Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Cruz set to dominate Colorado delegate selection (UPDATE – Sweep)

Cruz set to dominate Colorado delegate selection (UPDATE – Sweep)

Trump campaign acknowledges that it didn’t expect to do well in Colorado

As we await final results from Colorado, it appears that Ted Cruz will obtain more delegates in addition to the 17 he already has.

ABC News reports:

Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz has locked up the support of 21 Colorado delegates and may scoop up even more Saturday.

Slates loyal to Cruz won every assembly in the state’s seven congressional districts, which began April 2 and culminated Friday with 12 delegates selected.

The Texas senator is well-positioned to pad his total Saturday, when 13 more delegates were to be chosen at the party’s state convention.

According to an Associated Press count, Trump has 743 delegates, Cruz has 532 and Ohio Gov. John Kasich has 143. It takes 1,237 to clinch the nomination, though there’s a real chance no candidate will reach that mark by the national convention in Cleveland in July.

Of Cruz’s Colorado delegates so far, only 17 were formally pledged to him, and in theory the other four could change their vote in Cleveland. But they were all included on the senator’s slates and are largely state party officials who said they were barred from signing a formal pledge for Cruz but have promised to back him in balloting at the convention.

ABC goes on to note that Cruz’s “superior organization” has helped him substantially in Colorado, and NBC News is reporting that Trump’s performance in Colorado reveals a “chaotic, overwhelmed Trump campaign.”

According to the Denver Post, prior to today, Cruz had the 17 aforementioned bound delegates, Trump had two delegates, and Kasich none.  Should Cruz gain the 13 Colorado delegates today, his total delegate count for Colorado will be 30.

Indiana’s GOP is selecting delegates to the national convention today—27 of them, and according to reports, Trump is getting “trounced” there, too.  The Indiana delegates will be bound to the results of the May 3 Indiana primary, but are expected to change should it go to a second ballot.

This will make New York and its 95 delegates still more crucial for Trump.

Iohud, the Journal News reports:

Tony Sayegh, a Republican consultant and Fox News contributor, said Clinton and Trump are both running flawed campaigns and have been dogged by historically high “unfavorable” ratings in polls of likely voters.

“In the case of Trump, if he doesn’t win the 50 percent, or for Clinton, if she wins narrowly, it just reinforces how weak the front-runners are,” Sayegh said.  “I think (Sanders) is certainly capable of getting shockingly close and embarrassing Hillary Clinton.”

. . . .  Under the primary system adopted by New York Republicans this year, each of the state’s 27 congressional districts carry three delegates. A candidate who receives at least 50 percent of the vote gets all three. If they win with a lower percentage, they get two and the second-place finisher gets one.

The 14 remaining “at-large” GOP delegates in the state are pledged to cast their votes with the winner of the statewide vote.

Trump’s campaign told ABC News that they didn’t expect to do well in Colorado:

While Cruz’s campaign spent months recruiting slates of delegates and securing pledges, Trump only this past week hired a Colorado state director.

The Trump campaign said it wasn’t worried and had always expected to fare poorly in Colorado because its assembly process is dominated by party insiders. “If we had a primary, yes, we would have done very well here,” said Trump senior adviser Alan Cobb.

Cruz also appeals to activists who dominate party functions — a deeply conservative, religious crowd with a libertarian streak.

“Coloradans, naturally having that pioneer spirit, gravitate toward someone like Cruz,” said state Rep. Justin Everett, one of Cruz’s pledged delegates.

It seems, though, that the Trump campaign didn’t carefully consider the importance of locking in delegates until very recently.  This is the same mistake that Hillary Clinton made in 2008 when she lost to Obama.  Of course it’s too early to tell whether or not Trump will earn the 1,237 delegates he needs to secure the nomination.

In the meantime, we await news from Colorado and Indiana about their delegates and will keep you updated.

