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
April 30, 2016 12:04 AM UTC

Weekend Open Thread

  • 64 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“Next to a battle lost, the greatest misery is a battle gained.”

–Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

Tweet
Share

Comments

64 thoughts on “Weekend Open Thread”

      2. Indeed. Millennial votes are complex, according to this Harvard poll. 56% of all millennials prefer a Democrat in the White House, and that goes up around 76% for black and Latino millennials.

        Young white voters prefer Republicans – except for all those Sanders voters. But who cares about what they want?

  2. So THAT'S their new campaign strategy……

    Jane Sanders has started whining that the FBI investigation into Hillary's e-mails taking too long. So their new strategy is to pray for an indictment. 

    I supposed this is a marginally more viable approach than their last strategy:  try to flip enough super delegates to allow Bernie to overtake HRC's lead in pledged delegates.

    The problem with this strategy is that even if HRC were indicted on Monday and immediately withdrew from the race, by Tuesday night, Joe Biden would be announcing his candidacy (with Obama standing next to him), and by Thursday morning, some 90% of the Clinton delegates would be behind Joe. The nomination doesn't default to the second place finisher.

    And then we'd be hearing the screams about the rigged system from You-Know-Who…..

     

    1. Dream on, Frankly. Uncle Joe has already said he's not running.

      As far as the FBI investigation on the emails, don't you wish it was completed already, and not hanging over the election? I'd bet Hillary does. Expressing a mild wish that "It would be nice", when asked if the FBI should finish up its investigation, doesn't really constitute either "whining" or a new "strategy".

      Nice spinning, though…you must be getting bored. Don't you have some canvassing or phonebanking to do?

      1. I am with you there, mama. Not to mention how the "actual reality" of 8 more years of Obama would do to motivate the righties. They use that meme on every Dem, all the way down to state rep.

        No way Joe beats that rap….

         

         

        1. And while we're dreaming, would it be fair to ask what the Sandernista faction wants the resolution to be?    Franklly, given this many FBI agents and this long to investiigate, I think I could prove the pope was a Mormon.

        2. If I just want to fire up the right wing, Duke, I whisper the word "socialism" and they start tearing up the paving stones to build barricades in the streets.

          1. We have been over this ground before, V. Not into flogging dead horses today. I am busy at work, just checked in while grabbing a bite to eat..I see the Clintonista bunch is busy amusing each other…

            Carry on, and have a lovely day!!

      2. And while we're dreaming, would it be fair to ask what the Sandernista faction wants the resolution to be?    Franklly, given this many FBI agents and this long to investiigate, I think I could prove the pope was a Mormon.

        1. In any event, Blue Cat, we have a backup plan,  Chelsea Clinton is 36, tanned, rested and ready.  I'll take her over a 75 year old Soocialist any daysmiley

        2. In any event, Blue Cat, we have a backup plan,  Chelsea Clinton is 36, tanned, rested and ready.  I'll take her over a 75 year old Socalist any daysmiley

            2. Irritating mama must be the point since Chelsea has absolutely no experience of any kind that would in any way shape or form qualify her for the presidency or any other high political office. But I'm pretty sure it'll work. Irritating mama is ridiculously easy.

              1. You did say that irritating me (or people you imagine to be "like me") is your primary reason for posting here…the least I can do is oblige you.

                I'm not "dreaming of" an HRC indictment on the emails. I don't think there's criminality there, and besides, I have bigger dreams to dream – which is why I'm a Sanders supporter.

                Speaking of which, I do wish that Frankly would start yammering on about "free stuff", since every time he does, I send another $3 to the Sanders campaign.cheeky

                1. It's your money and you're free to do with it as wish.

                  (Which is kind of a new concept for true socialists.)

                  FREE STUFF!  

                  If Bernie weren't so self-righteous, he'd offer me a cut on what he brings in from my harassing his supporters.  wink

                   

                2. Actually V said that or pretty close but you hit my reply. Is this what you’re responding to?

                  “Oh well, that irritates MJ twice as much”

                  That’s V.

                  Please show me where I ever said my primary (or secondary or one among many) reason for posting here is to irritate you or people like you. I did say irritating you was ridiculously easy but that’s not the same thing. It helps that you have no sense of humor or ability to detect teasing, irony or parody. Not uncommon among overly earnest libs. Please note I didn’t say all libs. Some of us are pretty funny and appreciate humor, even when directed against us.

