President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta



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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson



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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd



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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese



CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore



CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk



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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans



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
February 19, 2014 06:11 AM UTC

Wednesday Open Thread

  • by: Colorado Pols

"He that will be angry for anything will be angry for nothing."



66 thoughts on “Wednesday Open Thread

      1. David, well done, sir.


        Say for a minute this guy's compenstated for trolling. When, upon posting something that gets rammed back down his throat IE the horrific image of the oil soaked bird shown above, and, as a result, his "cause" suffers a "net loss" through the exchange, does the aforementioned troll still get paid?

        BC, any ideas as to how that works?

        1. Trolls are just to drum up responses. Any kind will do. They love long flame wars. The best response is therefore no response.  If there is nothing there when they check their response boxes, they're failing. If there's stuff there, positive or negative, they're succeeding. I've made this exception to respond to your direct question this once even though this response to your response to David's response to the troll is indeed in the troll's response box. The goal should be empty troll response boxes. Check the nesting boxes back to original box before responding. I'm still getting the hang of it.

        1. My cats stay in or go out with us when we're on the deck or in the yard. They're old enough to where they enjoy just watching, don't stray and when we want them to come in all we have to do is shake the dry food bag. Then we always let them have some so it always works. Please don't decimate, although technically I guess that would mean killing a tenth of my two cats which would require math. A fifth of one or a tenth of each? In any case, doing any harm to my cats would require me to kill you and that would really screw up both our plans for the rest of our lives. One is on my lap right now. He says "Hi" and "Don't mess with me". Hope you're not allergic.

          1. wink

            Nope. Not allergic, I'm OK with cats, I suppose . . .

            . . . I mean, coyotes gotta' eat, too!

            (Besides, I owe you for dissing Castle Rock a couple of weeks back!)

          2. Att Rocco: See I screwed up here,  My response is contained in the nest within the trolls originating response box. Should have looked for a break indicating a new box with a new set of nests. This could be fun. An unpack the boxes to avoid entering a troll zone game.

            1. In general, I agree: Don't feed the trolls. I'd also suggest that ColoradoPols cut off URLs that go to right-wing propaganda networks.

              In specific circumstances, however, the appearance of a right-wing meme is an opportunity to list several easy responses. Depending on what the troll says, there is an opportunity to provide counter talking points, especially helpful for us offline, when talking to our stupid brother in law, or our low-info-neighbor.

              So for example,

              Wind Energy vs Birds: This is 10 years out of date. The towers on modern wind turbines have all been designed so raptors don't roost on the I-beams, and the blades spin much, much slower. Pet cats, buildings and raptors kill far, far more birds than wind turbines. 

              Insurance Policy Cancellations: (1) ALL insurance policies are revisited by the private insurance companies each year, and prices and terms are shifted around to maximize profits, while trying to drive sick people off the rolls. Every year, during open-season, HR departments or small business people have to reprice or change insurance providers.

              (2) Insurance serves (at least) 4 purposes, avoiding Catastrophic costs and bankruptcy, Prepaid Health Care, covering chronic conditions, spreading risk across a large pool. Obamacare regulates insurance policies to prohibit Junk Insurance, provide a floor on insurance policies which means all policies must offer more than catastrphic, gender equality, so men and women pay the same, age fairness, so older people get higher, but not radically higher prices.

      1. House cat means it stays in the house. That's what I tell my orange tabby who sits at the front door and talks to the birds on the other side of the screen. He "chatters" at them and I can translate. "come here little bird. Delicious little bird. Come here so I can eat you."

  1. As of January 15, 2014 :

    Meanwhile, the state's insurance commissioner, Marguerite Salazar, revealed that 335,484 Coloradans received insurance cancellation letters

    As of February 1st: The total number of individuals  in Colorado who selected a plan on the Colorado version of Obamacare site was 68,454.

    Wasn't the idea to increase the number of people covered by health insurance?

    1. Do you actually have insurance?

      All insurance policies get cancelled every year. They are then replaced with a new one. That is how insurance policies work.

      Sorry, I should say private insurance. Medicare and medicaid don't change.

      1. PH, let me help you.

        At the end of the year when your policy ends, it is not cancelled.  Sometimes it is referred to as expiring.  Or it ended.

        An existing policy that you can not renew because your insurance company choses not to, or is forced not to, offer the policy for an additional period of time, when that policy ends it is referred to as being cancelled.

        If you are offered the same policy as you had before and you accept it, that is called a renewal.

        Over 335,000 Coloradoans had their policies cancelled because the government decided that the existing insurance policies should not be allowed to be renewed.

        Hope that helps.

          1. PR.  The updated policy offering was not a renewal of the existing policy because the terms were changed, like adding coverages that may or may not be helpful, but which became mandatory and somethimes expensive.

