaign by the RNC.

There are several alternative explanations about why the prosecutor, Dave Aronberg, declined to prosecute the case, including his own explanation, which is provided below. If you want to play the iffin' game, then an alternate explanation is that Trump and his allies exerted political pressure on Aronberg to get the charge dropped. Trump often boasts of his political influence. Maybe the prosecutor's wife, who is apparently well acquainted with the Trumps, played a role in his decision. The pro-Trump media described Aronberg as a "Clinton backer," but so was Trump until very recently.

Lynn Aronberg with Donald and Melania Trump:

[Image: Lynn-Aronberg-Donald-trump.jpg][Image: Lynn-Aronberg-Melania.jpg][Image: Lynn-Aronberg-Donald-2.jpg]

I don't fault Aronberg for not prosecuting Lewandowski - prosecutors often have to prioritize the cases they choose to pursue based on the strength of the evidence and the damage done to victims. Nor am I suggesting that Aronberg was unduly influenced by his (or his wife's) association with the Trumps. If this was a civil rather than a criminal case, where the level of proof required is only the preponderance of evidence, then there would have been either a settlement or a trial of this matter.

My problem with this affair was with the dishonesty of Lewandowski and Trump and with the campaign's attempt to assassinate Fields' character. As I understand it, Fields only contacted the police after the Trump campaign used the fact that she had not filed a complaint as evidence that she was lying about being grabbed.

Quote:Explaining his decision not to pursue the case, Dave Aronberg, the state attorney for Palm Beach County, said in a Thursday news conference, "We agree that probable cause exists for the Jupiter Police Department to have charged Mr. Lewandowski in this case." But, he continued, "as prosecutors, however, our standards for filing criminal charges is higher than mere probable cause. We have the burden of proving each case beyond a reasonable doubt. In doing so, a prosecutor must have a good-faith basis that the evidence presented will sustain a conviction."

Granny Bear Wrote:I once signed myself out of the hospital in order to vote. I won't ever make that mistake again. You speak of voter disenfranchisement, but when a vote can be reduced to nothing by a political power house that assumes to know what I want more than I do.......how else could you describe it?

Trump supporters or not, this is wrong. Our right to vote, and to have that vote counted, is or should be our basic right.

We have absolutely no right to vote in a presidential primary or caucus. The right to participate in a primary election is determined by the parties, which are strictly private organizations. If the party wants to hold a primary or a caucus with a binding vote, then you may vote in that party function. If your state party elects not to allow voters to pick its nominee, then you have an absolute right to move to a different state.

TheRealThing Wrote:I see had to adjust your rationale to include certain things you chose to ignore in the recent past.
[SIZE="3"]
"UNREAL. Colorado GOP Tweets Out: ‘We Did It #NeverTrump’ [/SIZE] http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/04/...evertrump/

What I am doing is correcting the many factual errors that you are including in your posts. If you do not like the content of my posts, then you should start doing some fact checking before you post. It would save me considerable time. Unlike hard core Trump supporters, I do not spend much time obsessing over tweets.

Granny Bear Wrote:Hoot, I am just not smart enough to figure out how your post relates to mine. Sorry. I'll read it again and sleep on it.

I do agree that anyone shouldn't emulate actions from another person JUST because of who that person may be; be it supporters or opponents.

Sorry, Granny. You may safely assume that unless I quote you, then I was not directing a post to you. I did not mean to imply that your behavior resembles in any way the childish behavior of Donald J. Trump.

I understand those are the RNC talking points meant to smooth down the voter's ruffled feathers in Colorado. One can call it a straw poll or a beauty contest, the voters were still left out. I have seen numerous reporters on TV that say the voters in Colorado were disenfranchised and they say the Republican party bosses decided to whom the delegates were bound.

I saw the man burning his Republican voter registration and I saw the protestors who feel left out. Party rules were changed only last August and the timing looks convenient.

I don't want to get in a shooting match with you, but I've read and heard from several sources that quoted Michelle as saying that Lewendowski attempted to throw her to the ground.

I guess the bottom line is, I hate the way this political race is going because it is literally tearing the thread out of America and our way of life; or at least what we PERCEIVED was our way of life. The only way that I can rationalize this in my mind is to actively pursue the truth, as hidden as it may be. The very last thing that anyone, any party or any candidate needs to do is make up another lie to counter act the lie that was told by the "other side". Lie for lie, action for action and nobody really seems to care.

Granny Bear Wrote:I understand those are the RNC talking points meant to smooth down the voter's ruffled feathers in Colorado. One can call it a straw poll or a beauty contest, the voters were still left out. I have seen numerous reporters on TV that say the voters in Colorado were disenfranchised and they say the Republican party bosses decided to whom the delegates were bound.

I saw the man burning his Republican voter registration and I saw the protestors who feel left out. Party rules were changed only last August and the timing looks convenient.

I don't want to get in a shooting match with you, but I've read and heard from several sources that quoted Michelle as saying that Lewendowski attempted to throw her to the ground.

I guess the bottom line is, I hate the way this political race is going because it is literally tearing the thread out of America and our way of life; or at least what we PERCEIVED was our way of life. The only way that I can rationalize this in my mind is to actively pursue the truth, as hidden as it may be. The very last thing that anyone, any party or any candidate needs to do is make up another lie to counter act the lie that was told by the "other side". Lie for lie, action for action and nobody really seems to care.

I don't write my posts based on Republican talking points, Granny. Everything that I have said about the Colorado GOP convention is factual. There was a vote at the 2012 Colorado caucuses, but the results were not binding on delegates on the first ballot. The 2012 delegates were free to vote for whomever they wanted, just as the 2016 delegates will be able to do. If you were a delegate, would you prefer being bound to a particular candidate on the first ballot or free to vote your conscience?

Think about the delegates currently bound to Rubio. As long as he does not officially withdraw from the race or endorse another candidate (rules vary by state), those delegates must vote for Rubio. From a state Republican Party's perspective, I believe that it would be better if Rubio's delegates were unbound.

Would you really want the federal government to dictate to nomination process of the political parties in this country? Because when you say that you have the right to vote for candidates for a party's presidential nomination, federal regulation is the only way you will get that right. Actually, a Constitutional amendment would probably be required to grant you such a right because a law governing the nomination of candidates by private parties would most likely violate our First Amendment right of free association.

I am a small government conservative. Citizens of countries that have "official" parties controlled by the government are generally much less free than American citizens. I am strongly opposed to the federal government mandating any part of the nomination process. I also believe that the parties chose better presidents before presidential primaries became popular.

In addition, I favor the repeal of the 17 Amendment, which requires the direct election of U.S. Senators by voters. The country would be much better off if we still let states select Senators through their legislatures. It would reduce the cost of running for the U.S. Senate and the influence of lobbyists over their behavior.

I am really not trying to be argumentative, but you have no right to vote during the nomination process. The parties are free to allow you to vote in the nominating process, but they are equally free to exclude voters from the process.

One more thing - think about the "winner take all" or "winner take most" rules in some state primaries. If you believe you have a right to vote for a nominee, then should your vote count the same as somebody who voted for a candidate who did not win a majority of votes? Trump won one-third of the votes in South Carolina but was awarded all of the delegates. Were the two-thirds of the voters who voted for other candidates "disenfranchised?" The same goes for Florida, where Trump won less than half the popular votes but was awarded all 99 delegates.

Have you heard Trump whining about the allegedly disenfranchised voters in any of the caucuses or winner-take-all states that he won? Of course not. Trump only whines on behalf of those poor, disenfranchised voters, when he loses an election. He even complains when he loses elections when he fails to campaign for any votes.

I don't know what Fields actually said, but it is not really important to me because, as I said, she is not a candidate nor is she working on a campaign staff. What I do know is that Lewandowski and Trump lied and Trump is running for president. IMO, it is always wrong for politicians and celebrities to use their position to engage in character assassination. Character assassination is a cornerstone of the Trump candidacy.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:What I am doing is correcting the many factual errors that you are including in your posts. If you do not like the content of my posts, then you should start doing some fact checking before you post. It would save me considerable time. Unlike hard core Trump supporters, I do not spend much time obsessing over tweets.

LOL, you don't spend much time obsessing over "factual" tweets as put out there by the Colorado GOP, and as was duly reported by the unbiased within media circles, I got that. But you certainly spend quite a lot of time obsessing over the legitimate campaign of one Donald J Trump who, in all likelihood will be the nominee.

You can't cite a single example to put up here where I have posted anything that was either wrong, or that you had to correct me about. Although, I would think you've spent a considerable amount of time obsessing and fantasizing about how good it would make you look if you did.

