Tuesday Open Thread

“As long as inequality and other social problems plague us, populists will try to exploit them.”

–Kofi Annan

14 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Pseudonymous says:

    How will Hick get to be Joe Lieberman if Kasich never gets to be McCain?

    Kasich’s camp slams GOP effort to head off primary vs. Trump

    Trump-aligned Republican activists in New Hampshire are quietly maneuvering to fortify his standing and avoid a potentially disruptive primary challenge in 2020.

    In the most far-reaching move, Donald Trump’s allies are looking to scrap the state GOP’s tradition of remaining neutral in the primary — to clear the way for an endorsement of the president. They’re also moving to install one of their own as head of the state Republican Party.

  2. Pseudonymous says:

    Finally, one will be able to just buy beer.

    The end of 3.2 beer in Colorado: What to know about the law taking effect Jan. 1, 2019

    Starting Jan. 1, you can buy full-strength beer at grocery and convenience stores in Colorado for the first time.

    The change is part of an overhaul approved by state lawmakers in 2016 to update the state’s alcohol laws from the Prohibition-era standards.

    • RepealAndReplace says:

      Brett Kavanaugh will be happy.

    • Voyageur says:

      Little if any practical difference.  So-called 3.2 pct beer is by weight. So called 6 pct by colume.  Alcohol weighs 70 percent of water so right there you have 4.2 vs. 3.2.  Popular light beers, which now dominate the market, are less than 3.2, so Duke's beloved Coors light is the same whether he buys it at Safeway or a liquor store.

      Just kidding.  Duke has his faults but drinking wimpswill beer ain't one of them.  He's a connoisseur of some of those fine craft beers brewed in Colorado West.

  3. itlduso says:

    Yesterday, 44 former US Senators sent a “Dear Colleague” letter to the current US Senators describing their concern that the Trump Administration’s attack on the rule of law may threaten our democracy, and urging the current Senators to place the country before partisan politics.

    Colorado has seven living former US Senators. Four of them signed this letter including Democratic Senators Udall, Hart, and Wirth. Republican Senator Nighthorse Campbell also signed the letter.

    Here is a list of those that did not (or, maybe have not as yet) signed this letter:
    Republican Wayne Allard
    Republican Hank Brown
    Democrat Ken Salazar.

    I wish the media would contact these Senators to see if they intend to sign the letter, and if not, why not.

    • gertie97 says:

      Why should reporters do that? These guys are out of office.

      If you're curious, call them yourself and ask?

      • itlduso says:

        A) I have a day job

        B) I have no idea, and no expertise, in how to contact these former Senators, but I guess I could try Google.

        C) Why would they take a call from a nobody like me, versus say, a reporter.  And, if they did take my call, why would they answer my question?  And, if I got an answer, my only outlet for reporting their answer is this site, or hoping a letter to the editor gets printed.

        D) The fact that they are out of office is the point of the story! Former Senators are taking the extraordinary step to publicly remind the current Senate that they should put country first.

        Sheesh.  I believe this is a newsworthy issue that actual reporters should investigate.  I'm particularly interested in Salazar's response, since there might be future political prospects for him.

  4. JohnInDenver says:

    Charles Lane, in a Washington Post article, explains a Colorado resolution's rejection, as part of a larger article, "It’s time to look at the (political) science behind climate change"

    The data show that, for all the evidence that climate change is real, manmade and dangerous, and despite wide public acceptance of those propositions, people in the United States do not necessarily want to stop climate change, in the sense of being willing to pay the cost — which is the only sense that really matters.

    So, how are we in Colorado doing?  "Anti-fossil-fuel referendums lost in Colorado, Washington state and Arizona during last month’s elections."

    No hint about personal safety or rigid, inflexible limits.  Just fossil fuels.

    Who knew that is what I (and some of the rest of the ColoradoPols readership) was voting against.

    • Conserv. Head Banger says:

      My thought relates only to Colorado. Prop. 112 was poorly written and even without anti-112 industry propaganda, was viewed as an attack on the industry and jobs.

      The Rocky Mountain Institute (www.rmi.org) in Snowmass; perhaps the leading alternative energy think-tank in the country, and a "tank" with an international following; has estimated that the US will still get 25% of its energy needs in 2050 from natural gas. Coal will be gone and oil used primarily to make asphalt and other products like plastics. RMI is a strong advocate for dealing with climate change.

      On another forum, I asked proponents of 112 a simple question; please provide a set of pros & cons for your measure. All I got were their pros; no cons; along with a condescending attitude that everyone had to fall in line and support what they wanted. I decided to go with the RMI science, not the zealotry.

    • 112 was IMHO an anti-extraction initiative trying to wrap itself in safety clothing.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.