CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

50%↑

15%

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
October 16, 2015 06:19 AM UTC

Friday Open Thread

  • 52 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“Silence is not only golden, it is seldom misquoted.”

–Bob Monkhouse

Tweet
Share

Comments

52 thoughts on “Friday Open Thread”

      1. It's a reminder to economic conservative, social issue moderate, establishment-type Republicans that it's ok to vote for HRC. The one percenters can transfer their allegiance from Willard Romney to HRC, especially if the Grand Old Party picks a batshit crazy loon as its candidate.

        1. Considering that some Rs, like Rand Paul, want to wreck the Federal Reserve, any self-respecting billionaire that gives money to the GOP has a death wish.  Like Hillary said, from FDR on, it is periodically necessary to save capitalism from its own excesses while preserving the concept of a market system over that of a planned economy in the micro sense.. 

              1. As unintelligible as APL is, the most obscure programming language I've (tried to) use was Fourth.  You could write extensible, self-modifying code.  That was always fun to debug!

        1. They weren't his – they were corporation – bankruptcies. He prides himself on never having filed for bankruptcy. And as we all know as the wise man once said, "Corporations are people too, my friend."

          1. Which gets us back to the poor schlubs. His business model is pushing a deal as far as he can and if it falls apart, get out by declaring corporate bankruptcy and sticking your investors with the loss. Substitute president for businessman and the American public for investors/poor schlubs and you get a pretty good idea of how he envisions the presidency in his delusional, megalomanaical, self aggrandizing mind where the President of the United States has a boss's dictatorial powers, not just over Congress but the whole world, forcing other countries to build our walls and accept our deals. 

            I read somewhere an assessment that if Trump had simply invested his inheritance in a typical, sensible portfolio his fortune would now be about the same as what most experts believe it to be (well short of his claims) without all the glitz, fame and drama of four corporate bankruptcies. In other words, his so called business brilliance is wildly overrated. On the other hand, we must concede that his brilliance for self promotion truly knows no bounds. 

    1. they're pissing it away and maybe we'll get lucky and they'll come back down into the 47% before they stop wasting it on their screwed up vision for America.

  4. Ted Cruz is a senator from Texas and he's running for president. And the People of Texas, some of whom we allow into our state, voted him in to office:

    So here was Ted Cruz’ calm and reflective observations about the first Democratic presidential debate, as conveyed to an Iowa audience (per the Dallas Morning News’ Todd Gillman):

    "It was more socialism, more pacifism, more weakness & less Constitution," he told about 100 people crammed into a motel lobby in Kalona, a small town in southeastern Iowa. "It was a recipe to destroy a country."

    Speaking after the campaign event with reporters outside the Dutch Country Inn, Cruz acknowledged that he hadn't actually watched the debate. During much of it, he was stumping at a Pizza Hut a half-hour away.

    But he had firm views on what viewers saw.

    "We're seeing our freedoms taken away every day and last night was an audition for who would wear the jackboot most vigorously. Last night was an audition for who would embrace government power for who would strip your and my individual liberties," he said.

    I'm guessing a lot of observers hear this sort of thing and just shrug, since “fiery rhetoric” is central to Cruz’ whole act. My friend Greg Sargent scoffed at it as another indication Cruz is a fraud who is fooling the folks into thinking he’s willing and able to bend Congress to his and their will.

    But I’m sorry, I think this sort of rhetoric is a serious matter. Why? Because Cruz is one of those presidential candidates (along with Ben Carson and Mike Huckabee for sure; the exact position of several others is unclear) who claim the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to revolutionary violence against their own government if it engages in “tyranny” or doesn’t respect our rights. Here’s what Cruz said earlier this year in a fundraising letter:

    “The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution isn’t for just protecting hunting rights, and it’s not only to safeguard your right to target practice. It is a Constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives, and to serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny — for the protection of liberty,” Cruz wrote to supporters in a fundraising email on Thursday, under the subject line “2nd Amendment against tyranny.”

