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) Trisha Calvarese

(D) Eileen Laubacher

90%

20%

20%

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
May 17, 2017 07:17 AM UTC

Wednesday Open Thread

  • 46 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“A crook is a crook, and there’s something healthy about his frankness in the matter.”

–Al Capone

Tweet
Share

Comments

46 thoughts on “Wednesday Open Thread”

  2. Speaking of frankness. Ladies and gentleman, the evangelicals 'Dream President'

    "I did try and fuck her. I moved on her like a bitch. But I couldn’t get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything." – Donald J. Trump

  5. Is telling the Russians about laptop bombs really classified info? It was published by CNN like a month ago…they must not have google in Russia?

    ….and if Trump's request to drop the Flynn case is the clearest of evidence that the president has tried to directly influence the FBI, it looks like Comey may be fucked for not reporting it when it happened….

    What an incredibly dynamic time to pay attention to politics….. I just can't wait to see the next episode…

     

     

    1. Today's episode……

      Vladimir Putin claims to have a recording of the meeting between Lavrov and Trump at which the classified stuff was disclosed. He says that the recording shows that Trump did nothing wrong and Putin is willing to share it with the U.S. Congress if requested.

      1. I was totally trying to quit. I 'm just having difficulty understanding how information posted on the interwebs a month ago is classified info today…seriously does CNN have higher security clearance than cheeto?

        I am certain you have the answer. Can you share? I have two shot glasses….

        1. Classic case of head in the sand … 

          … you really believe that it is that bit of innocuous information causing this turmoil?  That it's that kind of commonly-known defensible information?

          Fact is, right now, hardly any one, except for Drumpf — oh, and the yeah, that staunch and reliable defender of Israel, Vladimir Putin — know exactly what your child-President blabbed.  (And truth be told, Drumpf probably doesn't now know or recall what he said, so I guess that just leaves Vladimir Maccabees …)

          Hope you got a long straw to get those shots into your mouth, so you can avoid having to surface above ground — it's pretty damn scary out here in the light of day!

           

          1. No, I do not really believe that it is that bit of innocuous info causing this turmoil. I cannot believe it. It is, in fact, unbelievable.

            But I also find it difficult to move for impeachment on a president when you have no idea what was said. 

            The news appears to be focusing on this whole laptop bomb thing. Yawn. Old news. Do you have any further info on what was said than this? 

            I am glad we can both agree on the value of this information. It is pretty scary out here…I'm heading back the the bunker…. please let me know if you come up with something serious. 

             

             

            1. I guess the country will find out if it's innocuous information or not once a special prosecutor is appointed. And if the Trump supporters can get their collective heads out of the sand, a special prosecutor could actually clear Trump of any wrong-doing. 

                1. Talk about dated publicly available information . . . 

                  . . . isn't that exactly what Brannon and Miller have been doing for months???!!!???

        2. I'll take a shot…prefer a quality tequila, thanks.

          So the CNN laptop story did come out on 4/1/17.  However, the intelligence which Trumpito gave to the Russkies last  week was much more specific, per the NY Times:

          It detailed an Islamic plot.

          It named a city in Syria, with enough information that the Russians could figure out exactly who the informant was. That person is now in greater jeopardy, and may not be a useful source any longer. There can't be that many Israeli sources that can give reliable details about ISIS plots.

          It crossed the lines of allied interests in the region; Russia is aligned with  Assad and Iran, while Israel (which sourced the intelligence per NY Times) is aligned with the US, Saudi Arabia, and the Syrian rebels, among others.

          I think Michael Bowman pointed out that Trump is treating diplomacy like a business deal, where you trade favors for insider info…..but our President is  alienating almost everyone along the way. He may also get some of our friendlies killed. 

          Good job trying to spin this as "not a big deal", though…I remember you thought that Hillary Clinton was a terrible danger to the republic for far, far less egregious errors.

          1. Syria has 4 international airports. I have a 25% chance of getting this right by just guessing. 

            Please remind me of the "far, far less egregious errors" I thought made Hillary a terrible danger to the republic. Was it Bengazi? Can't recall, but if the actual death of U.S. citizens is less egregious than the potential of the possibility of a foreign government finding a foreign spy, then we can agree to disagree. 

            But I may be mistaken in your recollection. I would agree that selling uranium to Russia is much less egregious than giving up human intelligence to Russia, after all, they are the enemy, right?

             

             

            1. I'll just let Gardner respond:

              on HRC's email "scandal"

              "We need to make room in the Supermax prison for Hillary".

