U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser (D) Joe Neguse (D) Michael Bennet
50% 50% 50%
Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Jena Griswold

(D) Brian Mason

60%↑

30%↑

20%↓

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

45%↓

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 31, 2017 06:48 AM UTC

Tuesday Open Thread

  • 28 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“The passion for destruction is also a creative passion.”

–Mikhail Bakunin

Tweet
Share

Comments

28 thoughts on “Tuesday Open Thread”

  1. Your cowardly Democrats at work ensuring President-for-Life Donald J. Trump gets the Supreme Court seat stolen by Republicans as their last act of subterfuge against Barack Obama

    and his duly elected, double-mandated government:

    Senate Democrats are weighing whether to avoid an all-out war to block President Donald Trump's upcoming Supreme Court pick, instead considering delaying that battle for a future nomination that could shift the ideological balance of the court, sources say.

    Democrats privately discussed their tactics during a closed-door retreat in West Virginia last week. And a number of Democrats are trying to persuade liberal firebrands to essentially let Republicans confirm Trump's pick after a vigorous confirmation process — since Trump is likely to name a conservative to replace the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.

    They could probably hold up a Supe for a year or more. And they would be fully justified in doing so. 

    But, why?

    Democrats: Keeping that powder dry until something causes them to actually stand up for some principle somewhere.

    1. well lookie here:

      Senate Democrats deployed a dramatic eleventh-hour maneuver to deny committee votes to two of President Donald Trump’s Cabinet picks Tuesday, arguing that those nominees had lied to them.

      Senators on the Finance Committee were set to vote on Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) to lead the Department of Health and Human Services and Steve Mnuchin to lead the Treasury Department. But on Tuesday morning, they simply didn’t show up for the votes, denying Republicans the quorum they needed to move forward toward confirmation. At least one Democrat needs to be present for the vote to happen.

      Both Trump nominees LIED to the Committee. I believe that might even be a CRIME.

      SLATE: Who can lie to Congress?

      With Dems playing by Repub rules, Lo and Behold, Republicans want to change the rules:

      Senate Republicans were outraged, suggesting even that they’d consider changing committee rules to eliminate the need for a minority member to be present.

      Cuz……..democracy……..right?

      This is why both sides will never be the same, no matter the Protestations of Putin's Pussycats….those Kute Kittens Kuddling up to the Kremlin….)

       

       

      1. Anyone other than Merrick Garland must be filibustered by Senate Democrats. 

        It's ridiculous how the media is attempting to characterize this seat as "Scalia's seat".  They suggest that some rule exists that makes it okay, or even mandatory, that a jurist must be replaced with a like minded jurist. Yet, when they discuss the potential of Ruth Ginsburg retiring they note how a conservative will probably be nominated. 

        The GOP stole this seat, period.

  2. Some enterprising reporter should ask Dear Sen. Bennet investigate how many quorum calls Sen. Bennet has asked for over the years or how many "unanimous consent" requests our beloved Senator has stopped with his unique power as a United States Senator. 

    I'm betting it's near zero for both. 

    1. Why don't you send an LTE to the Denver Post, or whatever your local paper is, about quorum calls?  After watching you in action for over a year, all you appear to do is mouth off on this web site. 

  3. Yates at Justice (an Obama holdover)  rightly fired by Trump for not defending the executive order on immigration security. Yates is legally obligated to defend the executive order. Nothing more than grandstanding on her part since she was gone in a few days anyway. She should be referred to an ABA ethics hearing for a violation of profession ethics.

    Remember the anti-gay referendum Colorado voters approved back in the 90's ?  Lawsuits were filed against it and it was eventually struck down. In that litigation the CO state AG's Office defended the referendum as it was legally obligated to do so.

    In her refusal to represent her client, Yates stated the executive order probably wasn't legal. That's not her determination to make – that is to be determined by the courts.  But of course now Yates is a liberal icon when in fact she should have disciplinary actions taken against her for failing to legally and ethically represent her client.

      1. sure are a lot of Liars showing up around here to defend the Lying and Immorality and Illegality of the Trump Administration. I guess Putin has a nice US Dollar cash account to play with and hire cheeto-stained bloggers these days. 

        Here's the vid:

         

        Can’t wait til TrumpCo defunds C-SPAN……

    2. Legally obligated, A.C.? You're new in these parts aren't you? Norton and Tymcovich were 4-square behind Am. 2. Nobody had to twist their arms to make them give it a full-throated defense.

  4. Andy is a big fan of this tracking poll, but it looks like he forgot to post it today.  I'll help him out.

    Per Rasmussen:  Trump daily approval rating

    Date           Approval Rating

    31-Jan-17   -6

    30-Jan-17   -1

    27-Jan-17   +4

    26-Jan-17   +13

    25-Jan-17   +9

    1. If Passionate Prune was here, he'd probably advise you that polls are meaningless, especially recalling how they failed miserably to predict the outcome of the presidential election.

      Those who are unhappy with The Donald's actions, and he's been in office less than two weeks, should be gearing up for the 2018 mid-terms. Among other things, there are far more Dem Senate seats up for grabs then than there are Repubs. 

      1. Of course they're meaningless.  That doesn't stop Andy from posting them as though they prove something, or me from posting them to poke him.

        As for 2018, nothing that the Democratic party has done to date gives me any reason to believe they'll do anything but poorly in 2018– regardless of what Trump, Inc. does to the nation.

  5. don't listen to me.

    Atrios: "One difficult thing during the Bush years was that a lot of people who fancied themselves to be pretty liberal still had a hard time abandoning their Totebagger upbringing. You know, compromise is good, if it's bipartisan it is, by definition, good, we need unity, we need to listen to each other, the truly great politicians are the ones who cross the party aisle, "both sides" have good points, really, if you think about it, those Gangs of Wankers in the Senate are the true saviors of our nation, we must follow our leaders in a time of war, etc. "

    This is mostly style and process stuff, not actual policy, but it's the bullshit "we just need to come together" version of politics that's been sold to suckers for decades.

    Was always just a con game on liberals, of course."

      1. Yes.  They helped elect President Clinton just a few months ago.

        I've crapped on Zap, before, for ripping the focus of this blog, but if the party had listened to the substance of what Zap's posted, absent some of what might be perceived variously as "enthusiasm," or "hysteria," they might not be railing at President Trump today.

        One of the reasons I considered leaving this place (and did, for a bit, not that the ripples from that monumental event were felt more than an inch from my keyboard), was the nonstop hate and derision I, and others, receive(d) here for posting anti-establishment positions.  Like the derision you heap on Zap for the beliefs expressed above and throughout threads on the site.  Don't much care, really, that's your thing.  Just a bit exhausting.

        That's also why y'all missed the biggest shift in American politics in a century or more.  One which you can still only muster scorn and derision for, like the founders, I'll admit.  One which is also real, and is a warning.  The chaos you see will continue to grow and resentment fester so long as this society loves capital more than people, the system works for the few and not the many, and the rich continue to believe that they can get the masses to fight over crumbs while they get fat off the cake.

        Trump is a symptom of the problem, not the cause, but the disease can't be treated without a fundamental re-imagining of how we enjoy the benefits of capitalist system without crushing the majority underfoot.

        1. Zap is even more exhausting, sort of like a broken record saying the same thing over and over again. And I didn't miss any shift at all; after all, I warned about Trump, and criticized him,  here for a long time. But too many people on Pols thought Hillary, who I voted for, would have a cakewalk. If one does not like the establishment, whatever that is, then get into the trenches and change it.

          Where is Blue Cat? She got tired of all the rhetoric being heaped on her from anti-establishment factors here. Michael Bowman hasn't been heard from in quite a while. Maybe they're onto something.

      2. Have a nice day, Everyone.

        But first: you shall Praise our Glorious and Omnipotent Dear Leader, who will look after all of us, most especially the Downtrodden White Male Christian who has suffered yeay so much in this Ungodly Hellhole Greatest Country Ever Designed By Man And Birthed on God’s Greenest Earth.

  6. So what happens when the U.S. abandons NAFTA? Not much:

    The point is that a more expensive dollar makes our exports more expensive overseas, and more-expensive exports can only be competitive if they become cheaper by moving production to lower-cost locales. That has been a bigger deal than the one we've struck with Mexico and Canada. Cutting tariffs by 5 or 10 percent just doesn't matter as much as the dollar shooting up 20 or 30 percent.

    Which is to say that getting rid of NAFTA won't bring back many factory jobs if the rest of Trump's policies push the dollar up even more — which they probably will. That is, assuming Trump does in fact increase infrastructure and defense spending at the same time he slashes taxes for the rich and corporations. Just like the 1980s, the resulting deficits would force the Fed to raise rates more than it expected, and send the dollar up more than our exporters could afford.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/01/30/donald-trumps-big-plan-to-bring-jobs-back-to-america-has-one-giant-astericks

    Oh, and automation…

  7. Well lookee what the cat just dragged in…

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3021

    50 U.S. Code § 3021 – National Security Council

    (a) Establishment; presiding officer; functions; composition. There is established a council to be known as the National Security Council (hereinafter in this section referred to as the “Council”).The President of the United States shall preside over meetings of the Council: Provided, That in his absence he may designate a member of the Council to preside in his place.The function of the Council shall be to advise the President with respect to the integration of domestic, foreign, and military policies relating to the national security so as to enable the military services and the other departments and agencies of the Government to cooperate more effectively in matters involving the national security.The Council shall be composed of—
    (1)the President;
    (2)the Vice President;
    (3)the Secretary of State;
    (4)the Secretary of Defense;
    (5)the Secretary of Energy; and
    (6)the Secretaries and Under Secretaries of other executive departments and of the military departments, when appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to serve at his pleasure. [emphasis mine]

    It looks like we get Bannon confirmation hearings. This ought to be good.

    2. As I understand it, Trump has directed Bannon Bannon has directed that he will attend the NSC meetings, not that he will be “appointed” to the Council–thus bypassing the need for confirmation. If so, that is not a legal issue, just damn stupid and dangerous for Bannon to always attend and the Chair of Joint Chiefs and Director of National Security to attend only when invited.

      https://twodifferentgirls.com/2017/01/30/explaining-the-nsc-from-a-former-staffer/

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

63 readers online now

Newsletter

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

Colorado Pols