U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet

(D) Phil Weiser

60%↑

50%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Jena Griswold

60%↑

40%↑

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) J. Danielson

(R) Sheri Davis
50%

40%

30%
State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(D) Jeff Bridges

(R) Kevin Grantham

40%

40%

30%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

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

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Manny Rutinel

(D) Yadira Caraveo

45%↓

40%↑

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
February 13, 2020 06:33 AM UTC

Thursday Open Thread

  • 36 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“Prejudice is a burden that confuses the past, threatens the future and renders the present inaccessible.”

–Maya Angelou

Tweet
Share

Comments

36 thoughts on “Thursday Open Thread”

  1. “Pit Bulls” to be allowed by special license by Denver City Council.

    https://denverite.com/2020/02/10/denver-city-council-neuters-citys-pit-bull-ban/

    Instead of confronting the ban head on with a repeal the council has decided to give dog owners a way to keep them legally with a license. This is not going to satisfy the strongest partisans on either side of the issue, but since most people do not have a strong opinion about the ban it works as a compromise.

    As one of those mild people who does not even own a dog I am content. It is not what I would have asked for, but I can live with it. Though if anyone in Denver is injured by a large dog during this program I hope they revisit the issue with somewhat stronger requirements regarding proof of the dog not being aggressive towards neighbors, mail carriers, etc.

    1. Interesting. It wholly sidesteps the largest problem with the existing ordinance, but it's a step in the right direction (assuming the mayor signs it).

      Is that extraordinarily stupid POS former city attorney who lived and breathed for the "pit bull" ban still around? I'd have thought he'd open fire in council chambers with a fully automatic weapon if he had any inkling that they were fixin' to mess with the ban.

      1. By “extraordinarily stupid city attorney” do you mean Hizzoner Michael Hancock? 
         

        The pit bull ban was his brainchild. I understand that he was badly injured by a pit bull as a child; so he has a justifiable attachment to the issue. 
         

        But killing thousands of family pets because they had some pit bull DNA was not a good solution, and led to the exodus of many taxpayers (like me) to Jeffco and Lakewood, which has a “No Breed Specific Legislation Ever” pledge.

        But you probably are referring to Kory Nelson. He is still prosecuting for Denver- lost an election in Douglas County, and abides by the wisdom of George Brauchler and Newt Gingrich, according to his candidate questionnaire. Eye roll here.

        1. How is the pit bull ban the brainchild of Hancock?  It was enacted in 1989 when Hancock was 20 years old and still in college, did he introduce the proposal to the City Council then?

          1. Wong, you’re right. The ban did originate in 1989. I was thinking of 2004, when pit bulls had a temporary reprieve from enforcement of the ban in Denver, and Michael Hancock was a new city councilman.

            Maybe because of his personal pit bull trauma, Councilman Hancock was one of the main movers to reinstate full enforcement of the ban in Denver, which ultimately led to euthanize ~  4,000 dogs. 
             

            So not a brainchild- perhaps a stepchild.

              1. Knowing his history, I’m not surprised. He’s probably hoping that everyone will forget about his veto of City Council’s ban repeal by the next municipal election in 2023.

  2. This isn’t Colorado news (yet), but yet another sign that Trump continues to benefit from Russian propaganda preying on the gullible and/or greedy:

    Playing on Kansas City Radio: Russian Propaganda

    Radio Sputnik, a propaganda arm of the Russian government, began broadcasting on three Kansas City-area radio stations during prime drive time.

    Peter Schartel, the owner of Alpine Broadcasting Corporation of Liberty, Mo., the company airing Sputnik in Kansas City, said that he started the broadcasts on Jan. 1 both because he liked what he heard during a trial run last fall and because he was getting paid.

    I assume his grandmother didn’t hold enough market value to interest the Russians.

    Sputnik now broadcasts in 90 cities worldwide, she said, dismissing as “absurd” the idea that listeners are the target of Russian election meddling.

    Working through the news headlines on recent Sputnik broadcasts, the hosts found much to fault.

    The impeachment of Mr. Trump is bad.

    “The entire impeachment is a lie,” said Lee Stranahan, a former Breitbart reporter and the right-wing co-host of Sputnik’s morning show.

    Yup, Trumpers love them some Russian propaganda.

    1. Do they play Sigue Sigue Sputnik? 
      Cuz that would be awesome – 
       

      Radio station decides to devote their air time to 1980's new wave , mostly Sigue Sigue Sputnik.

  3. Anti-Trump Republicans mobilizing center-right voters in Nevada to switch their registrations, caucus with Democrats

    A new center-right organization working to oppose President Donald Trump’s re-election is launching a voter mobilization effort to encourage disaffected Republicans and right-leaning nonpartisans in Nevada to switch their party registrations and participate in the state’s Democratic presidential caucus later this month.

    While Trump has encouraged Republicans to cross over and vote in the Democratic primary in order to select the “weakest” candidate to oppose him in the general election, this new organization, Center Action Now, is trying to get center-right voters to elect a Democratic presidential nominee they could support in the general election over Trump, according to Tim Miller, one of the groups’ directors and a former Jeb Bush staffer. The organization — which was established as a nonprofit on Feb. 3 — launched its voter engagement effort ahead of the New Hampshire primary and is now turning its focus to Nevada.

