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
February 27, 2017 06:51 AM UTC

Monday Open Thread

  • 53 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“Did I end up finding a little blue pill to cure America’s electoral dysfunction? Unfortunately, it’s not that simple.”

–Mo Rocca

Tweet
Share

Comments

53 thoughts on “Monday Open Thread”

  1. As 45 ponders his Administrations next move on the marijuana, it looks like BigPharma is taking a hit and we're lowering the price of health care delivery.  Of course we should end this travesty!

    Seniors with Medical Marijuana Access Use Fewer Prescription Drugs

    Medicare saved $165 million in states with medical cannabis, study says

     

    (Reuters Health) – Physicians wrote significantly fewer prescriptions for painkillers and other medications for elderly and disabled patients who had legal access to medical marijuana, a new study finds.

    In fact, Medicare saved more than $165 million in 2013 on prescription drugs in the District of Columbia and 17 states that allowed cannabis to be used as medicine, researchers calculated. If every state in the nation legalized medical marijuana, the study forecast that the federal program would save more than $468 million a year on pharmaceuticals for disabled Americans and those 65 and older.

      1. Soon marijuana will be available for any use, in all states.  I would predict that any money saved from using prescription medication will be offset by a corresponding amount of expenditures associated with abuse, treatment  and enforcement, of marijuana usage. It always happens.

        1. I don't think any of us will lose sleep over your dire predictions. If you have an addictive personality you'll find a way to feed it: shopping, eating, alcohol, sex, etc. The champion of addictions is alcohol.  Are you advocating for the prohibition of it, too? Do you think responsible consumption is a myth?  Would you support rebuilding our nation's mental health services network by, say, building one less military plane? 

          What's your opinion on federal programs effectively subsidizing Viagra? (asking for a friend). 

          1. Original Comment changed due to poor taste:

            I’m guessing Petie would have felt at home in the 1920s when people had to go to an underground speakeasy to feed their “addictions” instead of doing it in public where it’s a sin.

          2. Why do you characterize my response as dire? Seems like a natural progression of attitudes. 

            Smoked plenty inVietnam. Haven't done it since returning to the World. If it helps people, it's a good thing. Saw plenty of drug destruction in the service. 

            As long as the mentally ill can be represented by the ACLU they will not get the help they need no mater how many planes we don't build. Walk the 16th st mall.

            1. The mentally ill had plenty of options, until Saint Ronnie gutted the Mental Health Systems Act.   The ACLU is not the enemy.  As usual, you wouldn't know the truth if it threw you a parade in Red Square. 

              By the way, when you were in ‘Nam, were any of your buddies among the losers who got captured? Or maybe among the ones your (five-times deferred) Cheeto Warrior called “not strong”, because they couldn’t handle it?

                1. Because not every veteran is of the same mindset you are, and some take offense to Trump's insults towards other veterans, and his blatant and fraudulent use of veterans charities to line his own pockets.  

                  But what do you care?

                    1. No, not just me; but I don't assume every veteran has the same political views I do, and I don't judge a veteran by their politics.  

                      But you've made everyone fully aware that nothing Trump could say about or do to veterans bothers you in the least, and that's troubling.   Though, by your history here, not surprising.  

                    2. Cro-magnon man

                      We have seen 8 years of Democratic abuse of Veterans and the military. It's good the nation has decide to try a different path. 

                    5. Me….no, except to get my card and to try to get other vets jobs.  I've never availed myself of any VA services, aside from loan qualification documents.  I don't have any service connected disabilities, so I'd be low on the priority list, anyway.  As I mentioned, I spent the better part of a year specifically tasked with recruiting other veterans, particularly with those with disabilities.  The VA has been screwed for much longer than 8 years.  And you think the VA system's failures were just the Democrats fault?      

                      http://usuncut.com/politics/happy-veterans-day-5-times-republicans-in-congress-screwed-veterans/

                      Are you sure you stopped smoking dope? 

            2. Putrid – your prophesy re: the costs of treating this mass addiction epidemic you elude to exceeding the the savings to patients who choose a more natural remedy was without substantiation.  Some might call it dire. I could have used one of many other synonyms for your baseless remark: ominous, gloomy, grim, pessimistic.  You get the point. 

              I'm just old enough to remember walking Larimer Street when it was skid row.  For every human soul battling their demons – there are hundreds who consume responsibly.  I've never had to tap the ACLU, but for those of us who have had family members who have either struggled with addictions or mental health, I'm glad they exist. 

                    1. Prune wrote: "we've seen 8 years of Democratic abuse of veterans and the military……"  Now, that comment falls into the "fake news" category. I believe that the budget deal done in 2011, for sequestration, was passed with bipartisan support. As for "abuse" of the military, I wonder how Prune accounts for massive cost overruns on the F-35 fighter plane that still can't dogfight as well as planes it is supposed to replace. 

                    2. That's easy, CHB:  Because "Support Our Military" is easier to fit on a yellow ribbon magnet than, "Support Our Military Industrial Complex and Treat Our Service Members Like Trash When They're No Longer Of Use To Us".  

                      The latter is more truthful, but kind of wordy.   

                      And that's not my opinion of the GOP or Democrats.  That's my opinion of a great deal of our society.  

  2. Ah-ummmmm:

    There was no one more wrong in the 2016 election than Joe Lieberman. Well, Lieberman, No Labels, Third Way, the Democratic Leadership Council, the New Democrat Network, the Blue Dog Coalition, with Bill Clinton and Tony Blair along for the ride. Anyone, in short, who ever maintained that there was a socially progressive / fiscally conservative “third way” out there waiting to capture the swing voters of America.

    There wasn’t.

    There isn’t.

    And absolutely no position has proved more deceptive in characterizing the mood of the nation and more destructive to the long-term health of the Democratic Party.

    For three decades, seekers after elusive votes have contended that there was a magic sweet spot to be found somewhere in the realm of open-hearted penny pinchers—Americans who would welcome that new immigrant at the local school, so long as they didn’t have to part with 27 cents to cover the kid’s breakfast. Explorers using expert triangulation could unlock the secret land that’s home to a vast horde of voters longing for some sensible alternative to either left or right. They knew it had to be so. There were books. And think tanks. Think tanks!

    And yet, somehow, every movement built along that theme has proven itself to be as limp, useless, uninteresting, unsuccessful and ultimately distasteful as a cocktail whose feature ingredient is dish soap. 

    Now, our side may feel it can only compete by having the same kind of big-bucks donors that Republicans have. Bernie proved that false, and to a certain extent so did Hillary. And the most destructive part of that addiction is the fear of pissing off the big donors and getting your ass kicked due to lack of resources. 

    And to search for moderate, undecided voters hiding behind unicorns who care about fiscal conservatism and social liberalism is as futile as keeping track of how fast Republicans will drop their concerns once in power: 

    [T]he proposal to increase federal spending to pay for the wall wasn’t the only way the GOP indicated last week that it would increase the deficit and national debt. In fact, it was the last of a steady stream of deficit increases that taken together and compared to what was said during the Obama administration, must be considered Republican hypocrisy, duplicity and heresy on the budget.

    First, the House adopted a rules change proposed by the GOP majority that allows the transfer of federal lands to the states without taking into account its impact on the budget….

    Second, after insisting that tax reform will have no negative impact on the budget, House Republicans last week began to plan for a change in the way tax cuts are scored so that they appear to be “revenue neutral” even though the deficit will increase. …

    Third, the newly adopted House rules and the fiscal 2017 budget resolution currently being debated by the Senate exempt legislation that would repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act from points of order that would prevent deficit increases.

    Fourth, there were indications this past week that congressional Republicans are planning to increase military spending by $40 billion with a budget gimmick – the Overseas Contingency Operations fund…

    Republicans don't give a crap about budget deficits, but have been using that lie to browbeat Democrats into abandoning common sense and effective government programs and leaving the Middle Class in the lurch. 

    And it's also now obvious that they don't give a crap about morals, ethics, religiosity, etc……..

    With this, all of Democrats' assumptions about triangulation and trying to be Republican Lite have of that has been disproven these last several election cycles with devastating electoral results. 

    What remains is a simple truth that Dems must stand up for basic defining principles, they must communicate those clearly to voters, and they must defend those principles and programs that will be under constant attack by Republicans. 

    Then they will start winning elections again.

  3. Bernie did an admirable job of communicating your defining principles. He lost. The Democrat establishment remains supreme just as does the Republican establishment. If Democrats were smart they would help Trump tear up both establishments, but they can't get over the lies they told themselves that Hillary was the smartest, most qualified, honest, woman to ever run for President.

    1. Right Petie.  Because the establishment is the thing that your Dear Leader wants to tear up.  That's why he brought in all those rich Wall Street Big wigs into his cabinet.  Because they want to torch the system that they benefited from in the first place.

      The only thing Trump seems to want to tear up is the constitution.  It seems like the Repugnicans are more than happy to go along with that.  Bernie, and anybody else with a brain and common sense would want to fight that tooth and nail.

      But keep drinking that Kool Aid. And blindly follow your Dear Leader off a cliff.  Just don't expect the rest of us to go with you.

      1. Bernie and you were screwed again with Hillary/Obama rigging the DNC election. You must resist, you must protest. If you really want to get the necessary attention, you need to go to the 16th street mall and set yourself on fire. It worked for the  Buddhist Monks in Vietnam. It can work for you too.

          1. I agree. Pols? Troll suggests that other polsters set themselves on fire. Over the line? unnamed and I say yes.

            By the way, this was the same guy who likes to call me "hysterical". Wonder where on that spectrum self-immolation falls.

              1. Prunie has done nothing to earn a ban.  The burning buddhist bit is hyperbole, not abuse.  If we banned everybody who occasionally made an asshole of themselves , we'd be down to just mike bowman and cookie. As good as they are, they can't carry the whole load of advancing democratic dialogue.

                1. Fine.  But he deserved to be put on notice and I stand by reporting him.  Because it was over the line and borderline abusive and vile to suggest that someone should do that.

                    1. Fine.  I made the point that I'm not putting up with that kind of shit and am willing to let the chips fall where they may from here. 

            2. Yes Really Pitiful Petie.  I know I give you a hard time.  But you come off as deserving it.  Maybe you served your country.  But as Curmudgeon says, you state your military history and yet act like an ignorant child on this blog. 

              Personally, I don't care for those suggestions regardless of who they're directed at.  Hence why, I reported you.  I understand you probably see me the same way, but I at least try to keep it from going into really dark places. 

              You, on the other hand.  The fact that you went there says a lot about how you think.  And maybe you said it because I got under your skin and you got mad and responded the only way you could think of.  Or maybe because you are just as vile and evil as your orange-hued hero.  Or both.  Either way, this tells me you deserve the grief you get and if Pols doesn't come down on you like a ton of bricks, here's hoping life will. 

              1. When it comes to the poster that calls himself Pitiful Pooper (or something like that),

                Look at it this way, unnamed.

                Every day you get to awaken, get up, and not be him. He is stuck being a "revolving asshole" …that is, an asshole anyway you look at him.

  4. As details of the Trump-proposed budget plan leak out and are announced:

    • 10% increase in military. 
    • Added support for law enforcement.
    • Apparently, money for ICE and CBP agents.
    • Cuts in foreign aid.
    • Cuts in other discretionary spending.
    • Cuts in regulatory enforcement.

    We will soon have a chance to measure their popularity. Republican Senators – and especially those up for election in 2018 – will likely be needing to maintain and increase their communication staffs to deal with the fallout.

    1. Unfortunately.  It's more Dem-held seats up in 2018.  The only real offense opportunity we have is Dean Heller in Nevada.  The rest were seats that we picked up or held in 2006 and 2012.

  5. I think we have some ACLU -type legal people posting on here. My school district is about to start random drug testing students. I guess I can see testing athletes for steroids, but we're talking student council and drama and band geeks. Any words of counsel,  Counselors?

      1. School board voted for it. Consequences for athletes include suspension from game play, plus whatever legal consequences they might have depending on the substance.

        We club sponsors need to come up with our own consequences. I'm recommending substance abuse counseling and possibly some volunteer service around the building. 

        But it seems like an extreme invasion of privacy. According to national ACLU, even if one's BOE approves it, it still may not be legal or constitutional – but someone would have to test it. Trying to decide how much I want to stick my neck out on this one.

    2. I'm not an ACLU lawyer, but I can offer a few words of insight, perhaps.

      Broadly speaking, there are three classes of students you'd be looking at, with regard to drug testing.  Students who just student; student-athletes; and, the folks you seem interested in, students participating in nonathletic extracurricular activities (viz nerds, like I was– well, am).  In order the answer is, I think: no, yes, maybe not in our state.

      The Colorado Supreme Court has ruled on this issue before, in Trinidad School Dist. No. 1 v. Lopez, 963 P.2d 1095 (Colo. 1998).  The gist is that student athletes are at particular risk of injuring themselves or opponents and, therefore, get special rules.  The tuba line doesn't really meet this test.  As the majority notes:

      In considering the efficacy of the Policy, the trial court failed to give proper weight to three important facts: 1) that the Policy swept within its reach students who were enrolled in for-credit, instrumental music classes and participated in the marching band, 2) that the Policy included student groups that were not demonstrated to have contributed to the drug problem in the District, and 3) that there was no demonstrated risk of immediate physical harm to members of the marching band.

      The US Supreme Court has been a bit more flexible on the issue, however, finding that such testing, in the circumstances you're concerned about, can be OK.  The linked case was also decided after the Colorado one, and expanded on the USSC ruling that the state supreme court based their own on.

      In the end, it will depend on how hostile the Colorado court is to random drug testing.  Although the court made a Fourth Amendment conclusion in Lopez, it may be able to decide such a case under the Colorado Constitution alone, without reaching federal law, or it might distinguish the case from the particular set of facts that sparked a more permissive view from the USSC, and still find the testing violated the Fourth Amendment.

      As far as the ACLU, you should contact them directly, so they can get involved as soon as possible, if they think the work is worthy. Maybe that would be a good class project.

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

56 readers online now

Newsletter

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

Colorado Pols