I would remind you, that in this state where you might have expected your influence on political forums to bear fruit, Trump won anyway. In any event the fact that you jumped up on an innocent man in the person of Lewandowski, proves how desperate you've become to see Trump derailed.

TheRealThing Wrote:LOL, you don't spend much time obsessing over "factual" tweets as put out there by the Colorado GOP, and as was duly reported by the unbiased within media circles, I got that. But you certainly spend quite a lot of time obsessing over the legitimate campaign of one Donald J Trump who, in all likelihood will be the nominee.

[B]You can't cite a single example to put up here where I have posted anything that was either wrong, or that you had to correct me about.[/B] Although, I would think you've spent a considerable amount of time obsessing and fantasizing about good it would make you look if you did.

I would remind you, that in this state where you might have expected your influence on political forums to bear fruit, Trump won anyway. In any event the fact that you jumped up on an innocent man in the person of Lewandowski, proves how desperate you've become to see Trump derailed.

There was no Colorado primary election in 2012 AND I have already corrected you for making that mistake. Are you suffering from short term memory loss, or did you just not bother reading my explanation? There was a straw poll taken in 2012 at the Colorado closed caucuses. Do I also need to explain the differences between a primary election and a caucus to you? Santorum won the preference poll in 2012, but none of Colorado's delegates were bound to any candidate on the first ballot.

Again, you need to fact check your own posts better. You also need to read my responses more closely before posting responses.

You made another factual misrepresentation in your most recent post. Lewandowski was not found innocent. The prosecutor acknowledged that there was adequate probable cause for the police to charge him with simple battery but he concluded that the evidence was not strong enough for him to be confident of a conviction.

Even if Lewandowski had gone to trial and successfully defended himself, the best outcome for him would have been a "not guilty" finding by a jury. Juries do not find defendants "innocent." Their job is to determine whether evidence is adequate to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The distinction is an important one. Juries do not find defendants guilty beyond all doubt and they do not find them innocent. That is not what a jury does in this country.

BTW, I did not reply to the post where you incorrectly said that there was a Colorado Primary election in 2012 because you had complained about me responding to your posts not directed to me. I included some bold text to make it easier for you to find the correction. I also thought others might appreciate an accurate explanation of the Colorado caucuses after reading the disinformation from a Trump supporter.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:There was no Colorado primary election in 2012 AND I have already corrected you for making that mistake. Are you suffering from short term memory loss, or did you just not bother reading my explanation? There was a straw poll taken in 2012 at the Colorado closed caucuses. Do I also need to explain the differences between a primary election and a caucus to you? Santorum won the preference poll in 2012, but none of Colorado's delegates were bound to any candidate on the first ballot.

Again, you need to fact check your own posts better. You also need to read my responses more closely before posting responses.

You made another factual misrepresentation in your most recent post. Lewandowski was not found innocent. The prosecutor acknowledged that there was adequate probable cause for the police to charge him with simple battery but he concluded that the evidence was not strong enough for him to be confident of a conviction.

Even if Lewandowski had gone to trial and successfully defended himself, the best outcome for him would have been a "not guilty" finding by a jury. Juries do not find defendants "innocent." Their job is to determine whether evidence is adequate to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The distinction is an important one. Juries do not find defendants guilty beyond all doubt and they do not find them innocent. That is not what a jury does in this country.

Yeah and I posted the GOP voter map for you that contradicts the haze job you're trying to run. The people did vote in 2012, ramifications notwithstanding, and the protests out there speak to their dissatisfaction.

And BTW, this argument that you've been using about Trump not getting over 50% of the vote in the state primaries is off base too. Romney had scarcely won 4 primaries by the time the New York primary happened and only after that did he score north of 50% more often. Trump looks poised to do the same.

TheRealThing Wrote:Yeah and I posted the GOP voter map for you that contradicts the haze job you're trying to run. The people did vote in 2012, ramifications notwithstanding, and the protests out there speak to their dissatisfaction.

And BTW, this argument that you've been using about Trump not getting over 50% of the vote in the state primaries is off base too. Romney had scarcely won 4 primaries by the time the New York primary happened and only after that did he score north of 50% more often. Trump looks poised to do the same.

Mark down another mistake for yourself. There was no primary for the GOP in Colorado in 2012. You're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. In 2012 there was a closed caucus with a non-binding vote for presidential preference. In 2016, there was a closed caucus without a vote for presidential preference. In both 2012 and 2016 none of the Colorado delegates were bound to any candidate at the national GOP convention.

