[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: