Ted Cruz dominates Colorado GOP convention winning all 34 delegates

Source: The Denver Post
Published: Apr 9, 2016
Author: John Frank and Joey Bunch
Post Date: 2016-04-10 04:36:00 by Tooconservative
Views: 24545

COLORADO SPRINGS — Colorado crowned Ted Cruz as the runaway winner in the state's Republican presidential contest Saturday — and moved the GOP closer to a contested national convention.

The Texas senator won all 34 delegates awarded in Colorado in what amounts to a stunning rebuke of Republican front-runner Donald Trump.

Cruz completed the sweep by winning all 13 delegates at the state convention in Colorado Springs — the largest in history with nearly 8,000 in the crowd — where he gave what amounted to an victory speech earlier in the day.

"If it we continue to stand united," Cruz declared, "we are going to win this Republican nomination."

His landslide victory in Colorado, combined with recent wins Wisconsin and Utah, increases the likelihood that no Republican candidate reaches the 1,237 delegates needed to secure the party's nomination.

Surrounded by supporters in bright orange shirts, Cruz said the momentum behind his campaign will only continue as the final states vote in the next two months.

"We are here today because our country is in crisis," Cruz said in his opening. "All across the country, people are waking up and help is on the way."

In an interview with The Denver Post ahead of his speech, Cruz said he is preparing for a "battle on the convention floor" in Cleveland with Donald Trump to "see who can earn a majority of the delegates."

He called a contested convention a "very significant possibility" and labeled the 21 delegates he won in early congressional districts in Colorado vital in his push. The strategy reflects a shift from earlier in the campaign, when Cruz expressed confidence he could win before the July convention.

"I am confident we are going to win in Cleveland at a contested convention," he said.

The candidate's visit to Colorado is the first this election cycle and a signal of how much energy the campaign put into winning the state's 37 national delegates. After Cruz swept the congressional district conventions in the past week, he expressed confidence he would win a portion of the 13 statewide delegates awarded Saturday.

Front-runner Trump and Ohio Gov. John Kasich did not attend the state convention, sending supporters in their place. Both campaigns invested little in the state, sensing that the state's caucus process run by hard-core party insiders did not favor their campaigns.

Cruz criticized Trump for skipping the event, suggesting "he was scared."

"They knew he wasn't going to do well," Cruz said. "Donald doesn't handle losing well."

The visit to Colorado forced Cruz to address Colorado issues, including the legalization of marijuana. If elected president, Cruz told The Denver Post that he would not interfere with the state's pot legalization.

"I think on the question of marijuana legalization, we should leave it to the states," Cruz said before addressing the GOP activists at the state convention here."If it were me personally, voting on it in the state of Texas, I would vote against it.

"The people of Colorado have made a different decision. I respect that decision," he continued. "And actually, it is an opportunity for the rest of the country to see what happens here in Colorado, what happens in Washington state — see the states implement the policies, and if it works well, other states may choose to follow. If it doesn't work well, other states may choose not to follow."

Cruz declined to make a judgment about the first two years of legalization in Colorado. "I'm going to give that some time to let the facts and evidence play out, and ultimately that will be a decision for the people of Colorado," he said.

On the question of banking for the marijuana industry, Cruz said he hasn't studied the issue and needed to learn more before taking a position.

On the concourse at the convention at the Broadmoor World Arena, party activists studied red-checkered ballots that resembled horse track racing forms. Most picked national delegates based on which presidential candidate they favored.

"You don't know most of the people, so you have to pay attention and go with your gut," said Helen Escobedo, a retired school teacher and Cruz supporter, eating a hamburger while she perused the ballot. "You look at who they are supporting, and you hope they'll stick with it."

Earlier in the day, Sierra Stieb of Colorado Springs handed out Trump fliers.

"I wouldn't necessarily say I support Trump, but he does have some qualities I support. I like his business acumen, his entrepreneurial spirit," Stieb said. "He speaks his mind. He's very strong and he doesn't back down in the face of adversity. But those qualities also have a negative attribute."

But Trump supporter Harold Giles of Colorado Springs said a brokered convention would "break the party."

"Elections matter," he said. "If the people elect Trump, he should be our guy. I'd rather lose one election than sacrifice what the ballot means."

Post Comment   Private Reply

#29: Tooconservative    To: misterwhite (#26)

But if Trump ends up with the lion's share OF DELEGATES SELECTED BY THE VOTERS, all this effort is for naught.

If Trump makes 1237, there will be no way to keep the nomination from him.