      2. Park Hill, I'm curious as to how many "disaster" or "catastrophic" policies are included in this 335,649 number.

        Just an FYI for someone that might not know what those are, (I know you do, PH), catastrophic policies cover just that………..horrific incidents…….but……..the "policy holder" (translated: the American taxpayer)is responsible for EVERYTHING ELSE!

        One of the things republicans were "concerned" about back before the nation elected a not completely white Democrat (twice) to the Presidency was the alarming and unsustainable costs to ER's when "uninsureds" were treated there. The Heritage Foundation actually proposed the main framework of the ACA, and in that framework was the abolishment of the "catostrophic" policies.

        So, yeah, I'd love to know how many of those "cancelled" policies are "catostrophic".

  2. Posted these links late last night so I'm posting again today. These are all studies that show what has actually happened after minimum wage raise as opposed to what CBO predicts will happen. In other words, established fact as opposed to projection.


    1. Att: Rocco. I did it right this time.  Started a new box. Note the break. Anything in this nest belongs to me, not the troll, and traces back only from me to the originating diary. Same goes for James Dodd comment below. 

      Fun and games with nesting boxes. If troll messes up my box with a reply, as long as you don't reply in his reply box but hit my reply or reply to someone else's reply to me, not to the troll, you will not have entered the troll zone. We could make it a drinking game in reverse. You get to have a drink every time you don't enter the troll zone.

      1. I've been trying to stay out of Troll's nesting boxes in making ponts about some of the BS.  But you seemed to find that a problem.  Hence my confusion about what exactly the rules are in your world.  

        1. Sorry. Would have to check back and see if I complained when you were not within the troll nest and why. Like I said, I know I've screwed up myself. I do remember protesting a remark you said was an indirect troll reply and I contend was a response to a non or yet to be determined troll and not in an established troll's box. If I erred, my bad. 

          Let's start with a clean slate and enjoy the stay out of the troll zone game from here on out. If it was going to be easy it wouldn't be much of a game, right?

        2. Wait. I think you must be referring to my comment about being disappointed in the amount of troll feeding still going on. You will note, that wasn't a response to you. It was a general thread response, not in anyone else's response box, and was taking note of people in general continuing to respond to the troll. It just happened to be under your last comment but not in your box, so not directed to you specifically. A box has to be inside another box to be a response to the comment in that other box. Underneath is simply proximity. Remember, it's nesting, not linear, boxes that determine what is being directed to whom. Told you it wasn't easy. 

            1. Its best not to feed trolls.  Sometimes telling people not to feed trolls, feeds trolls.  Its a terrible thing.  I also think its good to counter bullshit with fact, in a seperate comment outside troll's nested boxes.  

              1. OK. Technically any response outside of a troll's box nest would be OK. But hang on. Voyageur (scroll way down to his comment) points out how trolls are good for the blog because they add traffic which attracts more advertising. So now I'm torn. I still plan to shun the one troll we all know we're talking about. Could we stay out of the troll's box and just comment even more than we ready do? How about asking Voyageur to comment more? Or is the game doomed?

                  1. Guys, there are two easy options.  Just Reply directly to the person you are speaking to (hopefully not in the trolls nest box), or scroll all the way to the bottom and start an new nest/thread directly attached to the top of the thread, thus not adding to the troll count.

                    1. Yes, replying to a person puts you in their box but if you are replying to their reply to someone else that puts you in that other person's nest of boxes, too.  As you say, if you are just making a comment about the content of the diary or a general observation on what's going on in the thread or want to introduce a new subject on an open thread, then you scroll to the bottom and use the reply that belongs to the diary, not to a fellow commenter on the diary

                      But, as Voyageur points out, I suppose it's all good as all comments contribute to the amount of traffic on and the success of the blog.

                      I still think staying out of the troll's box would have been a great drinking game. And of course, the more you drink, the harder it becomes to keep track of how all the nesting boxes fit together. Personally I'm still going to stay out of that one particular troll's box. It's just too revolting in there.

                    2. Agreed! 

                      This BC thread appears to have run out of runway, so replying to the last available reply button to let you know your comment was received and understood 🙂

  3. Jared Polis endorses fast track. Polis individually endorsed a statement from the chairman of the New Democrat Coalition calling for the passage of the "Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act of 2014." This is the same bill the Harry Ried said he would not allow to come to the floor of the Senate.

    Hey, you folks in Boulder – what's the deal. You need to lean on Polis very hard.

    Sorry, but the link feature of thiw wonderful improved website kept freezing up on me and would not allow me to post a link other than the old fashioned way.

    1. Yeh! Vlad the Impaler was unhappy with the loss to the U.S.–wonder how his mood is this morning with an elimination loos to the Finns—that's right, the Finn's!!

      What sweet revenge for the Winter War!