              "HRC should be stripped of her security clearances".

              on her position against extracting oil and gas from public lands:

              "She is unfit for higher office".

              Or perhaps you disagree with your junior Senator. Do you think that Cory Gardner was hyperbolic in his vitriol against Clinton? Did he go too far?

              Should the same standards be applied to Donald Trump? Why or why not?

              It would be nice, although unexpected, to get real answers from you….but it will probably be just more willfully blind spinning.

              1. Oh I thought you were referring to what I thought was less egregious, not Gardner.

                I do believe the same standards should be applied. Lock them both up if they did equal injustices. If you are prepared to admit that Hillary and Trump are both guilty of the same crimes we can move forward draining the swamp of both Hillary and Cheeto – I'm all for it. 

                But to continue with blind spinning on my own opinion, not Gardner's: Hillary's actions have dead bodies. There are confidential documents on a pedophiles laptop. There is FBI confirmation of proof of mishandling. Trump has an unnamed source who thinks a legal action is immoral.

                Let's tell it to the judge and see who serves more time. If Trumps allegations turn out to be true, he is just as guilty as Hillary and both should pay the consequences. However, if they do not pan out as true, this does not exonerate Hillary from the actions we already know to be true, and she should, under any circumstances, be held accountable for her actions with equal fervor as you expect for Trump. 

                Currently there are no more egregious circumstances to Trump's presidency than would have been with Hillary's and you seem to have been fine with a Clinton presidency, so I urge you to apply the same standards as well. The terms "Bengazi!" and "Russia!" are becoming synonymous and we all know how each opposing sides felt about the other – only to find they both have more similarities than differences. 

              1. Yes. Yes I do. However you are suggesting that Clinton and Ronnie have blood on their hands and both should be considered a threat to the republic due to this consideration. I agree. Trump allegedly leaked classified information. So did Hillary. If Hillary (or Ronnie) did not go to jail/get impeached for the deaths of U.S. citizens, why in the world would you suggest Trump get impeached for what he allegedly did?

                And for the record I made no statement as to the "quid pro quo" of the uranium deal. The fact that Clinton transferred uranium to the Russians AT ALL seems vastly more egregious than purportedly selling out a spy who had information readily available from google. I would be sceptical of an individual who makes Russia out to be such a boogeyman threat to the republic because they got weak information on a laptop bomb, while previously  transferring nuclear material to same such adversary. It just does not make sense. 

                1. You missed the point(s), cowboy.  I said nothing of the sorts of Clinton and Ronnie.  Point is, Ronnie has the blood of 220 Marines on his hands and I don't recall a single call for special committee hearings.  It's not for me to decide if/when TwoScoops™ gets impeached.  I wasn't the President, in the room alone with two Russian operatives and TASS.  We'll have to see whether Vlady's 'transcript', which would have to come from a recording of that meeting, holds any weight with Congress. 

                  You need to go back and read the timeline on the 'transfers'.  I'm confident the breathless reporters at FauxNews have you convinced someone loaded up the uranium and physically moved it to downtown Moscow.  Check out the George Soros fact machine again here and then get back to us.  

                  Despite transfer of ownership, the uranium remained in the U.S. (my emphasis).

                  A key fact ignored in criticisms of Clinton’s supposed involvement in the deal is that the uranium was not — nor could it be — exported, and remained under the control of U.S.-based subsidiaries of Uranium One, according to a statement by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

                  NRC’s review of the transfer of control request determined that the U.S. subsidiaries will
                  remain the licensees, will remain qualified to conduct the uranium recovery operations, and will continue to have the equipment, facilities, and procedures necessary to protect public health and safety and to minimize danger to life or property. The review also determined that the licensees will maintain adequate financial surety for eventual decommissioning of the sites. Neither Uranium One nor ARMZ holds an NRC export license, so no uranium produced at either facility may be exported.

                  1. "The terms Benghazi and Russia are becoming synonymous……"  No, they're not. I lost track of how many Republican chaired congressional committees investigated Benghazi. Was it six?  Maybe 7? Maybe eight? None of them found any evidence of significant wrong-doing by Hillary Clinton. On the other hand, things are just getting started with The Donald.

                    Negev: same message for you that I gave in other threads. If you voted for Trump, you now own him and all his foibles. 

                  2. The point, compadre, is that Hillary seemed comfortable making deals with the Russians, regardless of where it was stored, who stored it, how it was handled or what they did with it. What matters is that Clinton and the prior administration had no problems whatsoever with the Russians when they were in power, and only when her coronation was thwarted did baba yaga rear its ugly head. 

                    Now, I am all for a Trump witch hunt. He has served his purpose for me and the rest is at this point entertainment value. Just make a good story. If you are trying to convince a population that a president should be rejected for doing the same things the candidate you preferred did, you need a much more compelling narrative. This one won't do. I mean, if I were to describe a candidate as "flagrantly mishandling classified information that potentially jeopardizes national security with no regard for the consequences", and you can't tell me which one I am talking about, you have failed to offer adequate compelling justification to suggest either is inferior from the other. 

                     

                     

                    1. Geezuz, Nev.  This was an acquisition/merger between non-government, private companies.  Hillary didn't make the 'deal'.  

                      The Uranium One deal was not Clinton’s to veto or approve
                       
                      Among the ways these accusations stray from the facts is in attributing a power of veto or approval to Secretary Clinton that she simply did not have. Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson. CFIUS members are collectively charged with evaluating the transaction for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president. By law, the committee can’t veto a transaction; only the president can. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the Uranium One decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton herself “never intervened” in committee matters.

                      Try me on the statements.  I don't think the majority of us on this website would have any problem discerning the source.  

                      BTW – the Russians own the steel plant in Pueblo, too.  Newsflash:  Hillary didn't make that deal, either. 

                       

                    2. Sorry Michael I am responding above I don't know where the reply button goes…

                      Hence my statement "Clinton and the prior administration"

                      Uranium one is Russian state owned, not non-government private company. 

                      Do you find it interesting that the Podesta Group lobbies for Uranium one?

                      Or that Hillary's campaign managers brother got paid to do the same thing Flynn did by a Russian bank?

                      Or John Podesta hid 75,000 shares of Russian stock in his daughters shell company?

                      Change your password Johnny.

                      There are more ties to Russia with Democrats than the Trump administration but this goes unnoticed. 

                      Funny how that works. 

                    3. Nothing that goes on in DC surprises most these days.  I think we can both agree the swamp needs drained – the opposite of what TwoScoops is doing.  UranianOne was acquired by Russia – not established by them.  I'm not a Hillary apologist; I voted for her with no regrets.  She was the most qualified POTUS candidate in my lifetime.  If she had been elected I'm not convinced we wouldn't still have the same shit show play out on CapHill.  The Republican leadership would have done to her what they did to BHO.

                      Her campaign managers weren't on track to be a National Security Advisor; nor were they creating communication back-channels with Betsy DeVos' brother to let Vlad and TwoScoops go around our national security apparatus.  Is our global economy, perpetuated by both sides, a net positive or negative?  If you think it's a positive then I'm not sure how you extract our government officials from these predictable entanglements.  I imagine we share a set of values we could agree upon over a beer.  

    1. It's worse than that, Michael. He rescinded visas that the Obama administration had green-lighted. I see Pence's fine hand in this. 

      Those people are sinners and Pence is a good (but not your kind of) Christian.

  13. Apropos of nothing,

    I see from my pocket that a man who was recently wowed by our President as somebody "who is an example of somebody who's done an amazing job and is getting recognized more and more" has finally gotten his very own quarter!

    Coincidence, or a President making America great again!!?!!

    1. Frederick Douglass would have rhetorically sliced, diced, and pureed Donaldo.  If Drumpf had ever read, "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?" , he would not be using Douglass as his token Negro hero. From the speech:

      What, to the American slave, is your Fourth of July?

      I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants, brass-fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are, to Him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy-a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages.There is not a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States at this very hour.

      Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms- of the Old World, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.

      I doubt if Trump has the reading capacity to get through even those 2 paragraphs of the 2,000 word speech.

    2. Hell, we've had winos and druggies in my neighborhood for the nearly 50 years I've lived here and the main problem is booze, with hard drugs compounding it.   Just because we call winos by the PC term "homeless" now doesn't mean they aren't still alcoholics.  You want an addictive drug, it's alcohol uber alles.

    3. You know this issue is more complicated than a simpleton's approach of posting a single Fox News link about the marijuanas.  Homelessness is a problem even where you think it shouldn't be: in the shadows of Focus on the Family. In the Cornhusker state (hint: marijuana isn't legal there). Iowa (hint again: no legal marijuana).  Idaho. (hint again: no legal marijuana) Veterans.  There is one state that has its act together:  Utah  Did you live here in the 70's?  If so, do you remember what Larimer Street was famous for? Maybe its time for a discussion in Colorado about taxing alcohol on par with marijuana and directing those funds to ending homelessness? 

      Here's another good read on the subject should you be interested in a non-Fox News perspective. 

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

119 readers online now

Newsletter

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

Colorado Pols