President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

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

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

52%↑

48%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

52%↑

48%↓

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
February 01, 2019 06:26 AM UTC

Friday Open Thread

  • 32 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“Yesterday’s weirdness is tomorrow’s reason why.”

–Hunter S. Thompson

Tweet
Share

Comments

32 thoughts on “Friday Open Thread”

  1. Sex abuse allegations and complaints at the service academies?

    jail, payback of all compensation

    its the Academy!

     

    and, football causes brain damage: eliminate it at the academies

  3. WOTD from Stacey Abrams via Vox: "Stacey Abrams’s new essay on identity politics reveals why she’s a rising star"

    Interesting article about Stacey Abrams and the argument that politics of economic insecurity should be emphasized over identity politics.

    Why Stacey Abrams believes in identity politics

    The core of Abrams’s argument is that identity politics is not something that members of marginalized groups can ignore. If they want equality, they must address the issues and social structures that oppress them.

    “The marginalized did not create identity politics: Their identities have been forced on them by dominant groups, and politics is the most effective method of revolt,” Abrams writes. “What Fukuyama laments as ‘fracturing’ is in reality the result of marginalized groups finally overcoming centuries-long efforts to erase them from the American polity — activism that will strengthen democratic rule, not threaten it.”

    The point here is not that it’s bad to be labelled as “black” or “female”; Abrams personally embraces both labels. Rather, it’s that the social significance assigned to being a member of an oppressed group — the mental baggage, stereotypes, and mistreatment you experience from others as a result of your identity — is not something individuals can choose to take on or reject. Your race, gender identity, sexual orientation, or religion cause you to be treated in a certain way, forcing you to be aware of your marginalized social role and identify with it whether you’d like to or not.

    …

    Critics of identity politics often get away with being frustratingly vague as to what exactly they’re attacking; the weaknesses of the argument only become manifest when you press them on the definition.

    1. Gods. Why does anyone still listen to Fukuyama? He's not even a leftist, yet he wants to lecture leftists (and liberals) on how to be "properly" left wing? He's such a fucking joke.

      Like, yeah, class politics is important, but the dichotomy between class and identity right wingers like Fukuyama push hide how closely tied together a system liberal capitalism is with race, economic class, gender, neuronormativity, imperialism, etc all being so closely tied that they can't be talked about separate from each other. It's a single, totalizing social system.

      1. It isn't really about Fukuyama, it's about the argument he is defending, which you hear from a lot of "centrist" Democrats and pundits, namely that the D's should avoid "identity politics" in order to appeal to white working class voters. Or, at least try to avoid offending WWC voters by mentioning racial or gender issues… I don't know.

        This argument has appeal on the one hand: Economic issues (wages, jobs, industrial collapse) cut across all interest groups. Also, the Democratic Party has historically been the Party that defends the working and middle class against big business and wealthy interests.

        I think the flaw in the anti-identity movement is that
        (1) Each person/all people have multiple identities.
        (2) ALL politics is identity politics –  you can't avoid it.

        How you see economic issues is strongly filtered by your identity.

        The Republican propaganda machine knows this full well, and targets rural and middle american White identities incessantly with narratives and stories about identity. What else are the memes about "latte swilling liberals", or "Urban Hell-holes" or "gang-bangers from El Salvador", if not an attempt to create a split between white/rural and urban identities?

        In fact, Republicans constantly use identity politics to avoid speaking directly about WWC economic issues. When did you last hear a call for strengthening the unions? It's always about taxes and getting the government regulations out of your business.

        1. I know it's not about Fukuyama. He just started it. I just wish he'd go away because he's constantly wrong about everything.

          I mean, no, the Democratic Party has historically been the party that mediates compromise between certain parts of the capitalist class and varying elements of the poorest people in the country, for awhile representing collaborationism between the rural poor and rich white urban capitalists before they added union workers to their coalition, bringing in lots of people of color and slowly alienating the rich white urban capitalists and the rural poor.

          Currently they represent a collaborationist politics between unionized labor and capitalists who derive wealth mostly from capital instead of from labor where the Republicans represent a collaborationist politics between the rural poor and capitalists who derive more of their wealth from their workers' labor instead of their capital..