Look it up for yourself if the truth matters to you.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:Mark down another mistake for yourself. There was no primary for the GOP in Colorado in 2012. You're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. In 2012 there was a closed caucus with a non-binding vote for presidential preference. In 2016, there was a closed caucus without a vote for presidential preference. In both 2012 and 2016 none of the Colorado delegates were bound to any candidate at the national GOP convention.

Look it up for yourself if the truth matters to you.

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.

Obviously with no voter preference on record with which to contend, the Colorado GOP did exactly as they pleased irrespective of the will of the people. Which BTW, seemed to matter to said GOP who required delegates to vote for the candidate who won the caucus, that is right up until last August when the rules were changed. One more thing. What with the real truth having come out by an overzealous #NeverTrumpster, it has become obvious that even if Trump had spoken in Colorado, the likelihood is that the outcome would have been the same. See, the Republicans in Colorado decided they didn't like the idea that Colorado delegates would be bound on the first ballot, which is normally a RNC requirement.


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... Ta Dah, are you ready, who wins the caucus vote .

The move makes Colorado the only state so far to forfeit a role in the early nomination process, according to political experts, but other caucus states are still considering how to adapt to the new rule."

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28700919/

TheRealThing Wrote: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.

Obviously with no voter preference on record with which to contend, the Colorado GOP did exactly as they pleased irrespective of the will of the http://www.bluegrassrivals.com/forum/ima....gifpeople. Which BTW, seemed to matter to said GOP who required delegates to vote for the candidate who won the caucus, that is right up until last August when the rules were changed. One more thing. What with the real truth having come out by an overzealous #NeverTrumpster, it has become obvious that even if Trump had spoken in Colorado, the likelihood is that the outcome would have been the same. See, the Republicans in Colorado decided they didn't like the idea that Colorado delegates would be bound on the first ballot, which is normally a RNC requirement.

"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... Ta Dah, are you ready, who wins the caucus vote .

The move makes Colorado the only state so far to forfeit a role in the early nomination process, according to political experts, but other caucus states are still considering how to adapt to the new rule."

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28700919/

If you are not man enough to admit a mistake, then I will quit wasting my time on you. There was no primary in 2012 and a primary was never scheduled for 2016. Those are the facts. They are not open to debate. An RNC rule change would have forced Colorado to bind its delegates if there had been a straw poll taken at this year's GOP caucus. The state GOP wanted to send unbound delegates to the national GOP convention, as it had in 2012, so they elected to cancel the vote, which had been non-binding following the Colorado caucus in 2012. You are playing fast and loose with the facts, as is your leader, DJT. You do understand the difference in a primary election and a caucus, don't you?

TheRealThing Wrote: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.

Obviously with no voter preference on record with which to contend, the Colorado GOP did exactly as they pleased irrespective of the will of the people. Which BTW, seemed to matter to said GOP who required delegates to vote for the candidate who won the caucus, that is right up until last August when the rules were changed. One more thing. What with the real truth having come out by an overzealous #NeverTrumpster, it has become obvious that even if Trump had spoken in Colorado, the likelihood is that the outcome would have been the same. See, the Republicans in Colorado decided they didn't like the idea that Colorado delegates would be bound on the first ballot, which is normally a RNC requirement.


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... Ta Dah, are you ready, who wins the caucus vote .

The move makes Colorado the only state so far to forfeit a role in the early nomination process, according to political experts, but other caucus states are still considering how to adapt to the new rule."

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28700919/

I already posted that stunning information that you posted in big bold letters in my post #10. Colorado held its last GOP primary in 2000. However, I did find that I mistakenly posted earlier that the last GOP primary was held in 1998, which was not a presidential election year. The primary was canceled in 2003 to save the state money.

The bottom line is that Trump made a strategic decision to ignore the voters of Colorado, was shutout at the convention, and is now squealing like a stuck pig. He still has not broken 50 percent in any state primary or caucus. If he fails to do so in his home state of New York, it will be a big setback for him. Trump has a much bigger share of delegates than the popular votes that he has received. If the system is rigged against him, somebody at the GOP really screwed up.

(See how easy it is to admit a mistake?)