I saw Beck on Meet The Depressed a bit ago, saying exactly that. And he is the arch-NeverTrumper.

If Trump can't meet the 1237 delegate requirement, the nomination will go to someone else with Cruz as the most likely (but not certain) choice.

Tooconservative posted on 2016-04-10 10:06:32   Reply   Private Reply

#30: A K A Stone    To: TooConservative (#27)

Or maybe you're just so vehement they're humoring you and telling you what you want to hear.

Your family and friends may lie to you. I trust mine.

A K A Stone posted on 2016-04-10 10:06:35   Reply   Private Reply

#31: A K A Stone    To: TooConservative (#29)

I saw Beck on Meet The Depressed a bit ago, saying exactly that. And he is the arch-NeverTrumper.

The mornon who is going to hell. This two faced asshole liar?

A K A Stone posted on 2016-04-10 10:07:52   Reply   Private Reply

#32: Tooconservative    To: buckeroo (#28)

I plan to write-in my vote for the next President of the United States of America: "my dead dawg Scruffy" irespective of all these other charlatans. Scruffy does not lie, steal or cheat. That is a fact.

Too bad you don't have a pic of Scruffy so we could make some nice campaign banners.

Perhaps you could find and post a link to a picture of a doggie that looks just like Scruffy, maybe a dog that is asleep. I could make a nice boilerplate campaign banner like this one.

SCRUFFY 2016
He's not dead, he's just resting!

Tooconservative posted on 2016-04-10 10:10:27   Reply   Private Reply

#33: misterwhite    To: TooConservative (#20)

"There aren't enough new angry white guys to make up for all the votes Trump drives away."

But there are lots of independents, blue-collar Democrats, Hispanics and Blacks who will take their place.

People who want a real border so they can have a country, people who want jobs, people who want free trade -- but want it to be fair, people who want a strong military so we don't have to use it, people who want an end to political correctness, people who want the federal government out of education, people who want an end to the good-old-boy networks, people who want THEIR voice heard.

That'll make up for those voters YOU SAY Trump will lose.

misterwhite posted on 2016-04-10 10:11:02   Reply   Private Reply

#34: Tooconservative    To: A K A Stone (#25)

How do you know that? Oh polls.

You support a candidate who can't talk about any policy he has and never stops blathering about his polls.

Now the polls turn against him and suddenly polls aren't important after all.

Tooconservative posted on 2016-04-10 10:11:41   Reply   Private Reply

#35: buckeroo    To: TooConservative (#29)

If Trump can't meet the 1237 delegate requirement, the nomination will go to someone else with Cruz as the most likely (but not certain) choice.

This is the likely outcome. Has beens: Jeb Bush and John Boehner have already thrown their massive weight behind Paul Ryan. It is amazing what goes on in the smokey back room of the GOP, ain't it?

buckeroo posted on 2016-04-10 10:12:08   Reply   Private Reply

#36: Tooconservative    To: misterwhite (#33)

But there are lots of independents, blue-collar Democrats, Hispanics and Blacks who will take their place.

In Donald's and your fantasy world.

In the real world, not at all.

Donald was the one yammering about all these polls for months on end, boring the crap out of everyone. Now the polls show he's made himself radioactive with a big majority of voters who hate his guts.

So suddenly polls don't matter. The 1237 delegate rule of the GOP doesn't matter. Because Trump has run a lousy campaign and would be a Goldwater/Mondale sized disaster for the entire GOP in the general election.

Tooconservative posted on 2016-04-10 10:14:45   Reply   Private Reply

#37: Tooconservative    To: buckeroo (#35)

It won't be Ryan. For too many reasons to list here.

Tooconservative posted on 2016-04-10 10:15:15   Reply   Private Reply

#38: buckeroo    To: TooConservative, Fred Mertz (#34)

Now the polls turn against him [Trump] and suddenly polls aren't important after all.

Be careful. Stone doesn't like anyone suggesting the truth that is counter to his own ideas.

Free Fred!

buckeroo posted on 2016-04-10 10:15:53   Reply   Private Reply

#39: Tooconservative    To: A K A Stone (#30)

Your family and friends may lie to you. I trust mine.

Sure you do. But you can't prove to me (or yourself) that they aren't just humoring you.

"Psst, don't say that to Uncle AKA, you know how excited he gets..."

Tooconservative posted on 2016-04-10 10:16:54   Reply   Private Reply

#40: misterwhite    To: TooConservative (#24)

"Long term, it'll work out about like the varying ages in different states for buying .32 beer and regular beer and hard liquor and having dry towns and dry counties (which do still exist)."

