U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
60%↑
40%↑
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) J. Danielson
(R) Sheri Davis
50%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
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%
May 05, 2017 06:51 AM UTC
78 Comments
…
What? The crazy bastard thinks the cold blooded murder of six people is worse than the murder of one person? Only a monster in human form would think that!
…
You sure loves you some dunlop, don't you? This will come as a surprise to you, but prosecutors in Colorado don't pass death penalties. Juries do.
Actually, all three death row inmates were sentenced before Brauchler took office.
Dunlap only actually murdered four, a fifth victim survived.
Dunlap refused to express remorse and referred to the thrill of murder as "better than sex"
The claim of incompetent counsel is not a fact, it’s just another ploy by defense teams.
No evidence of mental illness was established.
Dunlap had more than 20 years of trials and appeals.
Dunlap’s execution is only an issue because John Hickenlooper refused clemency.
…
…
So, every word wtitten by defense attorneys is holy writ and infallible, all evidence at trial is hateful lies?
You got in this hole by stupidly blaming brauchler for three convictions before he even look office plus, if I recall correctly, the loss of the Hindenberg. Throwing mud at the wall in hopes something will stick won't get you out
If your pleas are so decisive, why did the courts reject them?
And is murder really "better than sex?"
…
So, hitler gets a freepass? No, the argument for the death penalty is justice. Some crimes are so heinous that they deserve a severe punishment. Of course, by admitting you oppose the death penalty in all circumstances, you admit that the specifics of dunlap's case areirrelevant. The courts looked at your arguments for 20 years and rejected them.
Yes, his lawyers finally convinced him to pretend remorse because he wanted to go on living. But for eight years, he refused to express remorse and described the thrill of murder as "better than sex."
Failure to claim mental illness as a defense is not incompetence. The insanity defense is a very high standard. If they actually had any evidence at the time, they would have probably used it in penalty phase as mitigation, where there is a much lower bar.
…
Even for you, that was a stupid thing to say. I said they might have raised it as mitigation, you apparently misunderstood it. I know far, far, more about the death penalty than you do. One of us actually served as foreman in a death penalty trial. I'm pretty sure it wasn't you
As just one point, fool. , there are three phases, not two. If there is a conviction, jurors look at other prior bad acts in phase two. Such acts are excluded from guilt or innocent phase as prejudicial. But they can be. Considered in the third, penalty, phase.
…
You said the trial only had two phases, which is wrong. When I called you on it, you tried to recoup by pretending that the separate parts of the penalty phase had three parts.
Wrong again, fool. Penalty phase is four parts
1. Jurors must determine where there is at least one statutory aggravator. Decision must be unanimous, beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Jurors must determine whether there are any mitigating factors. Unlike other phases, this does not require unanimity or reasonable doubt. Mitigation is anything at least one juror thinks is mitigation. Our defendant was a chessplayer. I am an avid chessplayer and could have used that as mitigation if I wanted. It's not a reach, some people argue life without parole is actually crueler than the death penalty. The fact that a prisoner can keep his mind sharp by playing chess thus argues to quality of life behind bars. In summary, mitigation is open-ended, aiming to convince at least at least one juror to spare the defendants life.
That is why mental health stuff too weak to win innocence usually comes in here. Unveiling that in guilt or innocent phase wouldn't stop lawyets from bringing it up again, but you would have already have lost that point. Emotionally, you are far better raising it at his phase, as our defense did (borderline personality disorder
Step 3. Jury must decide, unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt, that aggravation outweighs mitigation.
Step 4. While step 3, if passed, seemed to imply a death penalty is in order, you're not there yet. Now, you must specically vote for a death penalty. Standard is again beyond a reasonable doubt and verdict must be unanimous.
So we have esablished, my passionate friend, that you think only barbarians disagree with you on this point. We have also established that you don't really know much about how the law works. Obviously, you have read the defense brief. But obviously you aren't aware that the defense doesn't tell the whole story.
Don't feel bad about your ignorance. My education comes from six weeks in a jury box with steel bands compressing my chest.
I have no doubt your bias on the issue ensures you will never serve on a capital jury.
One final thought instead of hating Brauchler for doing his duty, why don't you ask Hickenlooper to clear death row? Or is witness murderer Sir Mario Owens enough to give even you pause.
…
You mean juries don't automatically acquit but sometimes show symphathy for victims such as the three teenagers murdered by thrill-killer dunlap?
Monsters, thats what jurors are. We ought to hang them!
You really do love you some dunlap.
.
You don't know squat, fool. You claimed braucler was responsible for all three inmates on death row, all were tried before he came into office.
You postulated incompetence of counsel claims that were not upheld in 20 years of appeals.
You implied that prosecutors decide death penalties, a power only juries have.
Somehow, I think. The jurors in this case knew more about it than you did.
You have an ideological hatred of capital punishment. But you are fact free and spew hate toward anyone who disagrees with you.
.
…
Yeah, but you'd still blame him for the hindenberg. What makes you think that prosecutors have a duty to set defendants free?
That was just a dumb thing to say and the more you try to defend it, the dumber you look.
Isn't James Holmes white, don't follow your racist claim. How is justice delayed when he is still in jail? Unless you think he should be free.
No DA should care what race the criminal is, or the fact he hadn't attained the age of 21, or his income level or lack of it.
Watch it, PP, you're getting all facty.
White people accused of a crime should be executed. Black people should not.
Otherwise, you’re racist.
.
I guess it is as V said. You have a problem with the jury system.
.Penalty:http://conservativesconcerned.org
So, conservatives are infallible when they back liberal causes? One of your activists, Marc Hyden, is a National Rifle Association zealot!
So, the death penalty is wrong when the state uses it against a multi-murderer like Dunlap, but if a whack job wants to take an assault rifle to school and waste the kids there, that's a basic freedom? Good to know.
Praise the lord and pass the flack jackets.
…
H
Maybe that's why snowflakes are allowed to stay on their parents policy until 26 years of age so their brain has matured enough to know they need to get the hell out of the basement and find a job. Just for full disclosure, I am a racist, the human race and murderers, no matter what color, gender or sexual orientation are not good for the human race.
I thought your rule was that only white people can be executed, are you saying now that only old white guys can be executed?
…
You started this whole thing with a racist tirade that Brauchler hadn't sought the death penalty against a white guy. I agree your racist rant was stupid. What I don't understand is why you made it.
😐
So, just to be clear, your final position is that you are ok with the death penalty but only if it is used on white men who committed their crimes after 25? That's the sum of your rants to date.
😐
So if you are young, poor and Black its OK to kill people?
You are an idiot and a bigot, but thanks for sharing.
Actually, I think you just said it's ok to kill if you are white, male, middle-aged and wealthy. And that you deserve a tax rebate on the gun and the bullets used.
Or a $176,000 salary if you can kill thousands with a single vote
I don't often say people stink. But when I do, I say Trump and Cornholio stink. Stay upwind my friends.
1. Appointment of Gorsuch: WIN
2. More funding for the military: WIN
3. Enforcement of immigration law: WIN
4. Government involvement in healthcare: LOSS
And I had just hoped for Trump to be successful with one. Good job Mr. President!
Fresh air at last.
5. Border wall: LOSS
6. Muslim Travel Ban: LOSS
7. Sanctuary cities funding block: LOSS
Loser. SAD!
erasing duplicate
👍
Erased duplicate
Wasteful spending is wasteful spending, Pp, even if it is by the pentagon. Lets hope this goes for basic readiness and training, not more useless frills by the air force.
But you are ignoring the fact that Trump is slowly abandoning his anti-NATO rants and beginning to recognize the threat of Russian imperialism. Joining the hillary/merkle/hollande/ may/ every American president since Truman policy of containing Russia is the one positive development of our senile narcissist. Pray it continues.
I think I've seen it reported that the freeloading NATO members are increasing their defense spending commitments. A good thing for all. Nothing like calling out the slackers on the world stage.
Like so many things Trump is claiming to have facilitated, EU NATO allies were already increasing spending after goading by previous administrations.
Silly me, you're right. Just like the economy rebound is Obama's doing.
You mean the now record-long growth streak? It's hard to set that record based on 3 full months in office. So, yeah, that's what I mean.
Trump's economy — according to USA Today:
"Economic growth slowed in the first quarter to its slowest pace in three years as sluggish consumer spending and business stockpiling offset solid business investment. Many economists write off the weak performance as a byproduct of temporary blips and expect healthy growth in 2017.
The nation’s gross domestic product — the value of all goods and services produced in the USA — increased at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 0.7%, the Commerce Department said Friday, below the tepid 2.1% pace clocked both in the fourth quarter and as an average throughout the nearly 8-year-old recovery."
You think that money is for the troops? Ha!
Well if the money buys more MOAB's and other cool toys to kill the enemy, yes it is for the troops.
No. That's money for defense contractors. Money for troops would be ensuring that they and their families aren't so poor as to qualify for Medicaid and food stamps.
Oh hell I thought defense contractors produced the tools of war that the troops need and want. So yes the money is for the troops.
Short PP: we want whatever looks like the most glorious victories; only the best.
Rational people: we want what is best for the actual troops based on identified needs.
No, defense contractors produce the tools of war that Congress members (accepting campaign contributions and prospects of future employment as lobbyists and executives, and spreading make-work jobs throughout their districts) want, often over the objections of what the troops say they want and need. The F-35, for example. So, no, the money is not for the troops.
Yes the money is for the troops.
Working on the theory that if you repeat the same thing over and over (without any additional evidence or explanation) people will eventually believe it, I see.
Let's hope it goes for grenade launchers , training and readiness, the needs identified in the npr reports. Some extra fuel and spare parts would be nice too.
These also are a bit closer to the troops than a MOAB. Never good to send people in who are unready or are missing basic protective and offensive bits. I haven't seen any indication that we're woefully short on large munitions.
Still, I'd rather see the troops be paid what their sacrifice is truly worth, both during service and after.
We have deployed exactly one MOAB in combat throughout its 14 year existence as a munition. Why? Because it has limited use. Our arsenal is supposedly fewer than twenty total because of that.
Yet you think it's the greatest toy available. Perhaps you're also re-enforcing Trump's belief that nuclear weapons should be deployed much more frequently… Grow up.
The British used 10 ton ""grand slam" bombs in world war Ii. In this case, there is nothing new about big
Unlike the "grand slam", the GBU-43/B is an air-burst munition that isn't capable of taking on hard targets or penetrating any significant defense. It's great if you want to burn jungle, take out an enemy that's isolated within the target region, or just plain scare people with something that looks a little like an atomic bomb from a distance. But how often do you get a large concentration of isolated target enemies in a soft location? ISIS prefers to live among the populace; conventional military action means a lot of close-quarters fighting. We could use it to soften the DPRK's artillery lines in a pre-emptive, but they have a lot of artillery in bunkers, too.
It's a fine device for what it is. But it's only a "cool toy" to someone who likes the visual in the abstract or doesn't care about collateral innocent casualties…
Ever been in the bush?
"Ever been in the bush?"
Give me strength, lord. I'm in enough trouble with MJ as it is.
The bush, not "a" bush.
nice save
http://www.denverpost.com/2017/05/04/judge-tosses-tabor-lawsuit/
#SAD!
Good day for taxpayers.
Good day for the consistency of laws and legal rulings. Hearing this lawsuit would go against the ruling on Arizona's redistricting commission on the right of the citizens to act as the legislature as provided for in the state constitution.
I can hate TABOR all I want, but if we want to fix it we need to do it via the regular I&R process however hard that might be.
Unsure what an IandR is. But TABOR debatably abridges the constitutional guarantee of a Republican form of government.
Initiative and Referendum… TABOR allows the citizenry, acting in a legislative capacity as defined in the state constitution, the power of approval on tax increases and limits on the size of spending.
Federal courts have ruled on the legality of that process and have upheld it.
I must have missed this one: Gardner makes international news… https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/north-korea-accuses-cia-and-south-korea-of-plotting-to-assassinate-kim-jong-un/2017/05/05/6e92e1ea-317c-11e7-8dab-4424a8f2bdfb_story.html?utm_term=.f4a2d318622f
Gardner said that the main parties involved in DPRK negotiations should plan for what happens after Kim Jung-Un falls from power. Kim has done a remote diagnosis and says Gardner is mentally deranged.
As with the jokes about lawyers and sharks maligning the sharks, this cartoon offends me by maligning everything in the pool. Trumpcare would kill more US citizens annually than the human death toll worldwide over recorded history of everything in that pool.
Our senile Buffoon-in-Chief likes Australia's Single Payer system:
And to no one's surprise (well, unless they are a Republican, I suppose), Australia gets higher marks for satisfaction while spending less than half of what we pay per capita.