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
September 18, 2015 06:43 AM UTC

Friday Open Thread

  • 40 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“It is easier to criticize than to correct our past errors.”

–Livy

Comments

40 thoughts on “Friday Open Thread

  1. The Collective Psychosis of the Republican Party:

    Peel back the boasting and insults, the lies and exaggerations common to any presidential campaign. What remains is a collection of assertions so untrue, so bizarre, that they form a vision as surreal as the Ronald Reagan jet looming behind the candidates’ lecterns.

    It felt at times as if the speakers were no longer living in a fact-based world where actions have consequences, programs take money and money has to come from somewhere. Where basic laws — like physics and the Constitution — constrain wishes. Where Congress and the public, allies and enemies, markets and militaries don’t just do what you want them to, just because you say they will.

    Before we repeat the "both sides do it" lie, before we are prematurely bipartisan, we need to highlight facts, reality, etc…..and explain why the Democratic position is better than the anti-social and anti-intellectual position of Republicans. It's the job of politicians on our side to counter the bullshit on the other side, no matter how insistent they are.

    1. They are P.T. Barnum. Currently, they are fooling some of the people all of the time. Soon, they will be trying to fool all of the people some of the time – specifically November 2016. 

          1. That's the only reason for hope. Millennials, the majority of whom can't be manipulated so easily by bigotry, racism, homophobia, my way or the highway religion, xenophobia and who, along with the minorities who are soon to collectively reign as the majority, know how hard it is for ordinary and especially young and minority people to find a path to making a decent living even with good educations. They aren't so prone to believe in the fairy tale that giving every advantage only to the already rich is the way to get a share of the good things in life to trickle down to them because it's never worked that way for them in their lifetimes. Our hope resides in them.

      1. The "evolved" Republican Party of today proves that you can fool all Republicans all the time. No need for facts, no need for rational thought, just stir up the angry, hate-filled crowd with whatever giant lie gets them going.

    2. Uncommonly harsh for the editorial board of the NYT – but true.

      Contrast with the Democrats running for the office. I look forward to seeing the first Democratic debate on Oct. 13, and hope that it provides a clear contrast to the Republican clown car.

    1. How about the rest of that bit…..

      Gene Koprowski, Heartland's marketing director, said he and colleagues initially thought the pope had spoken about climate change because he was getting "bad advice." They now think he is inspired in part by "pagan remnants" of "nature worship" that have crept into the church, he said.

      "I think we're seeing the revelation of an animistic form in the church," Koprowski said.

      Because caring about being a good steward of God's creation is so un-Christian and backward. Like science. Very animistic and primitive. 

      He also seems to think the Pope shouldn't be allowed to tell us what to do. Fair enough but wonder if he's fine with Netanyahu telling us what to do. Thing is, anybody, including foreigners, can express what they would like us to do, including climate change deniers, and we can take it or leave it. So my advice would be take deep breaths, Kropowski, and try to get a little control over your over the top hysteria.

      Wonder when the Born Again Hater crowd that has been allied with Catholics over abortion and contraception is going to return to the grand old tradition of being virulently anti-Catholic as a response to this Pope who is a staunch defender of the poor, working folks, the planet, tolerance, economic and social justice and who would rather concentrate on encouraging us to be good to one another and to the Earth that sustains us than on policing points of doctrine while lounging around his gilded palace enjoying the finest of everything that money can buy. 

      Maybe they can even tie that pagan animistic thing in with his being South American. Wouldn't want to let any perfectly serviceable anti-Latino bigotry go to waste.

  2. I mean, really, why do we need regulation?

    The US government has ordered Volkswagen to recall almost 500,000 cars after discovering that the company deployed sophisticated software to cheat emission tests allowing its cars to produce up to 40 times more pollution than allowed.

    Free market FTW! amirite?

      1. If the allegations are true, and I believe they are, Volkswagen's conduct is deplorable. Fines just aren't enough for that kind of conduct. It goes without saying that I won't be buying a Volkswagen or Audi ever.

