WWTBAM Bored

This Cruz delegate can no longer stomach what Senator Cruz is claiming about health care. --Bob

There is no such thing as a Cruz delegate, yet. Actual delegates to the Republican National Convention have not been selected in any state.

But, congrats on falling for a scam by a Trump supporter.

TheCalvinator24 wrote:There is no such thing as a Cruz delegate, yet. Actual delegates to the Republican National Convention have not been selected in any state.

But, congrats on falling for a scam by a Trump supporter.

I don't think so. Senator Cruz announced the author of this piece as a member of his leadership team. --Bob

Splitting hairs with Cal -- always a pleasure . . .

I glanced through Bob#######'s cited article, and here's the only place he claims to be a Cruz delegate: "As a delegate for Senator Ted Cruz I have been placed into a difficult and increasingly uncomfortable position and now I have had enough."

Cal's right, there aren't any national delegates yet, unless Iowa or New Hampshire does it way different from Colorado. However, if the above-quoted gentleman was elected to the next step, or County Convention, as we do here in Colorado, he is a bound Cruz delegate as long as he goes forward.

Unless Cruz doesn't make the 15% threshold at the County or State Convention, and then he can switch to someone who does. Again, that's how it is in Colorado, but I dunno if that's the same in Iowa. I still think he's a Cruz delegate.

You could say that some Colorado delegates are already selected -- "Colorado is allotted 9 pledged Party Leader and Elected Official (PLEO) delegates." That means "Individuals shall be eligible for the pledged Party Leader and Elected Official delegate positions according to the following priority: big city mayors and state-wide elected officials (to be given equal consideration); state legislative leaders, state legislators, and other state, county and local elected officials and party leaders."

In other words, IF they are Democrats, the mayors of Denver, Colorado Springs (never mind -- that's a Republican), Pueblo, Greeley, Aurora, Lakewood, etc., Gov. Hickenlooper, Sen. Bennet, the state House majority leader, the Senate minority leader are in, as long as they submit the form by March 17. It is to laugh, we get nine under that formula -- they'll never get to me (local party leader). So I'll be in Alaska during July 25-28 (as if I wouldn't anyway . . .).

I see it actually was the real Cal who blocked me from his Facebook page because he kept trying to claim Cruz didn't mislead about Ben Carson's campaign status in Iowa even after I proved him wrong.

More's the pity when intelligent people go to the dark side when they go all in on a candidate.

Everything Cruz says turns my stomach. The man is pure sleaze.

SportsFan68 wrote:You could say that some Colorado delegates are already selected -- "Colorado is allotted 9 pledged Party Leader and Elected Official (PLEO) delegates." That means "Individuals shall be eligible for the pledged Party Leader and Elected Official delegate positions according to the following priority: big city mayors and state-wide elected officials (to be given equal consideration); state legislative leaders, state legislators, and other state, county and local elected officials and party leaders."

The GOP doesn't have the same ridiculous SuperDelegate system as the Dems.

The GOP 3 SuperDelegates per state: the State Chair and the RNC Committeeman & Committeewoman. They are unpledged.

Jeemie wrote:I see it actually was the real Cal who blocked me from his Facebook page because he kept trying to claim Cruz didn't mislead about Ben Carson's campaign status in Iowa even after I proved him wrong.

More's the pity when intelligent people go to the dark side when they go all in on a candidate.

I blocked you because you persisted in pushing an issue I had declared closed on my page and then getting nasty with me in a PM.

TheCalvinator24 wrote:

SportsFan68 wrote:You could say that some Colorado delegates are already selected -- "Colorado is allotted 9 pledged Party Leader and Elected Official (PLEO) delegates." That means "Individuals shall be eligible for the pledged Party Leader and Elected Official delegate positions according to the following priority: big city mayors and state-wide elected officials (to be given equal consideration); state legislative leaders, state legislators, and other state, county and local elected officials and party leaders."

The GOP doesn't have the same ridiculous SuperDelegate system as the Dems.

The GOP 3 SuperDelegates per state: the State Chair and the RNC Committeeman & Committeewoman. They are unpledged.

Thank you.

This info about super delegates doesn't apply to the person in Bob########'s post. And it doesn't dispute my assertion that the person is still a Cruz delegate if he was elected to go on to the next level as such.

SportsFan68 wrote:

TheCalvinator24 wrote:

SportsFan68 wrote:You could say that some Colorado delegates are already selected -- "Colorado is allotted 9 pledged Party Leader and Elected Official (PLEO) delegates." That means "Individuals shall be eligible for the pledged Party Leader and Elected Official delegate positions according to the following priority: big city mayors and state-wide elected officials (to be given equal consideration); state legislative leaders, state legislators, and other state, county and local elected officials and party leaders."

The GOP doesn't have the same ridiculous SuperDelegate system as the Dems.

The GOP 3 SuperDelegates per state: the State Chair and the RNC Committeeman & Committeewoman. They are unpledged.

Thank you.