ONLY if all states legalize recreational drugs as they do with alcohol. Then there might be small differences between states. Even then, we have a National drinking age because the federal government threatened to cut off funds to those states which refused to go along.

Is that what you want? States making the decision but the federal govenment cutting off those states which didn't make the right decision?

But you didn't answer my question. Would "states rights" work with recreational drugs if they were legal in half the states and illegal in the other half? Hint: What's the reaction from the states surrounding Colorado regarding legal marijuana?

misterwhite posted on 2016-04-10 10:29:46   Reply   Private Reply

#41: tpaine    To: All you prohibitionist dummies (#16)

Bear in mind that, prior to Prohibition, alcohol was legal in half the states and illegal in the other half. We know that didn't work. --- misterwhite

Bear in mind that, -- Prohibitions NEVER work. --- AND, -- prohibitions are unconstitutional.

But prohibitions work with drugs, huh? How can you be so dumb?

tpaine posted on 2016-04-10 10:30:49   Reply   Private Reply

#42: misterwhite    To: TooConservative (#29)

"If Trump makes 1237, there will be no way to keep the nomination from him."

And if Trump makes 1236, do you really think your rule changes will prevent him from being the nominee? What will you do when those 1236 walk out of the convention and go home?

misterwhite posted on 2016-04-10 10:35:05   Reply   Private Reply

#43: Tooconservative    To: misterwhite, Deckard (#40)

Is that what you want? States making the decision but the federal govenment cutting off those states which didn't make the right decision?

You mistake me for someone who gives two shits about your beloved Drug War. Well, other than recognizing it has been a failure for the last 45 years and has imprisoned a lot of people and ruined their lives for no good reason.

And you're way offtopic.

Tooconservative posted on 2016-04-10 10:38:40   Reply   Private Reply

#44: Tooconservative    To: misterwhite (#42)

And if Trump makes 1236, do you really think your rule changes will prevent him from being the nominee?

Yep. And those would be a continuation of the current rules, not new rules.

The basic requirements to get the nomination go back 160 years, to the Whig Party. This is how it has always been since before the GOP existed.

Tooconservative posted on 2016-04-10 10:40:07   Reply   Private Reply

#45: misterwhite    To: TooConservative (#36)

"In Donald's and your fantasy world."

When your "party veterans" allow the people to vote, that's the result. But I forgot -- you don't believe facts. You put your faith in polls.

misterwhite posted on 2016-04-10 10:41:14   Reply   Private Reply

#46: misterwhite    To: TooConservative (#44)

"And if Trump makes 1236, do you really think your rule changes will prevent him from being the nominee?"
"Yep."

Then you are insane.

misterwhite posted on 2016-04-10 10:43:51   Reply   Private Reply

#47: Tooconservative    To: misterwhite (#45)

You put your faith in polls.

Again, there has been no greater fan of polls than Trump and his fanbois.

Until they suddenly paint a picture of utter disaster for Trump as GOP nominee.

Now those polls are suddenly just Pure Evil.

Live by the polls, die by the polls, bucko.

Tooconservative posted on 2016-04-10 10:48:04   Reply   Private Reply

#48: Tooconservative    To: tpaine (#41)

Bear in mind that...

Please don't. No amount of falsification will ever move him. He's essentially a chatbot on this and other topics. Only useful for getting some keyboard exercise.

Tooconservative posted on 2016-04-10 10:49:42   Reply   Private Reply

#49: misterwhite    To: TooConservative (#43)

"And you're way offtopic."

You wish.

Cruz said the decision on drugs should be left to each state (but not his state). You agreed and cited "states rights' and "laboratories of democracy".

I'll ask you for the third time. Would "states rights" work with recreational drugs if they were legal in half the states and illegal in the other half?

You don't want to answer because the answer is "no". Which is why we have the federal law. IT WOULD NOT WORK at the state level. It didn't work with alcohol and it won't work with recreational drugs.

misterwhite posted on 2016-04-10 10:52:33   Reply   Private Reply

#50: Tooconservative    To: misterwhite (#49)

Cruz said the decision on drugs should be left to each state (but not his state).

He said he would vote against it. Meaning he would submit to the voters' will in his own state. Consistent with his general states' rights position on the issue.

I'll ask you for the third time. Would "states rights" work with recreational drugs if they were legal in half the states and illegal in the other half?

Meh. Don't care.

Tooconservative posted on 2016-04-10 10:57:24   Reply   Private Reply

#51: misterwhite    To: TooConservative (#48)

So prohibition "doesn't work"? You agree with numbnuts on that?