UPDATE 11:15 p.m. Eastern (by WAJ) – Cruz sweeps all delegates.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Bush, Bush, McCain, and Romney are all very nice people who wouldn’t offend anyone, except perhaps by being alive. It will take someone with sharp elbows to beat Hillary.

    True that.

    Those GOPe standard bearers are afraid of the Democrat Political Machine but are grateful to get Dem kudos for assaulting their own conservative base voters as trash.

    Who do you support for president, Tregonsee?

Cruz is looking good in Indiana, as well.

A very corrupt & compromised state party organization rigged this operation last year. No opposition was allowed to have any meaningful role from the beginning. This is the same people who went after the state Republican A.G. a popular sitting county chair, & others.
These types of crooked party elements who have sold out national sovereignty in the interests of their criminal party cabal are who are behind all these shadowy machinations across the country. It didn’t originate with Cruz, it’s been around far longer. This shows he is no more than a cappo in a larger crime family.
I think it’s likely the Republican party will take a bath in Colorado in November. I and a growing number of Coloradoans are working diligently to make that happen.
Some were important elements in the democrat recalls of a few years ago.
Weep no tears for a fallen crime syndicate. It’s not smart making enemies of so many that have fought in the trenches of resistance for over 7 years. We will make them pay.

    qmax in reply to secondwind. | April 9, 2016 at 4:24 pm

    Corey Gardner will be out (he appears to have headed up this joke), IMO, & the COGOP will have a bloodbath on their hands. The entire CO ‘caucus’ was a joke. We didn’t really even got to ‘vote’ for anything. We voted for ‘delegates’ to select our ‘delegates’, and none of them were bound. There are a lot of pissed off Republicans in CO. Reasoning the COGOP chair gave was ‘Too many people might rush to the caucus & vote’ for not having an actual vote. Go figure.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to secondwind. | April 9, 2016 at 5:46 pm

    Yes, go with the Democrat Pary, always pure as the driven snow. Geez, lol.

    Ditch both parties, and pick your candidates individually regardless of party.

      “Yes, go with the Democrat Pary, always pure as the driven snow.”

      There is certainly no difference in the two parties. One is perhaps a bit slower than the other… But not by much.

Colorado? Yeah… oversight on Trump’s part. Shudda hadda ground org in place; a non-Politician mistake.

    Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | April 9, 2016 at 4:08 pm

    Like Atlantic City was a non-businessman’s mistake.

    Hillary made the same mistake, VF, so I guess it’s both a politician’s and a non-politician’s mistake. Considering Trump’s enthusiastic praise of Hillary in 2008–she’d make a “great president”: “I know Hillary, and I think she’d make a great president or vice-president” (Trump 2008)–and his much later statement that she got “schlonged” by Obama in ’08, it’s surprising that he wasn’t more aware of the delegates (that was her main tactical mistake). Then again, Trump may have meant that Obama played the race card against the Clintons, I suppose, or just that she lost to Obama. Anyway, yeah, it’s an oversight that I doubt any future campaign will make again!

      How many GOP politicians has Trump donated to and endorsed since you are keeping score, Fuzzy?

        What on earth are you talking about? I didn’t even mention donations, I was talking about his support for Hillary as a president and that since he knew her so well it was odd that he didn’t realize the import of delegates.

        As to Trump’s donations, try Google. I keep telling you about that thar newfangled search engine, but you don’t seem to use it very often.

          Oh. So you don’t know that Trump has donated to, and endorsed, the 2012 GOP nominee, Mitt Romney for president running against the Democrat party.

          You don’t seem to know much. Sad.

          What is wrong with you? Do you just like to pick fights and be obnoxious? Seriously, I don’t get your bizarre fetish. I was just agreeing with you, that Trump should have known better, and I elucidated on it because of his close relationship (going back decades) with the Clintons. That’s fact. It’s not something that I was trying to use to do more than say that Trump should have had a better ground game regarding delegates (which you also said). It was simple, really, but here you are . . . badgering me for some reason known only to yourself.

          I find it very peculiar that you can’t even hear when someone is agreeing with you, but I’m not surprised that you change the focus of the discussion (to donations first and now on to endorsements. Look! Squirrel!!) and toss in a few personal insults for good measure. That’s what Trump would do, that’s what all progressives like him–and you–do as a matter of course. Why bother responding to what is actually being said when you can make up something juicy in your head?

          Are you in the tank with Levin Beck & Erickson who will vote For Hillary? Asking for a friend.

          Ragspierre in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | April 9, 2016 at 5:09 pm

          IS you “friend” a lying old daft T-rump sucker, too?

          Because that “question” is predicted on a lie.

          But you knew that.

        Radegunda in reply to VotingFemale. | April 9, 2016 at 5:08 pm

        How many Republican candidates for president have donated most heavily to Democrats and have often praised Democrat politicians but seldom if ever any Republicans?

        How many Republican candidates for president have switched party registration several times and (apparently) never before voted in a Republican primary?

        How many Republican candidates have recently praised “single-payer” health-care systems, or parroted the Code Pink “Bush lied us into war” lie, or said that women should be punished for having an abortion (because that’s what they imagine an actual pro-lifer would say)?

        How many Republican candidates think that Supreme Court justices do criminal investigations and sign “bills”?

        How many Republican candidates have warned of riots if the nominating rules in place since Lincoln aren’t changed for them?

        How many Republican candidates have made statements that can be considered incitement to violence, and have said “I promise … I promise … I promise” they’d pay the legal bills of anyone who committed violence in their behalf, and then lied about it even though the tape was easy to find?

        How many Republican candidates have boasted that they could openly shoot someone and not lose any of their devotees?

        How many Republican candidates have fans who are issuing death threats to their critics?

        Zachary in reply to VotingFemale. | April 9, 2016 at 5:10 pm

        After a brief flirtation with reality, downthread you once again slip into nuttery. It’s entertaining, I guess.

          No. It really isn’t entertaining. VotingFemale’s nuttiness stopped being entertaining and simply became tedious weeks ago.

          Most of us respond in the off-chance that we’ll be able to educate her, but it appears to be a lost cause due to the Trump-colored blinders she wears.

          Agreed, she has long worn out her welcome. I do get a bit sad for her when she pretends that she’s considered here as anything but an annoyance; when she claims to be bestest best friends with the prof, or that she is somehow capable of influencing who can and cannot comment here. It’s just so sad to me. I honestly think that she may have some sort of mental illness. That’s not my field, but she’s really shown some worrying tendencies toward self-aggrandizement and complete ignorance of how she and her comments are received. I don’t know what’s wrong with her, but something clearly is.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to Zachary. | April 9, 2016 at 7:27 pm

          There’s a corollary in table tennis as regards the practice of political discussion and argumentation in that once you realize your opponent is an unchanging wall, further discussion is pointless. The best table tennis player in the world cannot beat a mindless, ignorant wall.

          Also, look up “oppositional/defiant”.

        MaggotAtBroadAndWall in reply to VotingFemale. | April 9, 2016 at 7:48 pm

        Trump trademarked “Make American Great Again” six days after Romney lost in November, 2012. That was when Trump began running for president as a Republican.

        Prior to that he had donated to both parties, but mostly to Democrats. He apparently met with Reince Priebus and told him his plans. Reince presumably told him that if he wanted to run for president as a Republican, he’d have to start donating to Republican candidates and the RNC, exclusively, and he’d have to start acting like a Republican. So Trump paid the tribute the establishment demanded to let him in the club and he formulated a plan to insert himself into the national political dialogue.

        He did that by getting himself a weekly segment on “Fox and Friends”. That enabled him to shed his liberal positions and espouse conservative ones. But he was not limited to “Fox and Friends”. Whenever Greta, Bill, and Sean needed to fill some air time, Trump was often happy to appear in person on their shows or call in on the phone.

        It really made no sense. I mean, for all the public knew, Trump was just a blowhard billionaire game show host and real estate tycoon. Why would anyone care about his political positions or views on current events? But suddenly there he was, once a week, spouting his new found conservative political beliefs on “Fox and Friends”. He spent a few years shedding his liberal positions, adopting conservatives ones (or pretending to), and creating a conservative persona. Then in June 2015, he announces he’s running for president as a Republican. What a lucky coincidence for him that he’d been appearing regularly on Fox for years establishing his conservative bona fides.

          Good post. One small qualifier, Trump ran a trial campaign starting in 2011 and based on Obama birtherism. He got some traction but not enough to convince him that it was time to make America great again; instead, he renewed his Apprentice contract and went back to being a blow-hard reality star. In 2008, he was all for Hillary being president, enthusiastic about it because he “knows her” and thinks she’d make a “great” president (imagine the loop of Hillary ads that will be on should he somehow manage to win the nomination). In 2010 he was donating to the Harry Reid campaign over Sharon Angle and to the wrong side of dozens of key races. In 2012 he called Romney’s self-deportation plan cruel and inhumane. Now, in 2016 he supposedly wants to go way way beyond Romney’s plan and people believe it? Shrug. What can you do? But Trump has been toying with the idea of running for president since back in 1988; this is nothing new for him except that normally by now he’s already decided his skills are better used making America great by taking old women’s homes and building limo parking lots.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to MaggotAtBroadAndWall. | April 9, 2016 at 8:43 pm

          “In 2008, he was all for Hillary being president, enthusiastic about it because he “knows her” and thinks she’d make a “great” president (imagine the loop of Hillary ads that will be on should he somehow manage to win the nomination).”

          For a bit of context, Trump was a registered Democrat at the time, changing again to registered Republican in 2009, his 7th such change in party affiliation. Political weathervane and without principles whatsoever beyond what the political market of the moment tells him he ought to profess to believe.

          What’s truly ironic or just plain strange, Henry, is that the same people screeching that not voting for Trump is a vote for Hillary are the same people who proudly sat out both the 2008 and 2012 elections. They, of course, didn’t “vote for” Obama or do anything seditious or whatever else they babble. They also claimed, quite rightly, that Romney was a political weathervane, jumping from party to party as the political winds shifted. But that was then. And that was Romney. When Trump does it, it’s strategy or smarts or “evolving” or whatever they console themselves with (should he actually win, it would be interesting to see how they tie themselves in knots when he “evolves” back to the principles and values he held the longest). Trump fans, at least the ones who post here, aren’t logical, they don’t even make sense most of the time, and when they do, it’s almost by accident. You really can’t take these people seriously. But then, I know you don’t. And nor does anyone else here.

        cepenta in reply to VotingFemale. | April 10, 2016 at 11:45 am

        Just ignore her. She’s been a Trump-Boot licker from day one. Probably Ann Coulter, to be honest.

    conservative tarheel in reply to VotingFemale. | April 9, 2016 at 7:39 pm

    but he is the smartest guy in the room and is going to get us
    yuge deals … and he can not figure out a state primary/caucus
    yeah … China and Mexico and everyone else is shaking in their
    boots …

For a newbie Politician, Trump now seems to be catching on to how to deal with delegate-swiping Cruz.

Twitter Feed:

Sara Murray
@SaraMurray

Kasich & Trump outfox Cruz at the MI convention, shutting Cruz backers out of committee slots @tomlobianco reports

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/09/politics/michigan-republican-delegates-ted-cruz-donald-trump-john-kasich/index.html

12:16pm · 9 Apr 2016 · Twitter for iPhone

82 Retweets 95 Likes

    Radegunda in reply to VotingFemale. | April 9, 2016 at 5:18 pm

    It’s a lie to say that Cruz is “swiping” delegates. They do not belong to Trump in perpetuity, any more than the nomination belongs to Trump if he doesn’t actually get a majority of delegates.

    Cruz is using completely legal strategies to promote the selection of delegates who will favor him whenever they are LEGALLY able to vote for him.

