Posted on 04/07/2016 10:25:53 PM PDT by Trump20162020
“like yesterday when you put out mis- information.”
I did not put out any misinformation.
“The real reason why Cruz didn’t get to 50% in Texas is that people don’t like him. In other words, he is an asshole. “
And everyone else got less, so they must be even bigger you know whats.
/s
It is because there were 5 candidates.
There are three candidates in the NY primary.
Trump needs to get 73% in a three candidate race to equal Cruz’ 44% in a five man race.
Not going to happen.
Will you call Donald the same thing for not getting 73%
Your inability to enumerate the conservative principles that constitute Trump's moral framework suggests otherwise.
That observation is further supported by the factual history of Trump's relationship with establishment insider perverts like Cohn and Stone.
"Politics with me isn't theater. It's performance art. Sometimes, for its own sake".[3]"
--Roger Stone, Trump associate.
The curtain is up.
Here is what Cruz said in the WSJ piece:
The United States is making headway on two historic trade agreements, one with 11 countries on the Pacific Rim and another with America’s friends in Europe. These two agreements alone would mean greater access to a billion customers for American manufacturers, farmers and ranchers. But before the U.S. can complete the agreements . . .
In other words, Cruz's editorial was written SEVEN MONTHS BEFORE TPP was released. That makes you the liar here.
That’s my point. The June vote was against the TPA bill that originated in the House - not the bill that passed the Senate earlier. Your link provides another link to the Breitbart editorial that explains it.
Your math is BS because in 2 man race, Trump would need 110% of the vote to have a comparable win using your math.
TPA, yes. TPP, no. TPP hadn't even been introduced when Cruz wrote that editorial. And the TPA bill Cruz urged passage of died in the House. The one that came out of the House was a totally different bill.
And he voted for TPA in the Senate Bill.
The Senate bill was not the TPA bill that Obama signed into law. Not even close.
Two trade agreements that had not yet been completed. TPP had not yet been introduced when Cruz wrote the WSJ piece and would not be introduced for another seven months. Long before that happened, Cruz had already voted against TPA.
Yes, we know as it died in the House. However, the general nature of the Bills were the same. They both gave 0bama, the worst pResident in US History, the ability to make trade deals that are devastating to US manufacturing with some specifics differentiating between the two.
If you are too naive to understand that, than you are lost.
You’d say math is all BS because you can’t divide by zero.
Your example just shows how much Cruz did dominate in his home state. Trump would need a unanimous victory in a two nan race to match Cruz in Texas.
Donald won’t come close to matching Cruz’ achievement in his home state.
I support free trade. It is clear you do not. Let’s leave it at that.
good post and we have no idea how many votes would have gone to or against if they were not in the race
That’s right.
Once again...
“Have I got a excuse for you!”
Keep that sentence in mind. You’ll be amazed how many times it will apply during the average day around here.
Ted has excuse after excuse after excuse...
Your math is BS because you are looking it from one side and not doing a comparison to the 2nd place finisher . Cruz didn’t win by 2.2 fold.
Your calculations are based on the theory that in a 5 man race each participant is expected to get 20% (1/5) of the vote.
Based on that Cruz did 2.2 fold better than expected. Trump did 1.335 fold of the expected. Cruz beat his next opponent (Trump) by 17.1% which is .855 of the expected. Now using the 3 man race theory of 33.3% expected. Trump would only need to beat his next opponent by 28.47% of the vote (.855 of the expected). Kasich is currently polling at around 25%. Trump would only need greater than 53.47% of the vote (assuming the second place contender stays at 25%) to have a greater win than Cruz’s “victory” in Texas, not 73%.
Got that right, it is either insults, deflect away from the fact, or just an excuse.
Agreed.
You have leg tingles and "feelings".
When Cruz made his first swipe at N.Y., vis-a-vis trying to impugn Trump, I called what would happen to Teddy immediately and was 100% correct. I grew up submerged in N.Y. State politics; how about you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.