                  1. Or, it could possibly be that your "humor" isn't as Hillarious as you might wish. You did say that being irritating was Bluecat's primary reason to post here. I refuse to take the time to find the exact comment. It was several months ago.

                    This infighting is why people get sick of Pols. When I ask Dems out there if they read this blog, the typical response is: "No, it's boring. They just talk to each other and wait for Republicans to post something so they can jump on them. "

                    I do have actual work to do. Enjoy.

                    1. Bullshit, mama. I don’t have time is a piss poor excuse. And BTW you don't seem to get anyone's humor, snark or teasing. You're about as much fun as Carrie Nation with her axe. Most of the rest of us have fun talking to each other. We don’t imagine that this is a blog with a broad audience that’s going to change the world or anything. Not that many people give a damn about politics. If you don’t have fun here, too bad, not that I can imagine what your if idea of fun might be.

                  2. Not bullshit. Took the time. No reply box under your comment, but…Here ya go:

                    From November 25, 2015:

                    As for being irritating, BlueCat doesn't mind. In fact freedom from concern about being pleasant and diplomatic is the main reason for BlueCat's existence devil. And you can't possibly find BlueCat more irritating than BlueCat finds the constant bitter attacks on Bennet for the very same stands Obama takes with no similar degree of offense taken with Obama. The irritation is entirely mutual. We're not here to be ditto heads, after all.

                    Yup, the irritation is entirely mutual. Truer words were never typed. I also agree with 90% of what you write, but a mutual admiration society this isn’t.

                    2. You are A-OK with me, mama. Don't let them get to you. I have taken to ignoring the droning as much as possible. Can't wait for the general to start. Once the coronation is behind us, it should die down.

                    3. How do you turn a statement that freedom from worrying about being irritating, obviously in reply to someone expressing  irritation with me with, is the reason for my use of a nom de plume into…. the  primary reason I post is to irritate you. Very sloppy there mama. I'd expect better reading comprehension and more precision from a teacher. You also say that truer words were never typed so….  WTF?surprise

                      Double bullshit.

                  3. BC, I'm done with this unamusing spat. You might not be, but that's your choice. I have no idea why you keep on feeding it, but suffice to say if I've ever inadvertently offended you, I apologize. I tried to call for a Passover Shalom, but clearly that didn't take.

                    I'll just avoid replying to you, even when you're clearly baiting me. I'd prefer not to blank out your comments, because, as I've said, you are often insightful.

                3. Free stuff.  Free stuff.  Free stuff.  Free stuff.  Free stuff.  That's $15 you owe Bernie.  Maybe he won't have to lay off 225 staffers after all.smiley. P.s., you were right about Jane.  She was interviewed on Fox by Neil Cavuto and her comments were reasonable in context.  Gee, you don't think Fox would try to stir up troublle among Democcratt?  Nah.  

    1. shhh….you're going to upset your good friend Moderatus who just calmed down after HIS good friend, John Keyser's Senate candidacy's near-death experience.

    2. LIE.

      “Based on our conversations with the Republican National Convention’s host committee and committee on arrangements, we decided last fall to provide a variety of Microsoft technology products and services instead of making a cash donation,”

      1. Hmmm, I wonder how many copies of Windows 98 it's gonna' take to run this Republican soirée???  

        I'm thinking Orville Redenbacher, Depend, ExtenZe, the NRA, and the WWF could still pull this off for the GOPers, however. 

        1. Leave Orville out of it.  I can't make it through the election without his fine popcorn,   But I will chip in an old copy of Windows 95 for the GOP. And, of course, CP/M for Rafael, who no doubt finds Microsoft too far left for his fancy.

    1. What's funny is you expecting everyone here to wade through all those speeches trying to find the reference to Cory Gardner. 

      1. Washington Post put up a transcript. About five minutes in:

        But on everything else, it’s another story. And you know who you are, Republicans. In fact, I think we’ve got Republican senators Tim Scott and Cory Gardner. They are in the house, which reminds me … security bar the doors. Judge Merrick Garland come on out. We are going to do this right here. Right now.

        It’s like the red wedding.

        1. That was a great 22 minutes.  Thanks for the belly laughs, Mr. Pres.  Particularly loved he and Boehner's piece sitting together in the White House theater.  

      3. I don't know, CHB. I watched the President's entire speech and found it well worth my time. Now that he's not running for anything, he can say anything he damn well pleases and he was FUNNY.

          1. He was funny in the skit with the President. And I'm still laughing at what he said was his wife's reaction was when he told her he was quitting Congress: "Good". 