          Regardless, tho, there is definitely a need to engage in both economic and identity issues as they are not disconnected by aid each other.

    1. What a tragedy. I'm reminded of when Story Daniels ran for the US Senate in Louisiana. And Larry Flynt ran for governor of California in the recall election.

  5. This was on the Taegen wire today and makes me like Nancy Pelosi more every day.

     

    Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) “could move to block President Trump from invoking a national emergency to build a border wall, forcing Senate Republicans to choose between preserving congressional power and crossing the White House,” the Washington Examiner reports.

    “The California Democrat, under a seldom-used statute, could put a binding ‘resolution of disapproval’ on the House floor to counter Trump should he claim constitutional powers to unilaterally build a border wall.”

    Key takeaway: “The resolution would almost assuredly pass the Democratic House. Then, in a quirk of the law — the Congressional Review Act — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) would essentially be forced to hold a floor vote, with only a simple majority required for passage rather than the customary 60 votes.”

    2. Okay.  35 years ago, while a student, the now gov was in a gag photo purporting to show that with enough beer, even a klansman and a black man could be friends.

      In the berserk politics of today, of course he can't survive.

      1. Who among us has never done stupid shit in our 20s? Should we all resign our present jobs when it comes to light?

        Should elected public officials be held to a higher standard? Is this all a roundabout (and futile) attempt to hold high level criminals like Trump to account?

        Is it more critical that the KKK is a terrorist organization involved in many murders, vandalism, and other crimes? Is that what makes this offensive gag resignation-worthy 35 years later?

        These are some of the questions I have about the Northam photo scandal.

        1. For what it's worth, I see no malign intent in the photo.  It shows a stereotypical blackface man and a klansman having a good time together because of the power of beer.  Perhaps a plea for tolerance?

          With his belief in beer, maybe trump will put him on the supreme court.

          1. Brett Kavanaugh did stupid drunken shit while in college. Yet, there are those on the far left; to the left of MJ; who felt his stupid shit should disqualify him from being on the SCOTUS.

            I wasn't a fan of Kavanaugh's nomination and thought his performance "on the stand" at his hearing was whiny. But………

            2. Kavanaugh is not qualified to be on the Supreme Court. That's even if one doesn't believe the multiple allegations of sexual assault .  His possible perjury during the Bush hearings, for example, should have been at least investigated. And Kavanaugh pretty clearly does have an established pattern of forcing himself on women while drunk.

              I'm not pleading tolerance or leniency for people with established patterns of coercive behavior. That includes Democrats, like John Conyers, a man whom I admired and donated to.

              I guess what I'm wondering about is whether we're setting so high a bar for absolute driven-snow purity for elected officials that no one will ever want to run for elected office, lest their youthful misdeeds be dug up and used against them.

              If something from 30, 40, 50 years ago can be found by diligent oppo researchers and force a resignation, why would anyone risk it?

              I don't have any deep, dark criminal past. I've never forced sex on anyone. But there are things I did as a kid that I wouldn't want to be shared with the world, should I ever decide to run for office.

              Should any candidate now have  to  to come clean about any possibly embarrassing incident, as they would for say, a security clearance? If so, should that then become part of the public record?

              It seems to me that absolute truthfulness about one's past, owning up to crap fromt the past and no longer doing stupid racist, sexist, shit should be now a part of candidacy.

    3. I ought to have marked this an a reply to M.J. above. I half-expect he'll quit. If he had done this when he was 18 he might be able to smooth it over and save his career, but he was 25 and in med. school. “It was a dumb kid thing to have done” ain’t gonna fly.

  8. OK, kids. The SOTU is coming. Any takers on guessing just what WILL the state of the union be according to the Doofus in Chief?

    I vote for…." Awesomely Strong"…

    2. I’ll mute out the Doofus speech, tune back in for the Stacey Abrams response.

      We can all safely skip  spin on how giving Putin yet another big wet kiss ( backing out of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty) is somehow MAGA,

      1. The usual procedure in our house is that my wife watches it, while I listen from the kitchen. Kind of the Kennedy/Nixon, radio vs. T.V. thing. Then we compare notes. This year, we'll do as M.J.; skip the speech and watch the rebuttal. I can’t bear to hear Yammie-pie speak.

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

95 readers online now

Newsletter

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