    Meanwhile, “He’s fighter!” Trump is whining how unfair it is that he still has to “fight” for delegates — in the very same way that Cruz is (legally) fighting for delegates.

    Trump said months ago that we didn’t even need an election — he should just go straight to the White House as soon as he was leading the polls.

    Trump is a pathological narcissist who believes that he’s so special that the rules shouldn’t apply to him.

    Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | April 9, 2016 at 5:23 pm

    Odd. Donald Ducks is in full whine about “having to fight”.

    It isn’t FAIR…wah-hahahaha…!!!

    Puuurrr pathetic lil’ girl.

    Donald J. Trump

    ‎@realDonaldTrump

    Isn’t it a shame that the person who will have by far the most delegates and many millions more votes than anyone else, me, still must fight
    10:07 PM – 8 Apr 2016

    7,151 7,151 Retweets
    22,218

    No.

    The problem with Michigan wasn’t Cruz being disliked or Trump catching on.

    The problem with Michigan is that they put Saul Anuzis in charge, because he’s been around since the dark ages, and somebody probably said “well, he’s plugged in to everybody.”

    When I used to be plugged in to the Michigan political scene, more times that I care to remember, I heard that an very winnable race had been blown due to Saul Anuzis blundering about trying to “go for broke” or making some other stupid, bone-headed decision regarding resource allocation, instead of focusing on what he could definitely walk away with.

    The reports that he tried to double-cross the Kasich campaign and take ALL of the committee seats after making a deal does NOT surprise me in the slightest, and Anuzis should be FIRED by the Cruz campaign.

    The likelihood is that early on someone with Cruz chose Anuzis in Michigan as the best of a list of bad remaining political operatives (when everyone was still supporting Bush or Rubio) The fact that ANYONE associated with the Ted Cruz campaign thought that Anuzis would be a good idea to lead the statewide campaign means they didn’t actually do their homework as to who was going to be making the decisions.

    The only good that may come out of the Michigan debacle is that it might, just maybe, finally put Anuzis out to pasture so the GOP political operation up there won’t have to tolerate him anymore.

Trump can also expect to do “not well” in Washington.

“Trump team tells supporters to sign up to be delegates 2 days late

…The email, headlined “invitation,” encouraged supporters to submit their Declaration of Candidacy for Delegate form. But the very next sentence says the filing deadline was Wednesday.

“You can still be elected as a Trump Delegate at your GOP County Convention this Saturday!” the April 8 email, which was obtained by POLITICO, says. “If you have submitted a Declaration of Candidacy for Delegate form to your GOP County Chairman by the assigned deadline of 10:00am on April 6th.”…

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/trump-washington-state-delegates-late-221725#ixzz45MhpkfmU
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook”

This is just freakin’ hilarious. Sending out an email on 7 April reminding people to file paperwork by 10:00 a.m. YESTERDAY!

Then Trump throws a public tantrum accusing “Lyin’ Ted” of cheating and stealing delegates by, err, sending out emails ahead of filing deadlines.

Clearly “GOPe” is sabotaging the Trump campaign by staffing it with imbeciles who can’t read and understand things like dates, deadlines, and rules that existed forever. If only there was a competent person in the Trump campaign who could tell who should not be hired and who should be fired. If only there was someone within the Trump campaign who could look one of these infiltrators in the eye and say “you’re fired.”

Alas, no such person exists anywhere, from bottom to top, in the Trump campaign. I feel bad for all the people silly enough to vote for Trump only to be “disenfranchised.” By Donald Trump’s incompetence.

Ted Cruz unavailable for comment…

Twitter Feed:

Maggie Haberman
@maggieNYT

Trump donated $100k to the 9/11 museum today, an aide to the museum confirms.