This info about super delegates doesn't apply to the person in Bob########'s post. And it doesn't dispute my assertion that the person is still a Cruz delegate if he was elected to go on to the next level as such.

At this point, the underlying issue is one of semantics. I take the position that he isn't a Cruz delegate until selected as such to go to the GOP National Convention, but that's not really the salient point.

TheCalvinator24 wrote:At this point, the underlying issue is one of semantics. I take the position that he isn't a Cruz delegate until selected as such to go to the GOP National Convention, but that's not really the salient point.

Right. The salient point is that someone selected by Cruz to fill an important role in the nominating process is calling Cruz out on a campaign issue. That's unheard of in my experience, and adds legs to the narrative that no one who knows Cruz or works with him likes him, even those whose interests are supposedly aligned with his.

President Obama has had a hard enough time getting things done with his own caucus more or less solidly behind him. How in the name of all that's holy could Ted Cruz even begin to accomplish anything when he's alienating his own supporters this early in the process? --Bob

TheCalvinator24 wrote:I blocked you because you persisted in pushing an issue I had declared closed on my page and then getting nasty with me in a PM.

And I would have let go, but after you "declared it dead", you started a new thread, where you made the exact same claim that it was CNN's fault, not Cruz'....which was proved wrong in the thread you declared dead.

My PM to you called you out for that disingenuous tactic, which was unworthy of you.

That's what hacks at the Sean Hannity Board or the Democratic Underground do.

TheCalvinator24 wrote:

SportsFan68 wrote:

TheCalvinator24 wrote: The GOP doesn't have the same ridiculous SuperDelegate system as the Dems.

The GOP 3 SuperDelegates per state: the State Chair and the RNC Committeeman & Committeewoman. They are unpledged.

Thank you.

This info about super delegates doesn't apply to the person in Bob########'s post. And it doesn't dispute my assertion that the person is still a Cruz delegate if he was elected to go on to the next level as such.

At this point, the underlying issue is one of semantics. I take the position that he isn't a Cruz delegate until selected as such to go to the GOP National Convention, but that's not really the salient point.

If it's so nonsalient, it would have been helpful if you hadn't listed it as your first point. It appears that the Trump supporter scam second point is also nonsalient as it has been dropped.

There is no such thing as a Cruz delegate, yet. Actual delegates to the Republican National Convention have not been selected in any state.

But, congrats on falling for a scam by a Trump supporter.

I find it interesting (not really the right word but it will do) that folks can attack Cruz while supporting Clinton. Especially when the only facts to attack Cruz on are his rhetoric they don't agree with, while Clinton's past is full of troubling actions.

And for those who support Sanders that attack Cruz, I have only one word......Venezuela. Actually I have many, but the intelligence of his supporters need me to keep it simple for them.

I've noticed this Barry Sanders/Venezuela meme for a little bit now.

Did he really say he thought Venezuela was a utopia, or is this just the latest in juxtaposition mind games?

Just wondering because I haven't been following Bernie's words...have no desire to vote for him.

Jeemie wrote:I've noticed this Barry Sanders/Venezuela meme for a little bit now.

Did he really say he thought Venezuela was a utopia, or is this just the latest in juxtaposition mind games?

Just wondering because I haven't been following Bernie's words...have no desire to vote for him.

I don't know what a former Heisman winner and third leading rusher in NFL history has to do with Venezuela. Maybe he's given some of his yards to other less successful running backs so they don't feel so bad.

Bernie Sanders is a socialist. A proud one. There are no examples of successful socialist states. At least successful by my definition. Yours may be different. Venezuela is just the latest failed state that followed Bernie's political philosophy.

Jeemie wrote:I've noticed this Barry Sanders/Venezuela meme for a little bit now.

Did he really say he thought Venezuela was a utopia, or is this just the latest in juxtaposition mind games?

Just wondering because I haven't been following Bernie's words...have no desire to vote for him.

I hadn't heard about this, so I Googled Bernie (not Barry) Sanders Venezuela. Right-wing websites say Bernie thinks Venezuela is paradise, while the left wing takes Bernie to task for calling Chávez a dictator; they say he was democratically elected (yeah, right). Just makes me want to ignore partisan websites.

jarnon wrote:

Jeemie wrote:I've noticed this Barry Sanders/Venezuela meme for a little bit now.

Did he really say he thought Venezuela was a utopia, or is this just the latest in juxtaposition mind games?

Just wondering because I haven't been following Bernie's words...have no desire to vote for him.

I hadn't heard about this, so I Googled Bernie (not Barry) Sanders Venezuela. Right-wing websites say Bernie thinks Venezuela is paradise, while the left wing takes Bernie to task for calling Chávez a dictator; they say he was democratically elected (yeah, right). Just makes me want to ignore partisan websites.

I doubt Bernie thinks Venezuela is a paradise. But he does think socialism here will produce results different than socialism has produced in every other instance where it has been implemented. I believe most folks call that insanity (trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results).