  5. Another five years of free water for Nestle  while California dries up? Just say no.

    Nestle's been pumping free water from the San Bernardino National Forest in California for 28 years. Their permit expired in 1988. They'd like their permit to be renewed for another five years.  The public comment period with the US Forest Service closes tomorrow, May 2, 2016. (below, Nestle's water pipeline in the SB forest. From Huffington Post)

    So…to review. Nestle gets free water from public lands. California is in the middle of a historic drought. Nestle will sell this public – lands water at a 2000% markup to thirsty consumers, incidentally creating millions of tons of plastic waste from bottles. If a robust environmental review is conducted, Nestle will possibly not get its permit.  Three environmental groups are also suing to stop the renewal of Nestle's water-pumping permit. So sign the petition by tomorrow, or comment directly on the US Forest Service site.

    This goes to the heart of "People before profits". It's obscene to take the public's water, needed for agriculture, people, animals, ecosystem, bottle it, and sell it back at a profit. Nestle's CEO, Peter Braeback,said that water is not a human right.

    1. Why is it obscene to sell water for people to drink?   That would seem the highest use for water.  Your outrage would be far better directed to soda companies that pollute water with hundreds of calories of sugar then sell it to drink.  Finally, a single hamburger consumes huge amounts of water and also triggers release of methane gas.  Blind hatred of the profit motive is precisely why rational people discount leftist ideology.  By the way, a 2000 percent markup on water rates at wholesale would still be trifling, since a few bucks buys thousands of gallons of water.

  6. Water is a human right, Nestle's CEO notwithstanding. Nestle, one of the largest water bottlers and beverage companies, is one of the least moral, most irresponsible companies in the world. Thousands of infants have died because Nestle propagandized their mothers to stop breast-feeding and to start using Nestle formula.

    The San Bernardino forest is not the only place in California where Nestle is pumping out scarce water. California's aquifers are also being drained, bottled, and sold. Nestle makes agreements with Native groups on reservations, which may or may not be accountable to members. These agreements are also not transparent for the public to view, because of the tribe's sovereign status.

    One bottle of water is not an efficient use of scarce water. The International Bottled Water Association found that it takes 1.39 liters of water to make one liter of water.

    So, no, Nestle's corporate operations in bottling water in drought-stricken California can not in any way be considered to be in the public interest.

    1. I am sure you sincerely believe Nestle is Satan in human form.  But if think it wasting water to drink water, that is absurd.  The Denver Water Board sells about 200 gallons for a dollar.  Your breathless claim of a 2000 percent profit therefore means Nestle is selling bottled water for a profit of 20 gallons for a dollar.  I know it is a point of pride on the left that they don't do math, but that is absurd. No company could stay in business on so minuscule a margin.  Simply put, using a percentage markup on a product whose base cost is near zero yields an absurd result.

      1. The worst part of the whole bottled water industry is the amount of plastic garbage it creates and convinces people they need for no good reason. None of it is any healthier than water you can get out of your tap with a filter and in fact that's pretty much what most of it is…. filtered water just like you can get at home and put into a reusable container if you want to take some with you. And it is a lot more expensive than water from your tap but the point is one does wonder what people who are proud of using reusable shopping bags and recycling bins and driving hybrid cars but who go through little plastic bottles of water on a daily basis are thinking.

         

        1. That is absolutely true, BC. But there are two corrollaries to that truth.

          1 The plague of plastic garbage is not limited to drinking water.  Soda pop and even fruit juices are just as bad.  Banning bottledvwater while selling Pepsi and Coke is no answer.

          2,The real answer is a deposit law.  If a mandatory deposit of 25 cents per bottle is charged, then the bottles will be almost universally recyled.  Big Soda fights such laws but at some point will have to live with them or face an outright ban.

           

           

           

           

      2. Again with the straw men. I never said Nestle is Satan in human form. But, as far as companies go, Nestle deserves its reputation for being callous in the pursuit of profit, as its marketing of formula vs.breastfeeding history shows.

        On this particular case, (pumping water from California's public lands on an expired permit and selling it while the forests burn and California bakes), the facts are what they are.

        It costs Nestle approximately .000019 per gallon to pump a gallon from the San Bernardino Strawberry Canyon watershed. That's $524 /year to the Forest Service to pump 27 million gallons of water. Multiply that by 1000 to cover labor, processing, and marketing, and you still have only .019 per gallon. At 3.8 liters /gallon, each liter costs .005 to get into a bottle and onto the shelf, where it sells for $2-5 depending on the label (Nestle has dozens).  So claiming a 2000% profit is actually conservative.