1:24pm · 9 Apr 2016 · Twitter Web Client

63 Retweets 52 Likes

    Zachary in reply to VotingFemale. | April 9, 2016 at 5:18 pm

    It would be poor taste to even comment on such blatant use of a national tragedy for election posturing. Keeping it classy as usual.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Zachary. | April 9, 2016 at 5:49 pm

      It’s a Trump specialty. Remember in January when Trump refused to attend a debate and held a fundraiser for veterans? Raised $6 million for them? Well, three months later only $2.4 million has been delivered. The rest remains in a bank account under the name Donald J. Trump. Nothing is sacred.

    Radegunda in reply to VotingFemale. | April 9, 2016 at 5:29 pm

    For a (purported) billionaire, Trump is relatively stingy when it comes to charity, and extravagant in his own lifestyle. But he’s not above doing an ostentatious bit of charity theater to promote his own ends.

    Only $2.4 million of the $6 million that Trump supposedly raised for veterans instead of participating in a public debate has actually reached veterans. And it all went into his own foundation first.

    How much money has Trump spread around to curry favor with media and others who have endorsed him? There are stories emerging about how he tried to court media people, and then flew into his typical vindictive rage if they wouldn’t obediently stroke his ego and be his propaganda mouthpiece.

AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Laura Bush Outs Herself As A Born Again Socialist

Twitter Feed:

The Washington Times
@WashTimes

Laura Bush hints she would rather vote for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump goo.gl/a69N40 #LauraBush

http://pic.twitter.com/XIBH8qE85w

1:56pm · 9 Apr 2016 · Twitter Web Client

20 Retweets 12 Likes

    Radegunda in reply to VotingFemale. | April 9, 2016 at 5:34 pm

    1. Laura Bush is not running for any office.

    2. Trump said that Hillary Clinton would made a terrific president. Was Hillary not a socialist then?

    3. Trump has outed himself as a petty tyrant who changes his viewpoints on a dime because he doesn’t much believe in much of anything except for his own greatness and everyone else’s inferiority (and the hotness of his daughters).

    Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | April 10, 2016 at 8:14 am

    Since the T-rump kids of voting age are NOT Republicans (and don’t even pretend to be, like their Collectivist daddy), I wonder who they’ll support in the Nuevo Ork CLOSED primary?

    As for Mrs. Bush, there are some people who make rational arguments that a T-rump POTUS would damage the GOP for a generation, whereas any Deemocrat is going to be a weak POTUS with little power relative to Barracula.

    I do NOT subscribe to that thinking, but I do understand it.

    My decision to NOT vote for any Collectivist is much more simple and direct. I never need to get into realpolitik, or speculation about the future.

Final follow-up.
I voted the entire Republican ticket in 2014, I knew better. The Republican majority has been a bigger disaster than I foresaw. It commenced in the lame duck. Early on in the 2015 Republican majority I vowed to do anything I could to damage the Republican party.
That party is now committing suicide. Donald Trump touched off that process.
Thank you Donald Trump.
Many of you have come out for the party of traitors over the good of the country. Given the parties history since at least 2004, that should be obvious to anyone with a clear brain. That some of you obstinately cling to that 2004 party mindset says more about you than I could possibly add.
Fuzzy ; Your slip is showing. You’ve got a piece of toilet paper coming out of the waist of your skirt.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to secondwind. | April 9, 2016 at 7:34 pm

    “Fuzzy ; Your slip is showing. You’ve got a piece of toilet paper coming out of the waist of your skirt.”

    And you, sir, are the little brown malodorous lump clinging to it.

      Cheers to you, Henry, for plowing through that illiterate nonsense. I gave up reading at the first horrific disjointed randomnness presented as a sentence fragment. Yikes. I plowed though James Joyce because I had to in college, but i would never choose to read disjointed random crap like that. In fact, I didn’t even read to the end until I saw your comment, and then I just jumped to the point at which I was mentioned. I can’t even respond to something so disjointed and bizarre, so thanks for responding for me.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | April 9, 2016 at 8:55 pm

        Retired now, but I used written assignments as a diagnostic tool. I’m used to it. On this occasion a bit of a punchline popped into my head in response to the straight line dinkus offered.