        1. MB4Koch (thanks mamaj) – At least you recognized the standard form of your argument. I don't expect it to improve for your term here.

          Here ya go, from the article:

          The EPA and Carb discovered the “defeat device” software following independent analysis by researchers at West Virginia University, who were promoted into action by the International Council on Clean Technology, an NGO.

          When confronted with the EPA and Carb’s evidence, VW admitted that its cars were fitted with the “defeat device”.

          Learn to read for comprehension.

        2. #Koch4Colorado: are you equally-appalled that fugitive methane emissions from the fossil-fuel sector have cost Colorado ag producers tens-of-millions in decreased crop production?  Or does your position mirror the industry that negative externalities aren't your problem, ever?  And if our USDA, even under this administration, wasn't so duly influenced by the corporate interests we should have had a price-fixing investigation on your pals propping up CRS in the nitrogen fertilizer sector recently.  When we had a competitive marketplace the price of anhydrous ammonia fertilizer nearly mirrored the price of natural gas; with today's monopoly market for nitrogen fertilizers those price correlations no longer exist.  While we were experiencing record lows at the Henry Hub, nitrogen fertilizer prices were at historic highs, draining hundreds of millions of dollars from rural economies.  

          The production damage doesn't just stop at the state border; it is pervasive across the entire corn belt (see the embedded map).

          To whom should we send the bill?  How should we apply your 'balance equation' to this conundrum? 

          1. I don't see a realistic path to reducing ozone emissions to 40-55 ppb (the threshold cited at which wheat and corn production is effected), when the state is struggling to comply with 75 ppb. The Denver Editorial Board stated that sometimes ambient levels from natural sources outside the state put us at 50 ppb. http://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci_28832291/dont-put-ozone-rules-out-reach

            I agree that the agriculture market is rife with price distortions. As a result, the U.S. agriculture industry produces too much food using unhealthy methods based on a modern-day sharecropping system.

            Removing the anti-competitive practices and welfare for the wealthy that fuels these distortions is critical. Politically, this is an unpopular position because, at least in the short term, food prices should rise. We need food prices, however, to reflect reality. Low-income households would need support in dealing with realistic food prices. Higher prices would have a much-needed positive impact on middle and high income households– we would buy less. We all know we consume too much food. We eat too much, we brunch too much, we eat too much processed food, and we suffer under too many choices.

            I would suggest to help things along that we put a severe limitation on food advertising. Let's treat processed foods like cigarettes.

            A bill that ends policies distorting U.S. food production and outlaws modern-day sharecropping would be great. It should be sent to Senator Bennet's and Senator Gardner's offices. Both Senators support Colorado farmers. http://www.bennet.senate.gov/?p=release&id=3251 Their State Directors and/or COSs would have a meeting with you on your proposed bill.

            1. MB4Koch,

              The Denver Post editorial board is just as deluded as you are. That is, they are data and fact-free, although your posts tend to be deliberately misleading.

              You wrote:

              I don't see a realistic path to reducing ozone emissions to 40-55 ppb (the threshold cited at which wheat and corn production is effected), when the state is struggling to comply with 75 ppb.

              In reality, Colorado is doing well at lowering ozone rates – This article from the Coloradoan says that front range ozone levels are the lowest they have been in 3 years. A quick glance at Colorado's Air Quality index, on the nifty site provided by the CDPE reveals ozone levels right around 50ppb average, at 4pm on Friday Sep 18, so right around rush hour on a fairly hot day with a grass fire burning in Weld County. Today's data is available here.

              So I don't know where the Denver Post editorial board is getting its data – the article says that if a reader consults a chart with 20 year historical data on Denver's ozone, that we're not doing well, but of course it doesn't provide such a chart, so it's right in the journalistic tricksy area of Fox News "Some people say that…" Until the Post provides real data, they have zero credibility, as do you.

              But if you look at what actual scientists measuring actual ozone are saying, we're improving, and this is encouraging, since further improvement is needed. If capping emissions at power plants and continuing Colorado's emissions control program are working, there is no reason why air quality can't continue to improve.

              Your employers, the Koch brothers, the Chambers of Commerce, etc, may prefer not to cite real scientific data, but it's out there.

              I've noticed that you continue to whine about being persecuted or prosecuted on here, but neither you, nor your colleagues Gadfly or KSloan ever actually answer any of my previous posts. 

              I suppose that you have your instructions.

              1. All you'll  get from 4whatever get is a repitition of the same talking points he repeats no matter what facts anyone presents. have you ever seen him address any facts anyone has presented? Instead, he claims we never have presented anything factual. We just call him names. It's just a waste of time.

              2. All you'll  get from 4whatever get is a repitition of the same talking points he repeats no matter what facts anyone presents. have you ever seen him address any facts anyone has presented? Instead, he claims we never have presented anything factual. We just call him names. It's just a waste of time.

              3. All you'll  get from 4whatever get is a repitition of the same talking points he repeats no matter what facts anyone presents. have you ever seen him address any facts anyone has presented? Instead, he claims we never have presented anything factual. We just call him names. It's just a waste of time.

            2. I don't see a realistic path to reducing ozone emissions to 40-55 ppb (the threshold cited at which wheat and corn production is effected), when the state is struggling to comply with 75 ppb.

              I imagine you would have been part of the same crowd who didn't think we could eliminate acid rain without destroying the economy during the Papa Bush years?  The same crowd who simultaneously touts American exceptionalism while never believing in it?  Like health care, yet another Republican idea (cap-and-trade) rejected because the current occupant in the White House is a proponent.

              I didn't mention a thing about agricultural market distortions in my question to you; my point is directed to the environmental damage rooted in fugitive methane emissions that significantly reduce production. A cost borne to agriculture with no 'balance' to the equation regarding just who is responsible for the damage.  We might well agree on the need to end the many things we subsidize in the Farm Bill, but let's save that for a separate discussion.

              My second point was regarding my allegation of nitrogen price fixing.  Now, most of that was tongue-in-cheek: Kochs Brothers are major suppliers of nitrogen fertilizer, so the thought that Cory would have any interest in taking on this issue is naive.  He's paid to pander to the wingers, convincing them the real enemy is that black man in the White House, gunz, gay marriage, etc. – while his masters are fleecing the very same audience.  I have little doubt that Senator Bennet would be anything but sympathetic to this allegation – but he's in the minority in the Senate.  Do you really think there is a single Republican that would take on their banker?

              So back to my initial question, just how do you think we should quantify and allocate the costs of the negative externalities to society?  Just keep pretending that fossil fuel extraction is 'cheap'?

  3. Senator Bennet was part of some interesting energy news this week.

    First, an American Wind Energy Association report highlights Colorado's growth in the wind energy sector. In 2014, Colorado was 1st in the nation in manufacturing jobs and 3rd in wind energy jobs at 6,000. 

    http://www.bennet.senate.gov/?p=news&id=3438

    The positive growth is attributed to the extension of the Production Tax Credit. I remember when its extension was up for debate. I appreciate Senator Bennet's fight to extend it and promote job growth.

    Second, Denver's Editorial Board published an op-ed, advising caution in the EPA's approach to ozone emission regulation.

    http://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci_28832291/dont-put-ozone-rules-out-reach

    Gov. Hickenlooper and Sen. Bennet have both warned that national emissions standards which fail to consider regional environmental conditions could have a devastating impact on Colorado. I won't ever be so brave as to chug fracking fluid like Hick, but I appreciate their thoughtful and sensitive approach to both protecting Colorado's environment and maintaining job growth.

    1. Bennet worried about emissions standards =  bullshit. Denver Post worried about ozone – bullshit. Hickenlooper drinking fracking fluid = bullshit. Your "thoughtful and sensitive approach" = bullshit.

      Your employer, Center for Regulatory Solutions = bullshit.

    2. Oh and look. Right after you post your please like me because I'm conditionally mad at VW too, here comes another "public service" message from Big Oil and Gas. You're nothing if not predictable, little sock puppet.

       

      1. The twisted fuck probably is genuinely angry at VW . . .

        . . . for not sharing their emissions-inspection-avoidance technology with his oily Colorado buddies!

      2. Predictable– you refuse to discuss the substance and always attack the credibility of the source. You keep using the same play from the same playbook of the conservative Republicans that you so openly despise. Both predictable and ironic, so you get two points.

        If I wanted this kind of back and forth that seems to qualify as discourse on this site, I could turn on a cable news channel. 

        1. Well fix yourself a bowl of popcorn and tire up a little Hannity, then …

          … maybe come back when you've got something worthwhile to shill — gold futures or ED medication, maybe —  instead of just your tired Kochy BS?

        2. Oh, poor you. Search on mamaj's and Michael Bowman's posts for lots of counterpoint to your industry generated "facts". How about addressing some of these rebuttals?

          But no, it's LaLaLaLaLaLa you haven't addressed my points LaLaLaLaLaLa.

          So when folks here start dismissing you out of hand, it's us who are being rude to you.

          Poor victim.

        3. Look, we know what you're doing. We all gave actual engagement a try when you first showed up but what you really are up to quickly became apparent. So if you want to go watch TV instead, buh-bye. You won't be missed. 

        4. First, if we've decided now that we're going to keep it real,choose another name.  The handle you chose alone is reason enough to ignore you.  It's such a fundamentally transparent attempt at expressing false empathy that it's a continual insult to me to see it in threads on this board.

          Second, every argument you present on this board is the same. (1) Claim solidarity with those concerned about the environment, (2) Express common cause with <insert name of democratic politician or group here>, (3) Link to article about fossil fuel regulations that expresses opposition to them, (4) State that "balance" is required between environmental actions and emissions regulations.

          Your arguments all come down to that, don't they, "balance."  Balance between rising sea levels and industry profits.  Balance between sick children and jobs.  Balance between the devastation of wildfires in California and the "benefits" of the oil and gas economy.  Only, and here's the rub, you don't have the fucking balls to actually make your argument.  You're perfectly happy to identify the exaggerated consequences of transitioning off fossil fuels to industry and workers, but the other side of the scale always holds the amorphous "environment."  "Balance" as an argument is a fallacy.  Argumentum ad temperantiam, the false compromise.  The fantasy that the truth always lies between two positions.  It doesn't.  Sometimes the sick and dying people, and the burning land, and the rising sea, and the poisoned sky are right.

  4. The prosecution rests. 

    I wish it were possible to have an intelligent discussion based on emoticons and funny internet images.

    I know you are shocked, horrified, and surprised that the xenophobic, colonial, war-mongering, and racist rhetoric of the far-right gets more traction than moderate and voices, and positively drowns out progressive thought. But, you shouldn't if you use the same far-right discussion tactics for precisely the same reason– to get attention. 

    And you all score a bonus point, for responses that relate to the quote that opens the thread.

    1. More like "The persecution rests."

      About trying to get attention.  Do you think it's more likely that those of us who are responding to you, who frequently come to this board and discuss things with each other, really think we're getting much attention from people other than ourselves?  And, do you think that calling yourself MichaelBennet4CO, which can only be seen as a cry for attention, really helps with your credibility to make that claim?

      As for the quote up top?  I have another for you.  Physician heal thyself.

    2. Do you think any of this is doing you any good here. Winning you any credibility? As for your complaint, look back through the comments from the day you arrived and you'll see plenty of thoughtful fact based responses with links at first. They petered out quickly because you're really bad at pretending to be what you aren't. So you may as well take your ball and go home. We're bored with the game anyway.

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

45 readers online now

Newsletter

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