  4. The last arguments against raising the minimum wage are gone

    Here are the main points. See if you can guess which one has gotten the most headline play in the news.

    1. Wages would rise for 16.5 million workers.

    2. Income for families living below the poverty line would rise by a combined $5 billion, and by $12 billion for those earning less than three times the poverty level.

    3. About 900,000 people would be moved out of poverty.

    4. The raise would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers.

    If you guessed No. 4, have a cookie: You're an expert in knowing how public policy gets reported in the U.S.


    1. But the CBO report makes clear that even with a job loss of 500,000 — in fact, even with 1 million — the raise to $10.10 is distinctly a net plus to the economy. Overall national income would rise by $2 billion, and the effect on the federal budget would be minuscule. The report also shows that even a raise to $10.10 an hour would leave the U.S. minimum wage lower — in real, inflation-adjusted terms — than it was in 1975.,0,486403.story#ixzz2tnvYhJG7

  5. CT,  Think how many more people you could help if you raised it to $100 per hour.  Do I hear $200?  The sky is the limit of how many people you would help if there were no other consequences.

    In the real world, the price of a hamburger is $10 if you pay the burger flipper $100 per hour and a lot of burger shops go out of business.

    1. Actually you can provide a very reasonable hamburger at that wage:

      We start all our new Associates at a minimum of $10.50 an hour for one simple reason…you are important to us! And our commitment to a higher starting wage is just one of the ways in which we show it. Another way is through offering excellent part-time and full-time benefits like flexible schedules to accommodate school and other activities, paid vacations, free meals, comprehensive training, and a 401k plan.

      Price of a hamburger with those wages you claim will cause a $10.00 burger – it's $1.60. 

      1. Dave I said if they paid the flipper $100 per hour the burger would cost $10.

        The logic of change one variable, wages and all the other variables remain the same is faulty.

  6. I'm discouraged by the amount of troll feeding still going on here. Please remember trolls love all responses including, perhaps especially, insulting ones. Please consider refusing to attend this troll's party.

  7. I'll break the "Don't feed the trolls" rule to address you directly, AC, this once.

    I was wrong on there being no actual death in the "Obamacare killed my sister" story- and I admitted that yesterday, when I found family members who were actually grieving, as opposed to exploiting the story for political points.

    I'm right on the rest of our objections to this story – that it exploits a tragedy in order to further a false political meme, which you have promoted endlessly and tiresomely on here, the lie that "Udall / Obama/ WTF ever cancelled people's insurance."

    I still find that disgusting. That is why you are, and will continue to be, shunned. You take human tragedies and try to further your own agenda with them. That is the problem. It isn't about CT and you, or you and anyone. It's you and your "get the libs riled up" games.

    Oh, yeah, and the gratuitious insults, distorting people's names, posting and taking over threads, cross-posting to CPP, and other troll-like behaviors don't endear you to anyone, either. We have plenty of conservatives, Republicans, independents, and unaffiliated people posting on here. The ones that gain some traction for their points of view follow rules for civilized behavior. So far, that doesn't seem to be true in your case.

  8. Blue Cat, don't worry so much about trolls.  Their comments and responses may indeed feed their egos.   But they also count as traffic on Pols, thereby helping to attract advertisers that keep the blog running and vital.  The trolls may worship Satan, but their net effect is to help the lord's work. Here on pols.  Ultimately, their stupidity is our best weapon.

    1. Fucking fucked fucking fucker.  Fuck!

      (As a gun owner myself, I got nothing else here!  Stupid fucking gundamentalists – minus the mental, I suppose.)

      1. Pardon my peevishness, but this is one of my great irritants.  Jefferson didn't write the Constitution.  Jefferson wasn't on this continent when the Constitution was written.  He was in France.

  9. More on that CBO report.  Several economists cited in it don't agre with it.

    Republicans opposed to a minimum wage hike got more fodder for their case Tuesday when the Congressional Budget Office released a report stating that a $10.10 minimum wage could cost the economy about 500,000 jobs. But some economists say that estimate may be overblown, and at least three whose research was cited in the report are now questioning that figure.

    In a blog published by ThinkProgress on Thursday, Michael Reich, director of University of California-Berkeley's Institute for Research on Labor, argues that the CBO doesn't clearly explain how it came up with the 500,000 estimate. In his reading, it seems the budget analysts relied too heavily on studies "with methodological flaws" that found a higher minimum wage to be a job killer.

    "They rely on the research literature, and the way they rely on the research literature is they say, 'Well, there are all these estimates out there' and then they somehow synthesize those estimates to one number," Reich told HuffPost. "In my view, they used numbers that were too high, based on what the research actually says."

    Arindrajit Dube, an economist at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, said the CBO "put their thumb on the scale a little bit."

    "The CBO report puts too much weight on lower quality studies," said Dube, whose research is also cited by the CBO.

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

58 readers online now


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