(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
(D) Diana DeGette*
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeffery Hurd
(D) Anna Stout
(R) Ken Buck*
(R) Doug Lamborn*
(D) Jason Crow*
(D) Brittany Pettersen
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Scott James
“All collective judgments are wrong. Only racists make them.”
The footage of people assembling at the exits during Fat Donny's ramblin' wreck of an announcement and security not letting them leave was pretty funny, as was that one Fat Donny spokesmoron claiming news networks that didn't air the speech were violating the First Amendment.
NY Times reports that McConnell beat back Rick Scott’s challenge, 37 to 10 with one voting present.
The Old Crow lives to fight another day.
lol Bat Boy. It'll be interesting to see the reprisals.
We're much better with a healthy Republican party here in Colorado – Colorado Republicans – Keep Fighting, It'll Get Better
I've already written this, so will be brief. Both blogs talk or hint about MAGA. Neither blog admits the stranglehold that the religious right has on the Colorado Republican party.
That's an interesting question. If a substantial portion of the Republican party is fundamentalist, then their political views should be taken into account by Republican candidates and electeds.
But at the same time, they shouldn't own the party in whole. And they need to understand that in religion you get intellectual purity but in politics it requires compromise.
I'd say they need to get their supporters to separate the two spheres.
Good luck with that. The party, statewide and nationally, is IMHO too indebted to the extremists to pull away. That starts with the integration of the moral majority and the Southern conservatives way back when and it continues on through to today's corrupted evangelicals who are bought in to Republican Jesus as political spokesman and to "Savior" Trump as religious reincarnation.
DT, I think that ship sailed. I suspect that nearly all non-evangelical conservatives now register as unaffiliated.
"Neither blog admits the stranglehold that the religious right has on the Colorado Republican party"
But, CHB, it has been that way for decades. Reagan made that deal with Fallwell, Robertson and rest of the American Mullahs in 1980 and the GOP never looked back.
THAT. I prefer Colorado ski Jesus to Nascar Jesus.
Your essay includes the thought "with such heavy control of the state legislature the Democrats will over-reach. Guaranteed."
Even if there is "overreach," it doesn't portend a revival for the other party.
Any sort of time table on that inevitability? I'm wondering, because the Utah Legislature has had Republican majorities since I lived there in 1977-1979. They've held a state trifecta of Republican control of both chambers of the legislature and the Governor's office since 1985.
Checking in with the National Conference of State Legislatures, I see state legislature partisan majorities 1978-2014. . Red lines for Wyoming. South Dakota and Idaho each had one session in a chamber with a Democratic majority, but otherwise has been Republican. Flip side of that is California & Hawaii, with both chambers Democratic since 1978. The other coast, Connecticut has enjoyed Democratic majorities since 1978.
You're right that we can end up with a one party state. But it's not a straight line to that outcome. We'll have elections where the Republicans regain some of the seats, and then it can swing back Dem again.
Partially I'm trying to encourage the Republicans because if they don't make a major correction soon, then we will become a one party state. And that's not good. There's worse things, like a one party Republican state. But I'd prefer we stay competitive.
^^^ this ^^^
You’re certainly bending backwards to promote the Republican point of virw on your blog. (1.Democrats overstate the effects of climate change! “3.Reasonable Republicans won this election! 4. Voters hate Progressive Democrats! So should you! 5. Those selfish feminists have enough already – let’s boost the downtrodden males!) #2 is a timelty and factual article.
So how many Republicans read or heed you?
Let's take article #1 as an example. It's not against addressing climate change, it's saying that the approach proposed by a lot of the far left is an inefficient approach that would cause unnecessary scarcity to all.
It proposes a different approach, one that Biden's bill by and large follows, that should lead to an age of abundant, inexpensive renewable energy.
It's like nuclear power. It's not Republican to support it, it's understanding the trade-offs of it & climate change that should lead liberals to support it. But many don't and scream Republican to those that do.
There is no indication ( introduction from you as blogger, commentary, etc.) that you disagree with any of those articles you posted. I don’t believe that you do disagree. As far as the #1 environmental article you’re promoting, tell the millions of climate refugees in the world right now that there is no climate emergency.
Tell that to the US citizens who have had to move or lost their homes from hurricanes and wildfires. “There is no climate change, no urgency, nothing to worry about. Just keep promoting natural gas use , and “clean” nuclear power in the United States, and drive more! You’ll be just fine!”
And if you’re not fine, just die quietly, because “moderates” don’t want to hear your voices. Yes, we centrists like “debate” and “multiple points of view”, but only from Republicans and conservative writers.
When your blog promotes articles for discussion from progressives, climate activists, and feminists, then I’ll believe that you actually are committed to civil discourse and open debate. Until then, you’re just another neoliberal apologist for keeping the status quo.
I, too, have a very hard time accepting the doublespeak of David, LBPOS, and our crop of "centrists". Nothing moves when all you listen to are the "comfortable".
Is there anything I've said that doesn't view climate change as a gigantic issue? Is there anything in that article that doesn't view climate change as a gigantic issue?
But when a different approach to solving it is suggested, many on the left such as you two then claim I don't view climate change as critical and I'm a closet Republican.
Whereas I think my preferred solution to this problem, which would eliminate global warming, bring on an era of inexpensive energy abundance, and provide a means for all living in the world to have a lifestyle similar to that of people in the west – is a more truly liberal/progressive solution.
As to promoting blog entries that parrot the standard talking points from the left – what do we learn from that?
Do you have posts on your blog or substack that do show climate change is an urgent issue requiring immediate action? I've seen none.
Your "solution" to climate change is a gradual weaning from natural gas, and inclusion of nuclear energy, with the "Don't think about the nuclear waste and it won't be a problem" approach to the waste products. Those are the solutions you promote.
Have you ever promoted a progressive point of view on any of your websites? What we "learn from that" is what you truly believe. When you only allow voices from the right of center, that tells its own story.
Republicans just got to 218 in the house
And they'll likely get 3 more. Incredibly small majority, but it's a majority.
Official Washington Post TickTokGuy (Twitter – apologies, but worth it)
Elmo Mush’s Ultimatum vs the Matrix.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.