    So when a guy like Cruz starts tossing around words like “tyrant” and “jackboot” and “destroy the country” and “strip your and my individual liberties,” isn’t it possible, perhaps even likely, that at least a few of his supporters might think he’s signaling that the time is near to get out the shooting irons and start executing the Tyrant’s agents? I really think Cruz, Carson and Huckabee need to be asked very specifically on the campaign trail and in debates exactly which circumstances would justify the armed insurrection they defend, and make it clear that Obamacare or a potential repeal of the gunshow loophole or an executive action on immigration don’t qualify.

    This isn’t, by the way, just about incitement to violence. All this talk about liberal “tyranny” also illustrates the fundamentally anti-democratic nature of “constitutional conservatism.” Most liberals, even if they really, really hate conservatives, would concede that everybody has the right to contend for their point of view in the arena of elective politics. The central conceit of constitutional conservatism is to deny the equivalence of policy preferences, and to assert that favored conservative policies are permanently enshrined by the Founders—who in turn were inspired by divine and natural law—immune from popular majorities, no matter how large. It helps to understand that when someone like Ted Cruz talks about “liberties,” he’s not just talking about freedom of expression or even of religion, but the right to use your private property however you damn well please free from taxation or regulation or unions.

    First, as a senator, there is no way in hell we should be bipartisan with an ignorant and vicious liar like Ted Cruz. Second, his purposeful lies are mostly repeated to keep those few whackjobs who do support him in a constant state of fear and agitation, but like Charlie Pierce has said, the Off switch for that agitation is well hidden, and this country has had a bit too much blood spilled at the hands of agitated absolutists for a person like Ted Cruz (and Michael Savage, the Hate Radio Agent, who is probably the most comparable in his rhetoric to Cruz) to keep stirring the pot. 

    I don't even think AC defends this guy, does he?

    (Jeez, Pols, why do you insist on reformatting comments in a way that doesn't let you "fix" them in the source, and that doesn't look the same once you post them? The source looks like crap and the text for the various quote characters only makes it worse.)

  5. The Division of Insurance was supposed to announce which plan Colorado HealthOP could move forward with yesterday, in order to make the co-operative health insurance company available on the Colorado exchange. They didn't do it.

    There are three very good options for keeping the co-op open, and all of them are more financially responsible than paying $50m of Colorado taxpayer money to shut it down. Hopefully they make the right choice for the co-op and its 80,000 Colorado members who rely on it for affordable health insurance.

  6. The state insurance agency that is losing money and is no longer being subsidized needs to close?  Who would have thought?

    Another Obamacare success story.

    1. Herpa derpa derpa.

      The Co-op was on track to be profitable next year, and pay all of its loans back in full ahead of schedule. 

      Instead, the sunk money is gone, and so is $50m to shut it down. Smart move from your friends in the "fiscal conservative" party.

      2. I mentioned earlier the parallel between how Congress subsidizes the Federal Crop Insurance Program and the Affordable Care Act programs.  In the case of the former, the total cost of that program (the subsidies provided to private crop insurance companies) now totals $96 billion in the years 1995-2012.

        In that same time frame (1995-2012), Colorado farmers received $5.43 billion in subsidy payments.  Or as JEB! might call it, 'FreeStuff'.

        Perhaps our little troll would like to talk like a grown-up about how we justify billions to insure commodity crops, yet insuring human beings (at any level) remains optional?