Some may argue "but....but....but.... Venezuela's problem (and Cuba) was they had a dictator." Well, socialism requires a dictator, along with a small elite class that keeps the rest "in their place". Otherwise it can't sustain itself more than one economic cycle (whatever you may define that is) without revolt.....similar to what finally happened in Venezuela.

BackInTex wrote:

Jeemie wrote:I've noticed this Barry Sanders/Venezuela meme for a little bit now.

Did he really say he thought Venezuela was a utopia, or is this just the latest in juxtaposition mind games?

Just wondering because I haven't been following Bernie's words...have no desire to vote for him.

I don't know what a former Heisman winner and third leading rusher in NFL history has to do with Venezuela. Maybe he's given some of his yards to other less successful running backs so they don't feel so bad.

Bernie Sanders is a socialist. A proud one. There are no examples of successful socialist states. At least successful by my definition. Yours may be different. Venezuela is just the latest failed state that followed Bernie's political philosophy.

Ooops...

At any rate, thanks for confirming it's just right-wing juxtaposition mind games.

Funny... every time I heard the name Bernie Sanders, I kept thinking it was odd he had the same name as the running back. I'm glad I'm not the only one who got Bernie and Barry conflated...

lb13

I always used to confuse Bernie and Barry Williams.

Nobody should support a candidate so much that they have to go through mental gyrations, or put friendships/relationships at risk, in order to defend said candidate.

Every candidate...and I mean EVERY candidate...will have inconsistencies in his/her positions.

Every candidate...and I mean EVERY candidate...will do/say sneaky/slimy/misleading things to make him/herself look better than he/she really is, or make the opponent look worse. This is part and parcel of being a political creature. We should acknowledge that these things happen, and decide with how much of it we can live.

But we should NEVER stoop to making ourselves look foolish trying to defend EVERY single thing our candidate of choice does.

BackInTex wrote:

jarnon wrote:

Jeemie wrote:I've noticed this Barry Sanders/Venezuela meme for a little bit now.

Did he really say he thought Venezuela was a utopia, or is this just the latest in juxtaposition mind games?

Just wondering because I haven't been following Bernie's words...have no desire to vote for him.

I hadn't heard about this, so I Googled Bernie (not Barry) Sanders Venezuela. Right-wing websites say Bernie thinks Venezuela is paradise, while the left wing takes Bernie to task for calling Chávez a dictator; they say he was democratically elected (yeah, right). Just makes me want to ignore partisan websites.

I doubt Bernie thinks Venezuela is a paradise. But he does think socialism here will produce results different than socialism has produced in every other instance where it has been implemented. I believe most folks call that insanity (trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results).

Some may argue "but....but....but.... Venezuela's problem (and Cuba) was they had a dictator." Well, socialism requires a dictator, along with a small elite class that keeps the rest "in their place". Otherwise it can't sustain itself more than one economic cycle (whatever you may define that is) without revolt.....similar to what finally happened in Venezuela.

Socialism does not equate with communism. Almost every European country has a democratic socialist government.

BackInTex wrote:I find it interesting (not really the right word but it will do) that folks can attack Cruz while supporting Clinton. Especially when the only facts to attack Cruz on are his rhetoric they don't agree with, while Clinton's past is full of troubling actions.

Doesn't seem so to me. I do think she's something of a Velcro politician, in that mud thrown at her tends to stick in the public's mind, but that's a mere lack of political talent, rather than a character flaw. The stuff that's actually been substantiated doesn't seem at all out of the ordinary to me.

The e-mails are a good example. It turns out that all recent Secretaries of State used private e-mail as well as (or instead of) government e-mail. And if we were taking as close a look at those records as we have taken at Senator Clinton's, I'm quite confident that we'd find quite a bit that's comparable to the headlines written about her.

But all of this is beside the point. Starting with the Supreme Court, and moving on to a large number of other matters, either Secretary Clinton or Senator Sanders would take the country in a direction I want it to go. And they will do so in matters, such as same-sex marriage, that directly affect the lives of friends and family, giving the lie to people who claim that the election doesn't matter because the candidates are all the same and nothing government does matters anyway.

Any of the Republican candidates would move the country in precisely the opposite direction. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:But all of this is beside the point. Starting with the Supreme Court, and moving on to a large number of other matters, either Secretary Clinton or Senator Sanders would take the country in a direction I want it to go. And they will do so in matters, such as same-sex marriage, that directly affect the lives of friends and family, giving the lie to people who claim that the election doesn't matter because the candidates are all the same and nothing government does matters anyway.

Any of the Republican candidates would move the country in precisely the opposite direction. --Bob

Maybe on the matter of Supreme Court, but not really in other matters.

It will be a matter of going to Hell by degrees...the differences in economic/domestic/foreign policy philosophies don't matter all that much.

No one wants to address the elephant in the room- the real factors that are constraining the global economy going forward- factors neither Austrian nor Keynsian economic policies can affect.

And neither side will really address those.