Replies

“You are suggesting that we accept naked assertions as though they were gospel”

Why would you say such a thing? I ask only that my “naked assertions” be treated as a data point to be confirmed or rebutted, rather than mocked and dismissed. You’ve been on FR for a while, but I’ve never seen you act like this before.

“Documentary evidence is available concerning whether the meetings were publicized or not”

Not if the meetings weren’t publicized. What evidence of “no publication” would you expect? Smoking gun e-mails?

“whether records of telephone inquiries were kept”

And if not kept, what then?

“whether everyone was given the documented chance to vote”

No one was given a chance to vote who wasn’t there; that much is clear. It comes down to whether people were given the chance to be there.

The CO GOPe can show evidence that they did publicize if they did, and they can show false evidence that they publicized if they didn’t. In the absence of smoking gun communications, one would have to take a poll of every CO Republican to find out that they didn’t. Oh, well, maybe someone will have an attack of conscience and come forward.

“And many more kinds of documents would no doubt be available including correspondence e-mails etc.”

I would bet against that, especially given the prominence of Hillarius Rodina Clintesterone’s e-mail scandal in the news. Surely they wouldn’t be so stupid.

“despite his history of using lawsuits as bullying tactics, has declined so far to bring a suit just as he has declined to participate in the contest.”

Come on, a child could see how that would blow up in his face. No matter how much you hate him, he’s not stupid.

When I was a kid, people used to say, “Yeah? Well, if you’re so smart, how come you ain’t rich?” If someone were to ask that of me today, I could only drool a little and mumble unintelligibly. If someone were to ask Trump, he could point to billions in assets.

From Colorado GOP bylaws:

ARTICLE XII: PRECINCT CAUCUSES

Section’A.’ Date and Location.

Precinct caucuses shall be held in even-numbered years at 7:00 p.m. on the date provided for by law or the rules of the Republican National Committee at a private place in each precinct or at a public place in or proximate to each precinct as determined by the county central committee or county executive committee and posted as required by law.

Colorado public notice laws require notices be uploaded to http://publicnoticecolorado.com. Go search “republican precinct caucus” and you will see the notices.

Of course eyewitness testimony is admissible in court where it is also subject to cross-examination on issues of competency, bias, self interest, qualification etc. You are suggesting that we accept naked assertions as though they were gospel without cross-examination or any investigation whatsoever.

That is the full context. By quoting the limited portion you made plausible your assertion:

You’ve been on FR for a while, but I’ve never seen you act like this before.

Act like what? Presumably what you allege in the next preceding sentence:

Why would you say such a thing? I ask only that my “naked assertions” be treated as a data point to be confirmed or rebutted, rather than mocked and dismissed.

So presumably I am acting out of character because I "mocked and dismissed" your recital of your personal experience. But your conclusion doesn't fit the full facts as outlined in the full context. The full context reveals that I only suggested that your testimony would be "subject to cross-examination."

I acted responsibly, I did not attack you personally-I went out of my way to point out that I was insulting you personally-but you set up a false situation in which you could accuse me of doing just that. Context is everything.