        1. There is a huge difference between socialist handouts to undeserving poor people and taxpayer largesse to financially comfortable farmers, Michael.   Mainly, I get a small slice of the latterwink  And seriously, if you buy the idea of farm subsidies, as practically no one except farmers and politicians pandering for their votes does, then the notion of subsidizing crop insurance is more sensible than the old subsidizing production if you agree to idle part of your land did.  At least, you only pay out the money to farmers hit by hail, drought, etc. which makes a little more sense than throwing larger buckets of cash to large farmers, without a pretense of need.   Gotta run, it's time for me to file that form attesting that I made less than $1 million last year.   Darn, and I came so close…

          1. I don't have a problem with politically-constructed safety nets in general (whomever they may benefit). But, to your point, I loathe someone like an eastern Colorado farmer who, out of one side of his mouth asks if his direct deposit has found its way to his bank account – while  talking about the 'free stuff' someone else gets out of the other side. Or suggesting that 'those people' getting 'free stuff' pee in a cup. We all know a soul or two in our small towns who feed at the ag subsidy trough that couldn't pass a pee test on any given day.

            The farm safety nets were a sound idea decades ago, arguably not so today.  I share the opinion with many others that we are subsidizing the wrong end of the food pyramid.

            Bummer on missing the million dollar threshold … maybe next year! blush

            1. Personally, I think the old subsidy programs outlived their usefulness about 1940.   I believe in subsidizing people, not means of production or specific industries.,   If a small farmer can't make it, pay to retrain him and give him a bit to support his family until he gets a new job.   But keeping him barely alive for decades, as the old system did with my father, benefits no one.   But you nailed it on the hypocrisy.   I was at a forum for Cory Gardner when he explained that the farm bill actually has about 70 percent for food stamps and the like.  One old bird yelled sneeringly "WELFARE!"

              I wanted to tell him that actually, 100 percent of the farm bill is for welfare, because the handouts he cashes are, if anything, less deserving than the single mom keeping her family afloat.  But telling the truth at a forum mostly attended by rural right wingers is a dangerous business.  I admit I take my own modest subsidies but I don't support the program in general and would happily pass my share if they junked the whole thing.

              Gawd, remember when rural Republicans gave us the likes of Nebr. Sen. George Norris, who helped make the Cornhusker state an all public power state?  Sadly, their heirs today protect their socialist REA programs by mostly arguing for their God given right to burn coal at taxpayer expense.   Sigh.

        2. Oh, it's me, Progressicat.  When Hillary came out as "progressive," I realized the term had lost all meaning and shifted to a more accurate appellation. cool

          2. Glad to hear it. Two cats are perfect. Somehow the amount of free floating cat hair seems to mysteriously increase tenfold when you go from two to three. 

    3. The troll app is in very early beta testing now.  Please excuse the obvious lack of reasoning. We have the A part of AI down.  Still working on it. 

    1. Surely we have another Senator in this State that is working to clear things up, and will nail Slimey for his lies and misrepresentations?? . . .

      . . . Buehler?, 

      . . . Buehler?

      . . . Buehler? . . . 

      1. Left out the 21st century GOP's First Commandment which supercedes all others:

         If Obama be for it, we be agin it.

         Hallelujah. Cross our hearts and hope to die. In Jesus' name, amen.

        angel

  8. After getting passes for saying that John McCain was not a hero because he got caught, Mexico is sending us their rapists and murderers, and Megan Kelly's aggressive questioning was the result of her cycle, The Donald may finally have gone too far today……at least too far in the eyes of Republican primary voters.

    In a Bloomberg interview today, he blamed George W. Bush for 9/11.

    Even a blind squirrel will occasionally stumble upon an acorn in the middle of a blizzard.

    1. Won't affect his fan base. They've already demonstrated he can say anything, even that Planned Parenthood does mostly good stuff. It doesn't matter. They just love that their Donald is a tough talking billionaire TV celebrity who eats losers for lunch, is as angry and crude as they are and that the biggest words he ever uses are "fantastic" (what he's going to be at everything) and "disaster" (what everybody else would be). The size of that fan base is enough to make The Donald Runs for President the runaway hit reality TV show of the pre-primary season. But it's a limited run series.

      1. I saw my first TRUMP bumper sticker driving home on I-25 this evening …

        … it took considerable self-restraint not to ram my car into that fucker!

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

49 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!