I wonder how much Cruz and his establishment cronies paid this poor woman to ruin her career with a lie.

such a shame. nobody will ever have anything to do with her now.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:I already posted that stunning information that you posted in big bold letters in my post #10. Colorado held its last GOP primary in 2000. However, I did find that I mistakenly posted earlier that the last GOP primary was held in 1998, which was not a presidential election year. The primary was canceled in 2003 to save the state money.

The bottom line is that Trump made a strategic decision to ignore the voters of Colorado, was shutout at the convention, and is now squealing like a stuck pig. He still has not broken 50 percent in any state primary or caucus. If he fails to do so in his home state of New York, it will be a big setback for him. Trump has a much bigger share of delegates than the popular votes that he has received. If the system is rigged against him, somebody at the GOP really screwed up.

(See how easy it is to admit a mistake?)

Incredible, I wondered how you were going to try and get out from under this one. The bottom line is that you said the voters have not one thing to do with the delegates from Colorado, and that they are not bound. Not now and not in 2012. According to the Denver Post, up until and including 2012 they were bound, and they were bound to vote for the caucus winner. Which means that as I attempted to get across to you a number of times, the Colorado GOP made a decision which intentional or not, disenfranchised the voters of that state. At any rate, I will happily admit any mistake I have made were it to be pointed out. I just have this thing about admitting the ones I haven't.

Your words; "In both 2012 and 2016 none of the Colorado delegates were bound to any candidate at the national GOP convention" which is a bit disingenuous in making the argument that Colorado voters did not figure into making that choice. Santorum didn't go, but that was the voter's choice.

Ted Cruz didn't break 50% in his home state of Texas and it's hard to see how Utah and Wyoming are exactly trend setters, does that mean he's out? Kasich didn't break 50% in his home state either.

TheRealThing Wrote:Incredible, I wondered how you were going to try and get out from under this one. The bottom line is that you said the voters have not one thing to do with the delegates from Colorado, and that they are not bound. Not now and not in 2012. According to the Denver Post, up until and including 2012 they were bound, and they were bound to vote for the caucus winner. Which means that as I attempted to get across to you a number of times, the Colorado GOP made a decision which intentional or not, disenfranchised the voters of that state. At any rate, I will happily admit any mistake I have made were it to be pointed out. I just have this thing about admitting the ones I haven't.

Your words; "In both 2012 and 2016 none of the Colorado delegates were bound to any candidate at the national GOP convention" which is a bit disingenuous in making the argument that Colorado voters did not figure into making that choice. Santorum didn't go, but that was the voter's choice.

Ted Cruz didn't break 50% in his home state of Texas and it's hard to see how Utah and Wyoming are exactly trend setters, does that mean he's out? Kasich didn't break 50% in his home state either.

You should read for comprehension, including the footnotes. In the 2012 Colorado Republican Caucuses, none of the delegates chosen to represent the state at the national convention were bound to any candidate as the result of popular votes. Delegates could voluntarily pledge support to a candidate, but if they pledged to support a candidate, then they became obligated to support the candidate until the candidate withdrew from the race, released his delegates, or failed to get nominated.

To drive home the point that the delegates were not apportioned based on popular votes, Romney won 34.9 percent of the popular vote but had 13 pledged delegates, Santorum received 40.3 percent of the popular vote but had pledges from only 6 delegates, and Ron Paul had 5 pledged delegates on only 11.8 percent of the popular vote. Newt Gingrich received 12.8 percent of the popular votes but had zero pledged delegates. There were 12 delegates who chose not to pledge their support to any candidate.

You may take your pick of references and if your read any of the following carefully, you should realize that you were wrong on two points:

1. There was no Colorado GOP Primary in 2012. There were caucuses that year. This is a mistake that I have repeatedly pointed out to you, and your response has been to toss red herrings into the debate, while digging yourself into a deeper hole. A caucus is not a primary.

2. Delegates were not bound to candidates based on popular vote received in the 2012 caucuses. Delegates were free to voluntarily pledge themselves to candidates and 24 of 36 chose to do so. If you read the results of popular votes and the number of pledged delegates for each candidate, you will see that the delegates were not split proportionally. Had all delegates chosen to remain unpledged to any candidate, they were free to do so because they were not bound to any candidates by the rules.

2012 Colorado Republican Caucuses

United States presidential election in Colorado, 2012

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Colorado

BTW, Cruz tossed another shutout against Trump today in Wyoming. The score today was Cruz 14 delegates Trump 0 delegates. Trump started whining about the result before the votes were cast.