    Miller said Center Action Now’s goal is to “expand voter engagement among disenfranchised moderate, former Republican voters who don’t feel like they have a home in the political process.”

      1. With our family, kind of a Elizabeth has our heart, Amy our head kind of thing.  We just sent them both money again.

        Male politicians have screwed up this country for 300 years.  Let the women screw it up for a while.  Even if they don't do better, we'll at least get a little variety!

        1. gender should never have been a criterion for voting, owning property, inheriting, holding office, getting jobs, losing jobs, etc.

          Making it one now doesn't balance the foolishness of the past.

          Do enough voters want it to be enough to make it matter?
          What changed from 2016?

          1. what changed? 

            4 more years of male Presidents, with even more dreadful impacts than the "normal" males of the past.

            4 more years of efforts to limit reproductive choice, deny recognition by way of a Constitutional amendment, and maintain the wage disparity.

            1 election with a female for a general election candidate, showing she could get enough money and enough support to be competitive. Midterm elections showing women can run and win in all sorts of other elections. Having the elected women make a significant difference in a little over a year.

            Those are some of the changes since 2016.

            1. 4 years of Trump is not gender specific
              4 years of legislative bs is not gender specific

              The women elected were limited to specific areas.
              Has Pennsylvania ever elected a woman governor? 
              Has Wisconsin?

              Electoral math is the mpath to victory or failure.

              1. Michigan has had two – Jennifer Granholm and presently, Gretchen Whitmer, who gave the Democratic response to Trumps SOTU.

                I don’t support every woman who runs for high office by any means. My criteria are policy, personal character, and then factors like gender and race.

                But women legislators tend to be more bipartisan and pragmatic. Weathering decades of condescension and marginalization makes them tough, with little tolerance for ego stroking BS. Women tend to Get Shit Done. 

                1. I don’t know about “bipartisan and pragmatic”

                  Elizabeth Dole
                  Michelle Bachman
                  Barbara Boxer

                  I could go on.
                  I maybe could agree that women candidates have to be “better.”

                   

                  1. I'd argue that WHATEVER your politics, the 3 women listed are miles ahead of Sen. Cotton (currently at the top of my list of stupid Senators), Sen. Ron Johnson (who seems to have gotten a bit TOO close to the polyester and plastics his company manufactured), and Sen. Rand Paul (who still looks like Dr. Strangelove to me). .

                    1. There are crappy and unfit men in elected office

                      There are women would are better- and there are other women who would be better.

                      So what?

                      The three I named were never bi-partisan pragmatists. Instead they were partisan idealogues. Boxer was not crazy – but I think I think that because I've been a D all my life.
                       

                2. That’s exactly right.  As with all generalities, there are exceptions.  Men tend to be taller than women but janet reno is taller than robert reich.  I would not support liz chene y for dog catcher.   But women tend to be more job oriented than men, who are more concerned about getting the credit.  I think it’s the mommy gene.

                  I simply won’t support another all male ticket. Without at least a woman as veep, the democrats will lose and i’ll vote libertarian.

  4. Reefer Madness, baby.

    Legalizing Marijuana Is ‘The Stupidest Thing Anybody Has Ever Done,’ Michael Bloomberg Says

    “We have a different kind of problem in America, for example,” he said. “Last year, in 2017, 72,000 Americans OD’d on drugs. In 2018, more people than that are OD-ing on drugs.”

    “And today incidentally, we are trying to legalize another addictive narcotic,” he said, referencing marijuana, “which is perhaps the stupidest thing anybody has ever done. We’ve got to fight that, and that’s another thing that Bloomberg Philanthropies will work on it in public health.”

    2. The number of "single issue" marijuana voters would be ???

      And there has been a nuance … "Since launching his presidential candidacy, however, Bloomberg has embraced decriminalization of cannabis possession and said that states should be able to set their own laws without federal interference."  So, he's willing to pander on the issue with the best.

  5. Well, maybe some GOP Senators are finally getting a little nerve(ous) about Trump's executive powers?

    Senate approves measure to prevent Trump from taking further military action against Iran without Congress's approval

    The vote marks lawmakers’ latest bipartisan attempt to compel the White House to involve them in foreign policy decisions. The measure, which still has to pass the Democratic-controlled House, lacks enough support to overcome an expected presidential veto.

      1. Yes, but it is a crack in the facade of Trump’s invulnerability.

        And perhaps a signal to some of the generals to start reining him back in. If the Generals start resigning en masse, that will make the Saturday Night Massacre look like a minor kerfluffle.

        1. That, or maybe it’s just another empty gesture by a cynical Republican party that nowadays specializes in nothing but cynical, empty gestures of no consequence ?? . . . 

          WWOS?

          (Where Would Occam Shave? …)

    1. Yep, that train left the station months ago:

      Barr said that having public statements and tweets made about the department, pending cases and its prosecutors “make it impossible to do my job and to assure the courts and the prosecutors in the department that we are doing our work with integrity.”

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

139 readers online now

Newsletter

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

Colorado Pols