CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese



President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*


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

(D) Joe Neguse*


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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks




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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg




CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*


CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen



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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi




State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
January 27, 2021 07:02 AM UTC

Wednesday Open Thread

  • by: Colorado Pols

“Everyone ought to bear patiently the results of his own conduct.”



31 thoughts on “Wednesday Open Thread

  1. Nearly every Senate Republican declared Tuesday that putting a former president on trial for impeachment is unconstitutional. 

    But why?

    Trump was impeached on January 13, while he was still in office. The proceedings in the Senate do not address impeachment. It is a trial leading to a vote by the jury of Senators to convict or acquit.

    The same day that nearly every Senate Republican declared that putting a former president on trial for impeachment is unconstitutional, constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley, who has defended Trump on similar matters in the past, joined GOP senators for their weekly lunch. Turley presented senators with both sides of the argument over the constitutionality of impeaching a former president. Some senators also noted a recent letter from legal scholars, including some from the conservative Federalist Society, who argued a former president can be convicted.

    So what is the real reason 45 Republican Senators are working so diligently to avoid addressing Trump's accountability for his role in inciting the Capitol riot? Are the arguments about divisiveness and partisanship just smokescreens to cover a more sinister purpose that is yet to be revealed?

    The precedent that might be set here is that holding the presidency is to be seen as a license to launch a criminal enterprise with no fear of punishment.

    If anyone fears that the integrity of some elected officials is marginal, this evolution will remove all doubt …. government of the criminals, by the criminals, for the criminals.

    1. You’re way way overthinking this; you gotta’ think like Q-bie a Republican, here . . .

      . . . whatever you don’t like, don’t understand, or don’t want to do — well, obviously that’s because it’s “unconstitutional.”

      It’s just another word they use to suit their purposes, like “conservative” . . .

    2. The Republican party has rebranded itself as the party of Trump. The Party of Trump stormed the Capitol, attacked and killed American citizens, attempted to kidnap/seize/lynch members of Congress. 

      There is no doubt about what Trump did. The Democrats need to spend the entire impeachment trial making sure everyone knows that the Republican Party is the party of Trump, the party of insurrection, and the party of Qanon/Proud Boys/3%ers/white supremacists.  

      1. What are the long term/short term results of the rebranding?

        If they see it as a sure path to reelection and sustained power they must see some value in trying to out-dump dump.

        The last readout I saw of dump's approval it had sunk into the crapper.

        Seems to me that they are soon to be just lemmings over the cliff.

        1. My comment was not clear. The politicians see the value in the 74 million people that voted for Trump, but also have to realize what a turd in he is. They want to maintain his base, and integrate them into their party, but also "move on" from Trump's worst rhetoric and behaviors.  My point is that Democrats cannot let them do this. When the Republicans stand by Trump and vote not to convict, they are declaring their allegiance to Trump and abandoning the rule of law.

          1. If I may combine the two ….

            The politicians see the value in the 74 million people that voted for Trump

            They want to maintain his base, and integrate them into their party”

             they must see some value in trying to out-dump dump.

            i.e. how can they integrate dump’s base w/o giving them MORE read meat and MORE fascism and MORE sedition?

            Never Trumpers, the unlikeliest group of “RINOs” and Trump loyalists are fighting for the future of the party.

            The big split is coming but the threat to democracy will linger until dumpism is extinguished

            Let me add:
            If dump’s base is now 1/3 of the 74M votes that he got, these are the only votes that these 150 or so rabid Rs who voted to block confirmation. That’s only going to work in regional elections within the reddest of states.

            I see the fire burning out in time.

  2. In the tradition of science fiction becoming science fact, I have been wondering from what part of our society would spring the Borg, an entity featured on Star Trek? I believe it will come to pass and I am thinking it may be generated somewhere in the alt-right movement.

    Just sayin…


    1. Slight differences:

      The Borg are cybernetic organisms linked in a hive mind called "the Collective". The Borg co-opt the technology and knowledge of other alien species to the Collective through the process of "assimilation": forcibly transforming individual beings into "drones" by injecting nanoprobes into their bodies and surgically augmenting them with cybernetic components. The Borg's ultimate goal is "achieving perfection".

      The alt-right doesn't use nanoprobes (AFAIK). They rely on  racism, lies, guns, misogyny and fear (did I leave anything out?) to coerce. Their version of 'perfection' is a nightmarish homogeneity.

      Never could happen w/o the 2A.

      1. Homogeneity…? A tenet of racism. Check.

        Group think/ hive mentality…yeah, got that…

        Throw in Erik Prince….

        Yeah, kickshot…I am on to something here….😀😆

  3. Bravo Dave Young

    “But the specific risk we’re trying to assess is support for officials whose actions and rhetoric threaten to destabilize our democracy, undermine our rule of law and our ability to maintain a free-market system. That’s ultimately very bad for investors.”

    Other signatories to the BlackRock letter included officials from two California public pension funds, CalSTRS and CalPERS — the top two in the nation by assets — and state treasurers from Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts and Oregon.

  4. I am shocked, I say SHOCKED to learn Republicans plan to filibuster Alejandro Mayorkas's nomination as Secretary of DHS.

    Get rid of the filibuster and stop playing nice for fuck sakes !

    1. My vote is to turn it back on them and discuss why they think keeping children in cages is a humane immigration policy.  Go on the attack and make them defend the indefensible Trump policies and then contrast it with Mayorkas's background and approach.  Make them face the shame of what they allowed to happen.  "You're Pro-Life?  No you're not."

      1. I agree – Dems need to turn up the heat and shame these assholes for what they supported and allowed to happen. There are literally thousands of examples to use. 

  5. Pentagon declares climate change a 'national security issue'

    "As a leader in the interagency, the Department of Defense will also support incorporating climate risk analysis into modeling, simulation, wargaming, analysis, and the next National Defense Strategy. And by changing how we approach our own carbon footprint, the Department can also be a platform for positive change, spurring the development of climate-friendly technologies at scale,”

    1. Pentagon has been serious about seeing the threats from a climate crisis for years.  At various points, they've identified it as a disruptor, pushing people facing resource scarcities into increasingly challenging threat cycles which can escalate to armed conflict; as a threat to their bases and freedom of movement; as a reason for adapting by changing their own fossil fuel use; and imperiling US government resources which would constrain support for the military. 

      The concerns have been more or less public, depending on the political climate more than the observable physical climate.

      1. Not if Ken Buck has anything to say about it. 
        I don’t get it – with drought, wildfires, more destructive tornados and storms, and more weather extremes in general- how does any observant reality-based person deny climate change? 

  6. In a church Zoom meeting tonight, we were reflecting on the ways we all have PTSD from the Trump years. When we hear, "The President signed a sweeping executive order today…" the knee jerk reaction used to be, "What's that #$% fool gone and done now?!"

    It takes a moment to reset and go, "Oh. Maybe that's a good thing."

    Gonna take some time yet to adjust.

    1. There was a discussion about this in another group on Wednesday. It’ll be nice to go a whole day without the president crossing my mind, or having to wonder, “What’s that idiot done now?”

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

38 readers online now


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