CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

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
July 10, 2017 06:39 AM UTC

Monday Open Thread

  • 60 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“Battling with evil gives us the power to battle evil even more.”

–Ossie Davis

Tweet
Share

Comments

60 thoughts on “Monday Open Thread”

    1. Yes verily I say unto you, Trump stinks.  Follow the unnamed one and stay upwind.  It is important.  And invest in air freshener stocks.

      1. min·ion

        ˈminyən/

        synonyms:underling, henchman, flunky, lackey, hanger-on, follower, servant, hireling, vassal, stooge, toady, sycophant

    1. Teddy Roosevelt thunk it. Conservatives in the west thunk it, too, up until about a decade or so ago. Hell, conservation was the thing Conservatives went with because it wasn't Environmentalism.

      1. It is worth noting ,OF, that "conservation" is defined two different ways in the west, depending on to whom you are talking.

        In the case of oil and gas, and other minerals presumably, what "conservation" means is leaving nothing in the ground. What they are "conserving" is monies (severance taxes) to be paid to the state residents through various mechanisms,  all of which stress "conserving" the value of the resource by making sure none of it is "wasted" by leaving it in the ground.

        Isn't it great what you can do with words?

      2. Yes, I'm aware of them (Western Way). There are other conservative groups engaged in environmental protection. Also sportsmen groups, such as the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and Sportsmen for Responsible Energy Development. The former poster here, BlueCat, kept saying last year that I'm alone, the last of my kind. You see that she was wrong.

        It's our conservative way of telling regressionists like Trump, Pence, Pruitt, Rob Bishop (R-UT), others, to take their b.s. baloney and stuff it. And their Pols local minions like PP, Moderatus, Andrew can stuff their share.

      1. ConservAmerica has its value. I know some of the players there. However, they did a major faux pas early this year when they endorsed Scott Pruitt for EPA administrator, thinking they could work with him. Don't think that notion is working out well.

        1. I didn't know about the Pruitt faux pas. I don't follow them closely but run into their President Rob Sisson at least once a year. He's a really decent guy. 

          1. I don't know if the Pruitt mis-step is still up on C.A.'s web site or not. It certainly stirred interest among some of the partisans of the old Republicans for Environmental Protection who aren't directly affiliated with C.A. But I do agree about Rob.

              1. I met her a couple times. Interesting lady. A rancher from NM or AZ as I recall. A very vocal and effective advocate during the O&G wars.

                1. I had the opportunity to shadow her twice in DC a decade ago when we were both working on renewable energy policy (2007 Energy Act) and I was still a Republican at that time. She is very effective.  Don't know if she's still kicking dirt on the Fossilonians or not – but I loved her style. 

                  1. I have a similar recollection. She visited Garfield County a couple of times during the heat of the battle over surface owners rights ( or lack thereof, more precisely). I got to know her husband Linn…great guy.

                    1. Michael: I may have met her once. She was mostly active in the late 1990s and into the 2000s. Her name hasn't come across my e-desk in quite a while. I think her ranch was/is in NW New Mexico.

  5. Half Scoop has some pfruitsplain' to do…

    "What I suspect is the most important detail in this story is the sources. The Times reports that they got the information from 'three advisers to the White House briefed on the meeting and two others with knowledge of it.' They apparently talked after the release of the first story. This is highly, highly significant. Needless to say, advisors to the White House are not in the business of taking highly damaging stories and volunteering new information which makes them catastrophically damaging. The only reason a President’s allies ever do something like that is either to get ahead of something much more damaging or get a first crack at shaping the public understanding of something much more damaging. There’s really no other explanation. We don’t know yet what drove them to volunteer such highly damaging information. Five of them did it. It wasn’t a matter of one person going rogue."
    ~ Josh Marshall

    1. So to recap: At first, Jonny Jr. claimed that he never set up a meeting with Russians to talk about sabatoging Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Then, when the Times found out he did set up the meeting, he claimed it was just about adoption. Then, when the Times found out that it was in fact about the campaign, he claimed that it was about adoption AND the campaign (but mostly about adoption). Then after a night of backlash, Don Don dismissively tweeted, “What, as if you wouldn’t have met with her to talk about the campaign??”

      https://newrepublic.com/minutes/143782/donald-trump-jrs-defense-theres-nothing-wrong-colluding-russians

       

      1. Why did Manafort (Trump's campaign manager) attend the meetings. Was the Trump campaign interested in Russian orphans?

        And Kushner? Maybe he and Ivanka were thinking about adopting a Russian baby?

      2. Let's look at this story another way: HalfScoop wants to murder his wife, and while he looks like he could star in American Psycho and be a murder (he isn't), he's not sure where to look for a hitman, so his friend recommends one to him and sets up a meeting. Donald Jr goes to said meeting, starts having a conversation with the hitman and determines that this guy is sloppy and will definitely lead the police to conclude I ordered my wife's murder. Donald Jr gets up and leaves, not ordering anything. 

        This is still illegal – it's a conspiracy to commit murder. 

        And that's what we have here, a conspiracy to collude with a known hostile, foreign, entity. Donald Trump Jr. met with a foreign agent of the Russian government under the pretext that this person would have damaging information to use against Hillary Clinton (he admits this in his statement to the Times). He included in this meeting Senior Advisor to candidate Donald Trump, Sr Jared Kushner and his campaign manager, Paul Manafort. After communicating with the Russian lawyer for a while it was determined the information was "bad," and subsequently ended the meeting. 

        The end result is the same: they were willing to commit a conspiracy to collude to bring down a political opponent.  

        Questions remain: who set this meeting up? And what more is coming down the pike to continue to fuel the flames that the Trump Campaign and the Russians worked together to bring down Hillary Clinton. 

        We have smoke, and we have a gun, time will tell who pulled the trigger.
         

        1. Thought I saw something recently that Paul Manafort has again registered as an agent of foreign governments. Don't recall quickly which ones.

          To quote likely thoughts, about Michael’s story above, from PP, Moderatus, Andrew…..that’s all nice fake news, but we really need to talk about Hillary’s e-mails and Benghazi.

          2. This has been a tough 24hr cycle for Uday.  You don't hire a criminal defense attorney just to handle your PR problems with the press while you run Daddy's "company" into the ground.  Safe bet that TwoScoops™ has a drawer full of pardons already executed in his top right-hand drawer?  How long before his lawyer needs a lawyer?

            Trump Jr. hires lawyer for Russia probes

             

                1. Are the taxpayers picking up the tab for this little exercise? The Trumpence boys have assembled a pretty high priced legal team. Has Ivaka lawyered up yet, I wonder? 

                   

        2. Upon further review, perhaps the Russian adoption alibi may have some merit . . . 

          . . . it's been several years now since TwoScoops Jr. had himself a new mommy; maybe someone's in the market for a new-model Presidential upgrade?

  8. I have scanned a few news sites…I wonder if this is the one we have been anticipating. How they gonna weasel out of this one? I think martial law is the only answer.

    Ed who? 🙂

  9. The slippery slope free fall to #MoreDumber.  While Moddy embraces his liburty-lubin, gun-totin' teaching lady (with no health insurance and a crush on Adam Smith) and all those fine Hatriots at his special school, our Founding Fathers and Abraham Lincoln roll spin in their graves:

    Poll: Most Republicans say colleges have negative impact on US

    A majority of Republicans in a new survey think colleges and universities have a negative effect on the U.S.

    The Pew Research Center poll finds 58 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents think colleges and universities hurt the country.

     

      1. Seems I remember that $300,000,000 figure as being about what the O&G industry is GIVEN every year with the Ad Valorem program. Give or take a few million.

        2. I've forgotten the exact details but didn't Sonnenberg try to run a bill that would prohibit state funds (through Energy Impact? I know the fund was an oil and gas fund of sorts) from being given to local units of government that exercised permit control over the O&G guys or instituted moratoriums?  In some ways this theory is applicable to places where they've prohibited cannabis cultivation or retail (damned near every rural county).  Should they get the benefit of these dollars? Philosophically I'd lean towards no, but I don't think the children of the old white folks who are still running a #ReeferMadness fever should have to pay for the sins of their father. 

          1. The only Sonnenberg bill (I could find) close to that description was SB15-093, which made local governments which restricted O&G into "takers" which then had to compensate the mineral rights owner. That bill died in the House.

            Perry Buck tried to pass a similar bill in the House that year. (It also died)

            Sonnenberg also sponsored several bills to make it more difficult to implement the Clean Power Plan, in 2016 and 2017. They also died in the House (postponed indefinitely)

            Almost all of Sonnenberg's energy bills died in the House, except the one he passed this year, which penalized protesters who try to shut off a pipeline.   He was so pleased, he called a press conference.

            Haven't seen any legislation prohibiting local governments from receiving funds from activities that they ban.

            1. Thanks for the sleuthing, Mama. I found it; it was longer ago than I thought  

              Cities that ban drilling would lose severance revenues under initiative

              Municipalities with bans on oil and gas drilling would be barred from their cut of statewide taxes amassed on the fuels if Coloradans approve a ballot initiative being pushed by a pair of Republican state lawmakers. 

              The initiative announced on Thursday by Reps. Frank McNulty of Highlands Ranch and Jerry Sonnenberg of Sterling would prohibit local jurisdictions from receiving severance tax revenues while bans or moratoriums are in effect. 

              Front Range cities including Boulder, Fort Collins and Lafayette have voted in support of bans or moratoriums on oil and gas drilling. If the initiative makes the November ballot and voters statewide support it, those cities could stand to lose out on some of the estimated $275 million in severance taxes state economists project could come next year from oil and gas drilling.

              1. No problemo. It gave me a chance to see just what a dick my state Senator is – as if I didn't know that already. I'll have something to talk about with him next time he comes around on a photo-op "listening tour".

                It's interesting that he felt he had to bypass the regular legislative process to try to get this done, instead going the initiative route.

                 

    2. 1. How did you find a photo of one of my star pupils? I think he wrote his essay on how Trump would make America grate again.

      2. What's up with the Lite beer? True patriots only drink the full-sugar, full-alcohol brew.

      3. Regarding your post about CO's pot sales tax funding the BEST grants – that's how my town is funding the renovation and rebuilding of both the middle and high school – yet people still have to drive 10 miles to the nearest dispensary to buy any form of the evil weed. They're definitely not giving the money back, however!

       

      1. That's how you spot a genuine Dumphikian, MamaJ: they hate all those libural policies that generate taxes (and subsidize their farms) but they aren't about to pass up free money from the very gummit they despise. Because somehow they earned it (a generalization that's generally true) 

    3. If . . . 

      . . . your Economics education ended with "Adam Smith," your Literature education ended with "Dr. Suess", and your Science education ended with "Genesis," . . . 

      . . . well then, without any doubt at all, you're definitely a 21st-century Republican!!!!!

      (h/t some redneck)

  10. Excellent article in Yes! on how the ACA was bringing down the rural unisured rate. Then Trump happened.

    Both the House and Senate bills to repeal and replace Obamacare would drastically reduce rural Americans’ insurance coverage and significantly threaten the ability of many rural hospitals and clinics to keep their doors open. Analysts show that the bill would provide insufficient tax credits to pay for rural premium costs, drastically increase the price of rural premiums and increase uncompensated care in rural hospitals.

    I know premiums on the individual markets are still higher here in the sticks, but access to needed care is fundamental. Is Cory paying attention? His staffer asked me if I thought health care was a "privilege or a right". I told her that it's a right, that every other industrialized country has a public health care plan.

    But apparently Cory still feels that health care is for the privileged few.

            1. That was the plan but it looks like I'm going to have to stay put and tend to the mining operations of the Ogallala. Trying to keep up in these temps is brutal.  💦🌱💦 

              1. I have a gig across town so I couldn't go anyway, but it would be nice to catch you in town and buy you a hot cup of coffee or a cold beer. Good luck with your irrigating…

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

179 readers online now

Newsletter

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