So you're saying that if we legalized all drugs to all ages there would be no increased usage or no increase in the number of users?

Who believes that ... besides you and numbnuts? Geez Louise. I'm dealing with morons.

misterwhite posted on 2016-04-10 10:58:11   Reply   Private Reply

#52: Tooconservative    To: misterwhite (#51)

So you're saying that if we legalized all drugs to all ages there would be no increased usage or no increase in the number of users?

Unimportant.

If you want to do some antiquated drug rant, go start your own thread instead of hijacking this one.

Tooconservative posted on 2016-04-10 10:59:33   Reply   Private Reply

#53: misterwhite    To: TooConservative (#50)

"He said he would vote against it. Meaning he would submit to the voters' will in that state."

He's a hypocrite. Or a liar.

If Trump said he opposed abortion but would vote pro-choice if that was what the people wanted, you'd go f**king ballistic.

misterwhite posted on 2016-04-10 11:00:58   Reply   Private Reply

#54: Tooconservative    To: misterwhite (#53)

If Trump said he opposed abortion but would vote pro-choice if that was what the people wanted, you'd go f**king ballistic.

Not really since I think nearly everything Trump says is a lie or ignorant utterances that he thinks appeal to the hicks, the rubes and "the evangelicals".

Tooconservative posted on 2016-04-10 11:02:22   Reply   Private Reply

#55: misterwhite    To: TooConservative (#52)

"Unimportant."

Unimportant? It defines whether or not prohibition is "working".

You're making a real habit of avoiding the uncomfortable answers, aren't you?

misterwhite posted on 2016-04-10 11:03:21   Reply   Private Reply

#56: misterwhite    To: TooConservative (#54)

"Not really"

I don't believe you (or Cruz) for a minute.

misterwhite posted on 2016-04-10 11:04:44   Reply   Private Reply

#57: Tooconservative    To: misterwhite (#55)

Stop hijacking this thread with your deranged drug rants.

Tooconservative posted on 2016-04-10 11:05:32   Reply   Private Reply

#58: misterwhite    To: TooConservative (#57)

"Stop hijacking this thread with your deranged drug rants."

Cruz's support for legal drugs in Colorado (but not Texas) IS IN THE ARTICLE YOU POSTED. And you supported and defended his position. That makes it fair game.

But because you can't defend your position you don't want to talk about it anymore. Fine. Baby. I'll stop beating the crap out of you.

misterwhite posted on 2016-04-10 11:10:27   Reply   Private Reply

#59: Roscoe    To: TooConservative, misterwhite, (#43)

imprisoned a lot of people and ruined their lives for no good reason.

It must be hard to keep up with the other TC's poll-chasing re drugs.

At CPAC last week, Ted Cruz responded to a question about marijuana legalization in Colorado by endorsing a federalist approach: "This is a great embodiment of what Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called 'the laboratories of democracy,'" Cruz said. "If the citizens of Colorado decide they want to go down that road, that's their prerogative. I personally don't agree with it, but that's their right."

Those remarks contradict Cruz's previous position, when he criticized the Obama administration for failing to aggressively enforce the federal ban on marijuana in states that have legalized the drug. In January 2014, he described the Justice Department's prosecutorial restraint, which is designed to respect state policy choices, as an abuse of executive power.

http://www.ontheis su es.org/2016/Ted_Cruz_Drugs.htm

Roscoe posted on 2016-04-10 11:16:17   Reply   Private Reply

#60: Roscoe    To: misterwhite (#58)

Cruz's support for legal drugs in Colorado (but not Texas) IS IN THE ARTICLE YOU POSTED.

Zing!!!

Roscoe posted on 2016-04-10 11:17:14   Reply   Private Reply

#61: Roscoe    To: TooConservative (#48)

Only useful for getting some keyboard exercise.

You just turned your Empty Posturing dial up to 11.

Roscoe posted on 2016-04-10 11:19:52   Reply   Private Reply

#62: misterwhite    To: Roscoe (#59)

So here I promise not to beat him up anymore and you come along, jump in and destroy him. I almost feel sorry for him.

misterwhite posted on 2016-04-10 11:39:43   Reply   Private Reply

#63: Tooconservative    To: misterwhite (#62)

If you two are going to 69 each other, get a room already.

Tooconservative posted on 2016-04-10 11:44:03   Reply   Private Reply

#64: Roscoe    To: TooConservative (#63)

Shut up, pervert.

Roscoe posted on 2016-04-10 11:47:39   Reply   Private Reply

#65: Roscoe    To: misterwhite (#62)

I almost feel sorry for him.

The life of a Cruz apologist can't be an easy one.

Roscoe posted on 2016-04-10 11:49:19   Reply   Private Reply

#66: Deckard    To: misterwhite, TooConservative (#26)

So play your games. And get ready for President Hillary if you "win".

Here's a news flash for you.

It's gonna be "President Hillary" no matter who the Republican contender turns out to be.

Deckard posted on 2016-04-10 11:51:40   Reply   Private Reply

#67: ConservingFreedom    To: misterwhite, TooConservative (#6)

Can you say "pander"? Sure. I knew you could.

Trump says, "In terms of marijuana and legalization, I think that should be a state issue, state-by-state".

ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-04-10 11:56:01   Reply   Private Reply

#68: Roscoe    To: Deckard (#66)

Here's a news flash

Wipe yourself

Roscoe posted on 2016-04-10 11:56:24   Reply   Private Reply

#69: Tooconservative    To: ConservingFreedom (#67)

Trump says, "In terms of marijuana and legalization, I think that should be a state issue, state-by-state".

He's just cribbing off his Cruz cheatsheet.     : )

Tooconservative posted on 2016-04-10 12:00:56   Reply   Private Reply

#70: Roscoe    To: TooConservative (#69)

Cruz cheatsheet

The one he gropes his paid mistresses on?

Roscoe posted on 2016-04-10 12:31:12   Reply   Private Reply

#71: tpaine    To: All you petty prohibitionists (#51)

Bear in mind that, -- Prohibitions NEVER work. --- AND, -- prohibitions are unconstitutional.

Please don't. (Misterwhites) essentially a chatbot on this and other topics. --- TooConservative

So prohibition "doesn't work"? You agree with (tpaine) on that? ---- So you're saying that if we legalized all drugs to all ages there would be no increased usage or no increase in the number of users?

No, if we reasonably regulated drug use, instead of using unconstitutional prohibitions, (as both Trump and Cruz would agree), --- we could concentrate on some REAL problems.

Prohibitions on drugs, guns, booze, and personal behaviors, - - are counterintuitive to the principles of our Constitution.

tpaine posted on 2016-04-10 13:32:44   Reply   Private Reply

#72: Deckard    To: Roscoe (#68)

Fuck off ankle-biter.

I stand by my statement.

You really don't have a clue as to who actually controls the elections, do you?

You are under the delusional belief that your vote really matters.

Alternate text if image doesn't load

Deckard posted on 2016-04-10 13:32:49   Reply   Private Reply

#73: A K A Stone    To: TooConservative (#69)

He's just cribbing off his Cruz cheatsheet. : )

No wonder you like Cruz. You lie a lot. Trump has said that for years.

I disagree with him though.

A K A Stone posted on 2016-04-10 13:34:52   Reply   Private Reply

#74: A K A Stone    To: Deckard (#66)

It's gonna be "President Hillary" no matter who the Republican contender turns out to be.

If it isn't. Will you publicly admit you are an idiot?

A K A Stone posted on 2016-04-10 13:35:48   Reply   Private Reply

#75: GrandIsland    To: Deckard (#66)

It's gonna be "President Hillary" no matter who the Republican contender turns out to be.

The only thing your libtard, drug loving, cop hating Hippie ass would like more is Commie Sanders.

Jane Fonda is a war hating, drug loving, (R) hating... cop hater too. It's no secret what you are here or were at LP. You filthy disgusting libturd.

GrandIsland posted on 2016-04-10 13:39:31   Reply   Private Reply

#76: Deckard    To: A K A Stone (#74)

If it isn't. Will you publicly admit you are an idiot?

If she isn't the next president, I will admit I was wrong.

Look sport, the fix is in.

The sooner you yahoos wake up to that fact, the better off you'll be.

Deckard posted on 2016-04-10 13:40:30   Reply   Private Reply

#77: buckeroo    To: Deckard, A K A Stone (#76)

If she isn't the next president, I will admit I was wrong.

I want to add to Deckard's post. I know hillary is already getting the keys to the WhoreHouse.

buckeroo posted on 2016-04-10 13:42:45   Reply   Private Reply

#78: GrandIsland    To: A K A Stone (#74)

Make that filthy libturd state, DAILY, "Stone, I was wrong" at the beginning of EVERY post, after the election I'd KILLary doesn't win... or he can post his hippie bullsh t elsewhere.

lol

GrandIsland posted on 2016-04-10 13:43:46   Reply   Private Reply