I was wondering if Trump has started whining about the 54 unbound delegates that will be selected in the Pennsylvania primary, without regard to the popular vote. Or will Mr. Trump continue to whine about the injustice of voter disenfranchisement only when he loses? A man of principle Trump is not. nicker:

Hoot Gibson Wrote:You should read for comprehension, including the footnotes. In the 2012 Colorado Republican Caucuses, none of the delegates chosen to represent the state at the national convention were bound to any candidate as the result of popular votes. Delegates could voluntarily pledge support to a candidate, but if they pledged to support a candidate, then they became obligated to support the candidate until the candidate withdrew from the race, released his delegates, or failed to get nominated.

To drive home the point that the delegates were not apportioned based on popular votes, Romney won 34.9 percent of the popular vote but had 13 pledged delegates, Santorum received 40.3 percent of the popular vote but had pledges from only 6 delegates, and Ron Paul had 5 pledged delegates on only 11.8 percent of the popular vote. Newt Gingrich received 12.8 percent of the popular votes but had zero pledged delegates. There were 12 delegates who chose not to pledge their support to any candidate.

You may take your pick of references and if your read any of the following carefully, you should realize that you were wrong on two points:

1. There was no Colorado GOP Primary in 2012. There were caucuses that year. This is a mistake that I have repeatedly pointed out to you, and your response has been to toss red herrings into the debate, while digging yourself into a deeper hole. A caucus is not a primary.

2. Delegates were not bound to candidates based on popular vote received in the 2012 caucuses. Delegates were free to voluntarily pledge themselves to candidates and 24 of 36 chose to do so. If you read the results of popular votes and the number of pledged delegates for each candidate, you will see that the delegates were not split proportionally. Had all delegates chosen to remain unpledged to any candidate, they were free to do so because they were not bound to any candidates by the rules.

2012 Colorado Republican Caucuses

United States presidential election in Colorado, 2012

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Colorado

BTW, Cruz tossed another shutout against Trump today in Wyoming. The score today was Cruz 14 delegates Trump 0 delegates. Trump started whining about the result before the votes were cast.

I was wondering if Trump has started whining about the 54 unbound delegates that will be selected in the Pennsylvania primary, without regard to the popular vote. Or will Mr. Trump continue to whine about the injustice of voter disenfranchisement only when he loses? A man of principle Trump is not. nicker:

The argument was not a debate about the virtues of primaries versus the ineffectiveness of caucuses. It centered around the fact that voters feel they've been disenfranchised, they are mad about it and you know it. Cruz has nothing to do with it. Delegates were bound last time and they wasted their votes for Santorum. Whether Colorado's system is very smart or not is not what this is about. And it's not what Trump has been saying.

The Colorado GOP suspended the vote and that's the problem from the voter's perspective. Hiding behind the smokescreen of bureaucracy is what Obama likes to do and this latest move by Colorado is just more of it.

TheRealThing Wrote:The argument was not a debate about the virtues of primaries versus the ineffectiveness of caucuses. It centered around the fact that voters feel they've been disenfranchised, they are mad about it and you know it. Cruz has nothing to do with it. Delegates were bound last time and they wasted their votes for Santorum. Whether Colorado's system is very smart or not is not what this is about. And it's not what Trump has been saying.

The Colorado GOP suspended the vote and that's the problem from the voter's perspective. Hiding behind the smokescreen of bureaucracy is what Obama likes to do and this latest move by Colorado is just more of it.

Delegates were not bound in 2012 as you claim and I have provided proof of that fact. There was no Colorado GOP Primary election in 2012, as you claimed multiple times, and I have also provided you with overwhelming evidence of that fact. You challenged me to point out a single factual error that you have have posted and I have provided you with two. Yet, you still refused to acknowledge those mistakes.

An honest debate requires two honest debaters. It seems that we are one short of a quorum.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:Delegates were not bound in 2012 as you claim and I have provided proof of that fact. There was no Colorado GOP Primary election in 2012, as you claimed multiple times, and I have also provided you with overwhelming evidence of that fact. You challenged me to point out a single factual error that you have have posted and I have provided you with two. Yet, you still refused to acknowledge those mistakes.

An honest debate requires two honest debaters. It seems that we are one short of a quorum.

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.

Therefore I suggest you try reading the article. 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?

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: