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) Jeff Crank

(R) Dave Williams



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 17, 2014 11:52 PM UTC

Weekend Open Thread

  • by: Colorado Pols

"I was well beaten myself, and I am better for it."

–Bernard Law Montgomery 


51 thoughts on “Weekend Open Thread

  1. Hi, liberals! This is my first comment in over three years. I'm glad to see that nothing has changed, except now Democrats aren't winning in Colorado any more.

    This is going to be a great year.

            1. dustpuppy, that's offensive to me. I'll say it again – I want Republicans, conservatives, independents, libertarians, unaffiliateds, democrats, progressives, greens (not necessarily in that order) to feel OK about posting on here, without thinking that they're going to be insulted, told that they're insane or addicts or should be imprisoned for their ideas, or whatever.  I know I can't post my ideas on their blogs, because I've tried, and been shut down, deleted, ridiculed, and threatened.

              I want people of all political affiliations to be able to put their claims out, and, hopefully, back them up with facts and evidence so we can have a substantive argument. Granted, usually, conservatives don't really have the facts to back stuff up, but that's what I want.

              This is a comfortable place to post for progressives.  Usually people aren't ridiculed, unless they're ridiculous. I wish that it was comfortable  for reasonable conservatives to post reasonable arguments and try to back it up.

              All that is to say that, though I often disagree with David T808, I think he's correct in wanting more diversity of opinions on here.

              1. Okay. We'll just agree to disagree on this one. If you want diversity for Colorado politics, then I have no problem with that, but when it becomes an troll infilitration, then don't say I didn't warn you. I've been to many, and seen them all. Even Democratic Underground is not as progressive as one may think. It's full of ex-Freepers and right-wing Democrats. Some liberals are there but they are bleeding a lot of people, and the "new" people are from the right and the banned from the left.


                1. I've only been writing on here for a year, but in that time, I've become a "troll nemesis" for true trolls. That is, I will track them online, post their hateful crap from other sites, do everything I can to keep them from taking over here. And everyone on here pitches in, and we're pretty effective at keeping it troll-free here. Even your kind of slash-and-burn insulting is effective for real trolls. N3B and ArapGOP have quit under that onslaught.

                  But these guys on here are stating opinions: "Democrats aren't winning in Colorado anymore." Pols is "an echo chamber". Granted, I disagree with those opinions, but I personally think it's better to challenge them and try to draw them out, make them substantiate their outlandish claims, rather than just dismiss them. Maybe we can all learn something useful. Maybe that's where we have to agree to disagree- on strategy.

                  Real trolls overpost, carpet bomb forums, in BC's words. Real trolls throw out insults, using the same insults you use, insanity, drug addiction, presumed age and job status, etc. Wikipedia defines internet trolls as

                  "a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally[3][4] or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[5] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[6

                  Well, this is the "open thread". There is no set topic. If they want to discuss whether Dems are losing in CO, or if this is too much an echo chamber, let's have at it, civilly, with facts and examples.

                  1. That's a generous perspective, but frankly, I'm growing weary of giving people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to GOP trolls. As a matter of fact, I'm fresh out of doubts to give.     After the last few years of watching people who call themselves conservatives (which used to mean something in terms of logic and reason) run roughshod over the constitution, twist the image of the Founding Fathers into a bunch of Evangelical Christians, and do everything they can to take money from the poor and middle class, to give to the richest of the rich…..I'm done playing nice, just so I can tell myself that I took the high road.  Playing nice with these people gets us nowhere. They only interpret it as weakness. 

                    1. I read what you're saying as anyone who's political views are unacceptable you will call a troll. Because everything you listed there is a differing political view.

                      I also don't like running roughshod over the constitution. But does that mean we call any Obama supporter a troll (due to what the NSA has done? Does that mean we call any Bennet or Udall supporter a troll (due to their supporting Wall St taking money from everyone else to increase their wealth)?

                      You are no different from the tea partiers you detest when you say any opinion you disagree with is illegitimate.

                    2. The well-spread GOP lie that the Founding Fathers were Evangelical Christians is a "differing political view" !?!?!    I know you bend over backwards to straddle the fence and go to satirical lengths to push the both sides are bad philosophy. but… really?  That's not an opinion, David…. That's a freaking LIE. Read a goddamn history book. These "differing opinions" that you are defending with an above-it-all simper are based on LIES. 

                      You can call me whatever you like, but I don't excuse Udall, or Hickenlooper's sucking up to Oil & Gas, or anything this administration has done that I don't agree with (Gitmo, drones, the NSA….you name it).  

                      Send a genuine conservative, or a moderate Republican in here, and as far as I'm concerned, they're welcome.  I'm glad to see them, because they're rare.  They've been silenced, or run off by the people you're defending. I know, because I used to be one of them. But if you think your own mother's ideology (and I have the utmost respect for her) would be welcomed by the vast majority of her own party, you're fooling yourself. She wouldn't last 30 days outside of the tropical paradise she lives in.


                    3. I appreciate diversity of thought . . . the key word there being "thought" — there does have to be some deminimis amount . . .

                      Having siad that, I'm also once again impressed at the manner is which DavidT can . . .

                      "You are no different from the tea partiers you detest when you say any opinion you disagree with is illegitimate."

                      . . . at his advanced age, still kick the holy stuffing out of whatever straw man he can build !!!

                    4. Uh, I never said that claiming the founding fathers were evangelical christians was a fact or even a reasonable opinion. The founding fathers were mostoly Diests and arguably a couple were Athiests.

                      I spoke to the other two items that you listed as unacceptable when they were both clearly political opinion. The straw man here is you claiming I support something I don't, ignoring the arguments I do bring up, then attacking me on that combination.

                      I'll let you make the final reply to this as I don't think you have an open mind on this (or most other) issues.

                    5. Thanks.  My final reply then . . . 

                      David, just because someone doesn't always agree with everything you spout, doesn't necessarily make them closed-minded ( . . . yet another one of your most-favorite straw men) . . . 

                      . . . it just means that you're probably wrong (– once again)!!

                      (And, I'm sure you'll keep an "open mind" as to what I just said.)

                  2. That's cute.

                    I have been lurking on Pols since 08.

                    If GOPwarrior is the same poster from before as claimed – he was the worst type of auto-post, belligerant jerk. (And I'm not sure JeffcoBlue has the right guy – but if he does, GOPwarrior is a lying cheater  too.)

              2. I wish that it was comfortable  for reasonable conservatives to post reasonable arguments and try to back it up.

                Actually, mama, in the many years I have been posting here, there have been a number of articulate, well respected, conservatives who have frequented this site. They are almost always welcomed and treated with respect. Republican 36, ajb, BarronX, among a handful of others, are routinely complemented and thanked for their participation.

                Sadly they are outnumbered by the wingnut trolls and web monkeys who come here looking for trouble, and invariably finding it. I find accusations that Pols is an "echo chamber" to be ludicrous and mildly insulting. Even the progressives on this site feel free to disagree with one another…and frequently do. While I bear no animus toward David and dwyer, I completely disagree with their assessment of this site.

                Granted, usually, conservatives don't really have the facts to back stuff up

                Conservatives who fit this description do not fare well here and, admittedly, are ill-treated. In my view, that is appropriately so. I have no patience with GOP Warrior, Moderatus, n3b, and their ilk.


    1. I guess you stumbled over there, drunk and probably high on bad meth to say that here?

      I'm sure your mommy has some new diapers for you.. 

      GOP is the one that's going to be losing big in '14. The Democrats will be able to recapture the seats that was recalled, and more GOP gun fetishists are going to be thrown out in favor for more gun control.

      Next will be the fundamentalists down South of here that's going to migrate to Idaho or Wyoming where they respectfully can be ignored after more massive defeats.

      So yeah, go back to Peak or Freeperland and go listen to that moron Rush that's continuing to rot your brain.

    1. I wonder if the judge thought he was doing the poor homeless guy a favor? He'll be housed fed, clothed and cared for for the next 15 years, and get clean and sober. Who needs rehab?

      1. While that is a possibility, it is highly unlikely the "bank robber" will get the minimum security, country club detention the CEO criminal no doubt received.

        1. I never said anything about country club minimum security. My point stands. He will be clothed, fed and housed and receive basic medical care and have much more restricted access to alcohol and street drugs. It ain't no country club, but it's more than what he had. 

          1. My comment was intended to compare the not just the length of the sentences, but the relative disparity in the odds of serving time with non-violent white collar criminals vs. surviving in a gang-infested hell hole.

            Growing up in the South, I vividly recall chain gangs working on the side of the roads under the blazing sun with shotgun-wielding deputies standing guard.  And they were probably the trusties.

          2. Personally, I like the way you qualified the statement: "much more restricted access to alcohol and street drugs." I'm glad we're being realists, here. I have to wonder though: Once they're in prison, do "street drugs" become "prison drugs"?

    2. If you ask the good folks at RMGO, that sentence was meted out unfairly only because of the prejudice of the system against even the possibility of gun carry . . . ???

      it's a governmental conspiracy involving all the branches!!!

      . . . and, if you think I'm even kidding a little bit here, check out that RMGO site sometime . . .

      ( . . . just wait the recommended hour, or two, after eating . . . )

  2. Before anyone else tries to grab credit (or compensation) . . . 

    it's Denver vs. Seattle . . .

    . . . in Superbowl XLVIII (aka the bud® bowl)

      1. "It's the kind of thing you think of when you — ABC® !!!"

        (. . . there's an entire Colorado marketing campaign just begging to be let loose . . . )

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

51 readers online now


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