        Because we apparently share so many political thoughts and positions, it may appear I’m answering for you. If anything is clear, neither you nor Leslie need any help defending yourselves, lol.

        I appreciate regular LI contributors who post often in the comment section. I don’t begrudge those who choose not to. I very much begrudge those who post in the comments below their articles only when it’s easy, but ignore pertinent, earned questions.

        An online comment section is like Central Park – here a grandma, there a jogger, and over there a serial killer.

          I started out here at LI as a commenter, so I guess that’s in my blood. 🙂 The comment section has become increasingly unreadable, so I know that a lot of writers don’t even read the comments anymore. But if someone did ask a pointed question about the post’s topic and the author saw it, he or she would definitely answer (I think). We’re all a good bunch, and though we don’t agree on every ideological point, we are all honest and sincere right-of-center people (none of us are Trump fans, as you know).

          It would be way easier to just ignore the trolls and refuse to feed them, but there for a while it seemed like everyone was ganging up on Rags. I disliked that a great deal on many levels, and I decided to start commenting more to balance out the Trump fans’ vitriol. That dynamic has, mercifully, shifted, and more non-Trump fans are making their voice heard–often far more eloquently than I could. So I’m probably going to slink back into the shadows again and only respond to direct questions about my posts’ content.

          We’ll see how long that lasts. 😉

          Henry Hawkins in reply to Henry Hawkins. | April 9, 2016 at 10:08 pm

          “But if someone did ask a pointed question about the post’s topic and the author saw it, he or she would definitely answer (I think).”

          Won’t mention a name here, but the last time I experienced it, the writer answered a soft question before mine, skipped mine, and answered a soft question after mine.

          As for Rags, that knucklehead, lol, he can certainly defend himself and would be the first to admit he asks for it. He’s a straight shooter and a big boy.

          I’d be sorry to see you move back into the shadows, but I certainly wouldn’t blame you. I’m doing the same thing at another blog – began as commenter, got asked to write an article or two, and became a regular contributor, maybe 2-3 articles per month. It’s fun.

          That’s awesome, Henry. Can you say what blog? As to Rags, yes, he most certainly can take care of himself, but I was turned off by the jackals who came out of the woodwork to pile on him when he didn’t say anything to them. Mostly, though, the imbalance was such that it was starting to look like this site was some nuttery hut like . . . well, you know the sites. That’s definitely not true in the posts, but the comments were drifting into lala land, with wild assertion after wild assertion posted with no proof, no link (or if there was a link, it didn’t show what the commenter said it did), etc. Gullibility and intellectual dishonesty bug me when that’s all I see day after day. But it’s much better now even though the same people are still here peddling Trump and making wild assertions they can’t back up, there are plenty of rational voices to respond. Shutting down some of their more bizarre attacks–Ted’s name, his consorting with a madame who’d been dead for two years, “my wife’s hotter than your wife,” etc. and etc.–is messy but necessary.

          As to your question being skipped, Henry, it may have been that the person doesn’t have the answer. I’m just guessing, of course, but I definitely wouldn’t take it personally. 🙂

Neither one of you addressed my main point. You instead dwell on an incidental side comment that pertained to Fuzzies articles of clothing, not fuzzy herself. Yup, you’re both Boehner, Ryan, McConnell apologists. True conservatives in the mode of Levin, Beck, Erickson.
Methinks a note of hysteria is entering into the world’s of the till now secure & pompous party acolyte’s. They’re being exposed as poser’s.
Rail on as you please. It’s a sure sign of growing panic that you’re beginning to smell the smoke as your party goes up in flames.
And you all did it to yourselves.

    Ragspierre in reply to secondwind. | April 10, 2016 at 12:07 am

    Golly, so many fallacies…so little time…

    Let’s start with the truth that neither Henry or I are members of any party.

    So, there goes that smoldering lil’ sack of dog mess.

I remain a registered Republican. I doubt anyone would claim I’m in the tank for the party.
Your rejoinder is meaningless.
People have many reasons behind what they present

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend