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
March 12, 2016 02:12 AM UTC

Weekend Open Thread

  • by: Colorado Pols

“Nothing can confound a wise man more than laughter from a dunce.”

–Lord Byron


53 thoughts on “Weekend Open Thread

  1. If Trump was even a half decent R he'd have toned down the rhetoric months ago rather than reveling in the "passion" of his supporters.

    The Chicago protest was inevitable. Further and greater violence is inevitable. I support the protests and encourage it

    1. And as always the case, if you stand up to a bully, like all cowards, they will turn tail and run.  Chicago police had the situation under control and did not advise Trump to cancel.  Trump was afraid to confront such a large demonstration of bravery in the face of his hate speech and demagoguery.

      But Chicago police said they had sufficient manpower on the scene to handle the situation and did not recommend that Trump cancel the rally. That decision was made independently by the campaign, said police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi.


      1. Yep. They're so tough and brave when it's a teenage girl or a lone Muslim woman or even a young black male as long as they have him outnumbered hundreds to one. But the toughness fades into whining about thugs when confronted with anythig close to equal numbers. I'm so proud of the students at Chicago's U of I campus.


        1. My wife was proud of them, too. She was a student on that campus back in the 70s. 

          As for that hot dog. It’s a wonder they didn’t toss him in the water it came out of!

          1. According to article in today's Post, a student quote was that students intended to shut the rally down. In other words, liberal students denying freedom of speech of those they disagree with. More campus P.C. (and I state this as a non-fan of Mr. Trump). 

            1. Not so fast. Leaving aside that you have one nebulous student quote to go on, let's remember that Trump is the one who has banned free speech from his rallies.

              He is the one who urges his supporters to forcibly eject anyone who expresses disagreement even by quietly holding a sign. This is so well known by now it  seems highly inappropriate for any public institution to agree to host his rallies knowing that he, unlike any of the other candidates in either party, will be encouraging violence against any dissenters.

              If thousands of students at this diverse city campus objected to hosting a rally which they and everyone else at this late date knew would be a gathering where thugs encouraged by their leader Trump  would be brutally attacking anyone exercising their right to express dissent, even if only silently, then they had every righ and even a responsibility to protest.  Free speech doesn't mean anyone has to give you their venue for a platform. It means the government can't silence you by throwing you in jail for what you say.

              Among thousands their will be different motivations. The very few incidents of injury attest to the fact that most of the protesters were not there to commit violence.

              Whether the intention was to stop the rally the fact is team Trump called it off. The police have stated that they didn't request that the event be canceled. neither did the city government. Team Trump was gutless when faced with thousands instead fof a few to bully.

              Despite Trumps claim that there have been "bad" people at his rallies throwing punches at his supporters not one incident of a protester throwing a first punch at anyone at any of his rallies has ever been substantiated while dozens of incidents of Trump encouraged violence (getem outta here) by his supporters against protesters have not only been witnessed but recorded.

              Trump doesn't need to worry about any threat to free speech at his rallies since he himself banned free speech from them from day one.

                1. They're rallies for a political candidate, not debate forums. Nothing wrong with picketing outside the venue. Inside, well, if you get punched out, that's how it goes. How would Bernie feel if far right wingers (think Cliven Bundy militia thug types) starting trying to take over his rallies?

                  1. First, the Chicago incident was the only one that involved large numbers of protesters acting in concert. Second, I never said they were anything but rallies so I have no idea what point you're making by needlesly informing me that they're not debate forums. D'uh. 

                    Prior to Chicago the numerous examples of people attacked by Trump's brave brownshirt wannabes were cases of lone surrounded protesters, some of them doing nothing more than holding a sign or wearing a T-shirt, none of them behaving remotely like Bundy's armed militia thugs so that example of yours doesn't hold water. Not at all. They were not armed and did not engage in any violence, have a snowball's chance in hell of taking over anything nor were they swinging at anyone as Trump claims. Very, very lame, CHB.

                    But the most telling point is that while many hecklers have been present at other candidates' campaigns they have not been "punched out" nor have any other candidates, R or D, encouraged supporters to rough up hecklers. So, no CHB, that's very much not just "the way it goes". You're quite full of it to say it is.

                    The Chicago protest, the first organized large scale protest effort, was oranized by students and allied groups. They were not sent there by the Sanders campaign. Trumps threats to send thugs to Sander's campaign in retaliation coupled with his exhortations to his followers to rough people up are exactly like Hitler's tactics during his rise.  

                    Not that Trump is just like Hitler and it's laughable to imagine he'd have the same degree of success in becoming an American dictator, but in that particular respect he is indeed mimicking Hitler and it is not just "the way it goes" with any other candidate at any of their rallies.

                    I'm surprised by your weak, lame response, CHB. Sounds more like something I'd expect from Modster.


            2. The Constitution limits govt rights. The govt may not constrain your 1st Amendment right. Individuals may shout without limit, interrupt without limit. The govt may not limit my right to interrupt unless we get into the 'shouting "fire" in a crowded theater' kind of scenario.

              I so think it interesting that SCOTUS has never further defined the 'fire' extremity




              1. In my view, no one has the "right" to disrupt a rally and prevent someone else from speaking.  Dems would be well advised to understand that simple message if they don't want anarchy to prevail, oh, and win in November. 

                Always let your opponent dig their own hole.

                1. Trump encourages his brownshirts to attack those "disrupting" by silently holding up signs. I don't think public universities should provide their students’ space for a rally where they know orderly protesters will be attacked. Freedom of speech doesn't mean anybody has to offer their house as a platform. Good for the students of the Chicago U of I campus for saying … you can't treat people that way in our house. The attention this thousands strong protest has brought has already resulted in more media coverage of Trump supporters’ violence at other events. And that’s a good thing.

                  1. Again, protesters who are screaming and making it impossible for Trump to continue have, and should be, escorted out of a rally, and perhaps charged with a civil disturbance crime.  Those who are silently holding signs should be allowed to stay.  This is regardless of what Trump "encourages" his supporters to do.  Once the screamers begin then it becomes a free for all where it's probably impossible to know who are the screamers and who are the silent protesters.  Better yet, protesters should show up outside the arena and peacefully demonstrate their disapproval.

                    Check out Fox News to learn how we are losing this battle, right or wrong.  I want to win in November, hopefully in a landslide.  Winning the votes of Independents and Republicans will happen if we don't respond to Trump in kind.  Otherwise, the so-called "Silent Majority" may hold their noses and vote for "He who shall not be named".

                    There should be room for only one Stupid Party in this country. Don’t make it two.

                    1. People quietly holding signs, however, are roughed up and kicked out and it is with Trump's encouragement and it is unique to Trump rallies.

                      There has been no denial of free speech except by Trump at his rallies.

                      Nobody shut down his Chicago event but Trump. No authorities asked him to cancel. Not the police, the city or the university. No one.   

                      I think the more attention brought to just how un-American and Nazi-like his rallies are the better. Such rallies should have no place in public, tax supported venues.

                      Free speech has never meant speech without consequence. A consequence of a continuing and routine practice of beating people up and "gettin' 'em outta here" should be the withdrawal of the welcome mat at any publicly funded venues.

                      He has never and still doesn't enjoy the support of any majority "silent” or otherwise. He simply enjoys the support of the biggest chunk of a divided field on the Republican and Republican leaning side. 

                      We obviously won't agree. Time will tell us whether your fears are well founded or not. 

                2. I'd be poud to protest any Trump  event here. Threats like this aren't a free speech issue as long a Trump isn't being punished by the government for them.That doesn't mean we have to give him a platform for them:

                  WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Sunday threatened to send his supporters to the campaign rallies of Democrat Bernie Sanders, showing no sign of toning down his rhetoric after clashes erupted at his own events over the weekend.

                  Trump, front-runner for the Republican nomination, appeared unchastened after simmering discord between his supporters and protesters angry over his positions on immigration and Muslims turned into a palpable threat on Friday, forcing him to cancel a Chicago rally and shadowing his campaign appearances on Saturday.

                  Trump blamed supporters of Democratic candidate Sanders for the incidents in Chicago, where scuffles broke out between protesters and backers of the real estate magnate. He called the U.S. senator from Vermont "our communist friend".

                  On Sunday, he went a step further in an early morning post on Twitter: "Bernie Sanders is lying when he says his disruptors aren't told to go to my events. Be careful Bernie, or my supporters will go to yours!"


    1. Great. Yeah …  that's crazy but still voting for her because the crazy proves she's conservative enough. Guess if a person doesn't sound crazy they might be too moderate. What an electorate. 

  2. Just when I think I have heard everything, comes this from CNS, a very right wing site. Just reading the comments section is enough reason to check out this compiliation of claptrap.


    NIH: Nearly 6 Million Americans Suffer From ‘Marijuana Use Disorder’


    Researchers found that the 6.3 percent of the study participants who smoked pot an average of 274 days per year had “lifetime diagnoses” of marijuana use disorder, which “was associated with other substance use disorders, affective disorders, anxiety, and personality disorders.”

    “To be diagnosed with the disorder, individuals must meet at least two of 11 symptoms [listed in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disordersthat assess craving, withdrawal, lack of control, and negative effects on personal and professional responsibilities,” the study stated.

    “Severity of the disorder is rated as mild, moderate, or severe depending on the number of symptoms met.”

    “The new analysis complements previous population-level studies by Dr. Grant’s group that show that marijuana use can lead to harmful consequences for individuals and society,” NIAAA director George Koob commented.  


    BTW no symptoms listed at the link provided in the story

    1. It is a real NIH study. It's well-credentialed from reputable medical institutions. But it still wasn't asking the right questions.

      But the same study says 20% of adults have "alcohol use disorder", while 2.9% had this "marijuana use disorder" (MID) symptoms in 2012-2013.  The people they say have the disorder use it 75% of the year (274/365 days). 

      It doesn't distinguish at all between medicinal and recreational use. I would guess that a good proportion of those using pot 75% of the time have a sound medical reason to do so, and that some of these "symptoms" described as MID symptoms might well be related to the underlying medical condition.

      So, while the study recommended that cannabis stay on schedule 1 and is a "dangerous substance", it did not make the common sense comparison to alcohol, nor did it factor in the medicinal use, which is increasingly common. 

    2. In 2014, 6.5 million Americans aged 12 or older (or 2.5 percent) had used prescription drugs nonmedically in the past month; 88,000 people die annually from our Guv's favorite drug, alcohol. 

      Estimates are that addictive personalities represent +/- 3% of the population. These are all examples rooted in mental health issues.  For each irresponsible user we could trot out 50 who don't fit the profile  

      Ending Prohibition isn't 'The Great Social Experiment' – the grand experiment is Prohibtion.  It failed.  


  3. Briefly (soon turned it off) saw Trump at an Ohio rally on MSNBC today carrying on about how the professional organized protesters (you could tell they were pros from their printed rather than hand painted signs, he said, surrounded by printed Trump signs) in Chicago had taken away his supporters freedom of speech and prevented the event from going forward. A lie since neither the city not the police asked him to cancel. He was the one preventing the event from going forward. Nobody else.

    He paused occasionally in his tirade to direct his supporters to get some protesters "out of here" and never seemed to be aware that freedom of speech extends to people who don't agree with Donald Trump.  In interviews, neither do the talking heads who never ask him why he believes in suppressing all dissent, why it's OK when his supporters snatch and rip up protest signs but it's thugs trampling freedom of speech when protesters rip up his supporters' signs.  

    Rubio did a much better job than anyone on supposedly liberal MSNBC of expressing disgust with Trump's instigating violence against anyone who disagrees with him. For a change Rubio seemed natural, not scripted, as if he can't believe this thug is the guy who's burying him.  And it's true,as both he and Cruz point out, that there are protesters at all candidate events but the violence only occurs at Trump's and with his enthusiastic encouragement.

    Rubio also came closest to saying he couldn't support Trump as a nomimee while Cruz, after expressing dismay with the culture Trump creates in which violence takes place, still was happy to say he'd definitely support the nominee, no matter who it turns out to be.

    Shame on MSNBC. They still give Trump constant coverage at the expense of other candidates’ events (this coverage was going on while a Kasich event was occuring which they only showed in a little silent box in the corner of the Trump coverage) to vomit his lies and hate speech and do little to call him on any of it. 

    1. Maybe consider that it's a media plot to give massive PR in hopes that Trump is the R nominee and gets wiped out by Hilary in the general. 

      Maybe you'd rather have the modern day Mussolini and far right wing religious zealot, Sen. Cruz, as the nominee? 

      1. I'm proud of students standing against Trump and his violent brownshirts  who routinely deny freedom of speech to anyone who voices dissent or even expresses dissent quietly by holding up signs at his rallies by roughing up and tossing out any dissenters. If these students are saying you aren't going stage Hitleresque rallies encouraging racial, ethnic and religion based hate, violation of human rights, torture, murder of civilans and beating up anyone who protests in our house then I say I only wish there  had been people like them to stand against Hitler when he was doing the exact same thing. 

        1. Wrong place. Meant this in response to anothero f your comments. No I don't consider it a media plot for anything but riding the ratings gravy train.They should still be ashamed.

  4. Rubio has already recovered from his single moment of moral clarity vis a vis Trump. Yeah Trumps a dick but turns out it's all Obama's fault after all. He's the one who coursened the debate. Cover the kids' ears. Obama's on TV?

    Anyhoo, when asked for an example he finds one only by going back in time to 2011 and putting a whole bunch of words in Obama's mouth. If he's stepping on his own most admirable moment in the vain hope that walking it back will help him somehow I'd really like to know WTF he's been smokin'.

    1. Agree. Cruz is the scariest of the two but Trump's followers are the scariest of all. Unlike Trump who just says stuff to stir his crowds up, they believe it.

  5. From a William Kristol piece in the Weekly Standard entitled The Horror in which he argues, pretty weakly, that there's still time to stop Trump. Kind of sounds like what he has in mind is something like we should all clap our hands really hard for Tinkerbell. His conclusion?

    If time runs out, and Trump prevails in the Republican contest, many of us will rally behind an independent Republican candidate to save the honor of the party, and to offer a decent alternative to the American people. Edmund Burke, the founder both of party government and of modern conservatism, wrote, "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."


    Of course he must know that the alternative would simply be to give Republicans an honorable candidate to vote for in a loss. So pretty much an admission that HRC would be a better alternative. That must have smarted.

    1. But, honestly, ya'll…Isn't all this just an extension of the notorious "one percent doctrine" followed by those noted war criminals. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush (in descending order of culpability, IMHO)? When your (Bush administration) foreign policy is essentially "hey, motherfucker…look at us sideways and we'll bomb your cities into rubble"…what do expect the next guy to speak for the GOP to say?

  6. Oh, God..My head hurts…I just listened to an interview of Donald Trump on Meet The Press..that was the most insane exchange of words I have heard in recent memory..

    Holy madman, Batman….

    1. I noticed that, too, Duke. Trump is incoherent, rambling, easily distracted, and apparently a pathological liar. I saw that in his St. Louis rally yesterday.  What would he be like under the stresses of the Presidency? (shudder)

      Set aside the unspecific, unworkable policies, the appealing to people's anger and fear, and you're left with a dangerously mentally unstable individual.

      I know I said I wouldn't be back until after Tuesday, but for you, I'll make an exception.

  7. Finally the truth from Trump. When asked about his latest wild allegations founded entirely on an internet hoax, he refused as usual to retract ….

    “All I know is what's on the Internet,” the GOP front-runner said.

    Yep, That's where the would be future Commander in Chief and leader of the free world gets all hs info. The same place your crazy uncles and in laws do.

    Not to worry. He's having his lawyers look into it. The same ones who've been looking into whether or not the military has to obey an unlawful order, no doubt.

  8. This is a very interesting article about the support of Trump by white nationalists who are pretty sure he doesn't feel the way they do about a lot of stuff but love the effect they see him having on the culture. There's a lengthy discussion towards the end about their interesting view of Jews. They don't think we're white and seem to think that's a big deal. I've got news for them. We've always known we're not, you know….white, white, pure as the driven snow white… in the eyes of the larger culture, at least those of us with a lick of sense have always known it. And to say it doesn't bother most of us one iota, quite the opposite, is an understatement. Let the meshugenah goyim worry about stuff like that. wink

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

73 readers online now


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