U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

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

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

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

50%

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
January 22, 2025 08:16 AM UTC

Wednesday Open Thread

  • 11 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“There is always an easy solution to every problem – neat, plausible, and wrong.”

–H. L. Mencken

Comments

11 thoughts on “Wednesday Open Thread

  1. "Voodoo Trade Policies come to America." Paul Krugman.

    Trump, his minions and the Project 2025 are moving quickly to pursue a bunch of destructive ideas. I assume that 3/4 of them will result in negative consequences that will be felt across the country, iand they won't avoid impacting a bunch of Red States and Trump voters.

    What do they call it when it is a Kleptocracy, Plutocracy AND a Kakistocracy? (I always think that comes from Caca-stocracy).

    Paul Krugman has been unleashed since he left the NYT. Subscribe, I urge you.

    Todays topic: Tariffs, i.e. taxes on imports.

    so far markets have shrugged Trump’s tariff threat off, apparently in the belief that he won’t follow through. But why not? Economists would, if he asked, tell him that high tariffs on neighboring nations closely integrated with the United States will do major damage; businesspeople would say the same thing. But if Trump wants your opinion, he’ll tell you what he wants it to be.

    I believe that the only thing that might dissuade him from destructive policies would be a severely adverse market reaction — which means that the lack of such a reaction, based on the belief that he won’t really do it, greatly increases the probability that he really will.

    So what happens if he does? Let me make four points about tariffs.

    1. 25 percent tariffs would be really, really high — and destructive

    2. Consumers would pay a heavy price

    3. The tariffs would raise far less revenue than Trump imagines

    4. While some industries might gain, tariffs at this level would destroy many jobs

    1.  Imports of goods are about 11 percent of GDP. While you can tell stories under which import prices wouldn’t rise by the full amount of the tariff, they’re weak and poorly supported by evidence. So a first-pass estimate would be that tariffs on the scale Trump is threatening would be a 25 percent sales tax on goods that account for 11 percent of consumer spending, raising the cost of living by almost 3 percent — well over 3 percent if, as he says he intends, he puts much higher tariffs on imports from China.

      Since median household income is more than $80k, that’s around $2500 a year for the typical household. People who voted for Trump because they believed he would bring prices down are in for a rude shock.

  2. A bill currently in the Wyoming legislature would invalidate driver's licenses and driving operating privilege cards issued by other jurisdictions to “unauthorized aliens,” or people in the United States illegally. Those found driving illegally could be charged with a misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail.

    Since the illegal was convicted of a crime they would then be turned over to ICE for possible deportation since Wyoming is not a "sanctuary entity" and fully cooperates with Federal Immigration authorities to remove criminal illegals from the country.

    The bill is expected to sail through the legislature.

    1. There's a constitutional problem, the Full Faith and Credit Clause.  But that has never stopped an ignorant body like the WY state legislature. 

      1. Sorry "full faith and credit clause"  doesn't apply here. The issuence of a drivers license is a privilige, and it's just that -a license.

        For many years I held a Building Contractors Class B License from the City and County of Denver. If I wanted to do a construction project in Texas I would have to obtain whatever state or local licences were required for me to pull permits. My Denver contractors license is simply not valid in other jurisdictions.

        By the same token attorneys are licensed on a state basis. An attorney must be licensed in the state in which they are representing a client. The first thing an attorney must do in a Colorado court when entering an appearance is provide their Colorado attorney registration number. An out of state registration is not valid.

        Your interpretation of the full faith and credit clause is in this matter is overly broad and legally incorrect.

        1. I'm not a lawyer … but the two sorts of licenses are VERY different. 

          I'd bet that if you went to look at it, the "Building Contractors Class B License from the City and County of Denver" carefully constrains the rights, explaining it is necessary for the CCD but not beyond.

          Driver's licenses allow operation of vehicles in all states.  I do not need to get a separate license when renting a car elsewhere.  I do not need to display my license when I enter the state of Wyoming. 

          There may be ways to skirt the issue and make driving while being undocumented an offense.  But invalidating the actions of another state flies directly into the teeth of the clause — as attempts to invalidate the marriages of same-sex partners in other states demonstrated.

           

           

    2. So much for the "full faith and credit" clause.  You know, that Constitutional mandate

      Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, addresses the duty that states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."

      I'm sure that since they don't trust the Constitution, they won't mind if a Colorado legislator introduces a bill allowing police to stop anyone driving a car with Wyoming license plates to have them prove residency in our northern neighbor OR pay Colorado's registration fees.

    3. I'm curious how they intend to enforce this. I drive in Wyoming sometimes and I do not carry any proof that I am in the United States legally aside from my drivers license that could be given to an "unauthorized alien". I expect* that if I get pulled over in Wyoming that they'll detain me and charge me with a misdemeanor since they are so strict about public safety.

      * – I have blonde hair and blue eyes and no accent since I grew up in Colorado. They won't detain me for this.

  3. Fascist crackpot calls BS on megalomaniac con man:

    Elon Musk casts doubt on Trump’s $100 billion announcement.

    Elon Musk is casting doubt on the first major tech investment announcement made by President Trump, openly questioning the administration he now serves.

    On Tuesday, Mr. Trump announced a joint venture between OpenAI, SoftBank and Oracle to create at least $100 billion in computing infrastructure to power artificial intelligence, some of which is already underway.

    But in two late-night messages on X, Mr. Musk said that the venture, dubbed Stargate, did not have the financing to achieve the promised investment levels.

    “They don’t have the money,” Mr. Musk wrote in reply to an OpenAI post on the announcement. “SoftBank has well under $10B secured. I have that on good authority.”

    Neither one learned in kindergarten how to play nice with others, but wow, tantrums this soon?  Trump didn’t ask permission from President Musk to make this deal it seems.  Interestingly, while Elon hates Sam Altman, Oracle’s Larry Ellison is best buds with Elon, so it sounds like Elon knew it was coming, but got overruled by other (presumed) adults in the room.

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

73 readers online now

Newsletter

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