        I think that the San Bernardino permit should be stopped, and probably not renewed unless Nestle shows true environmental stewardship. If Nestle is allowed to continue pumping water from public lands and aquifers in CA, real environmental costs should be factored in. The San Bernardino forest burned last year, and cost $3.2 million to fight that wildfire. That's not even considering loss of property and life. If Nestle is draining water away from that forest, they should be helping to cover the costs of its loss.

        Where Nestle is draining California's aquifers, elsewhere in CA, you can't even mitigate that loss, because aquifers take centuries to recharge. That's permanent environmental harm.

        I'm obviously not arguing that people shouldn't drink bottled water. I myself filter my coal and cow-contaminated, chlorinated water so that it's palatable, and fill my own water bottles. I'll buy water if I need to, like anyone else.

        But it's an incredibly profitable industry, which uses up an essential commodity that, in California's aquifers case at least, can't be replaced. Asking for the company to be more responsible (even if slightly less profitable) is the least they can do.

        1. I agree that the permit ought be terminated. All should. For me it has nothing to do with Nestle but that these are all in places with drought. Nestle also takes water from Chaffee County.

          If Nestle, or another bottler, wants water let them pay the customer rate from a local utility

           

        2. You actually are totally confused about profit vs. Markup.  A profit of more than 100 percent of retail price is actually impossible.  The real test of profit is rate of return on invested capital.   That is a wholly different concept.   And if you re-read your original diatribe, you do indeed denounce Nestle with a fervor normally found in the Weatboro Baptist Church for gay sex.  You still haven't figured out that drinking water for human consumption is the highest and best use of water in a drought even if — horrors — someone makes a profit doing so.  Fundamentalism — whether the Bapist or Socialist variety — simply precludes rational thought.  Have a nice free stuff.

  7. I am also highly sceptical when I see a target of the left quoted as saying something monstrous, like people not having a right to water.  That is almost certainly taken out of context, just like Marie Antoinette never actually told the poor to eat cake.  But if you think people have a right to drink water, then why doesn't nestle have a right to sell water to drink?  Yes, Nestle has long been on the left wing hate list, but that doesn't mean the company is evil.  And if you actually think drinking water wastes water. There is no hope for you.  Most water goes to flush toilets, wash cars, or water lawns and even then, all urban uses, including manufacturing, use less than ten percent of our water resources.  Agriculture uses the 90 percent, with stunning amounts going to grow almonds, etc.  Sorrow to interrupt your two minutes hate with ten seconds of logic, but blaming water drank by humans — a necessity for life itself — for water shortages is ridiculous.  And a ratio of 1.39 liters of water for 1 liter of bottled water is actually incredably efficient.  Order a glass of water in a restaurant and they will use several times that just to wash the glass.

    1. The pushing of formula in third world countries and it’s dangerous consequences are well documented and actually is pretty obscene since the water available to mix with the formula is so often unsafe and the safest way to nourish an infant, especially in places where clean water is hard to obtain, is by breast feeding. I do agree that the level of hysteria with which often legitimate criticisms and concerns are expressed along with the free mixing of well documented with less credible contensions is an unhelpful way of making a case.  

      1. The formula issue, as you note, is rather different.   But even here, I have seen experts argue both sides.  Impoverished mothers in 3rd world countries don't always produce enough milk.  As always, poverty sucks.  As to water, though, MJ's belief that it is obscene to selling drinking water during a water shortage is ridiculous on its face.  If you are going to drink a half gallon of water a day you can either A let the water company pipe it from the reservoir to your house , draw it from your tap and drink it or, B, let nestle draw it from the aquifer, bottle it, truck it to 7-11 , and let you buy it and drink it.  Obviously, the latter costs you more, but it is silly to say that you drink more water that way.  If I am on the road I will certainly drink bottled water, not Coke, it is much healthier.  But I am careful to dispose of the bottle responsibly.  Thefact remains that the actual amount of water consumed directly by humans is trifling.

      2. I've been observing the Nestle boycott for 35 years and have no intention of stopping until they do. The water is just another weight on the stack that justifies it. It's not just that they sell formula to impoverished mothers, it's that they provide premixed formula to women while they are in hospital and then send them home with enough of the powdered stuff to last until the mother's own milk dries up. Then the have no choice but to buy the formula and mix it with the local water. The cost of the Crap in a Can is often equal to or more than the entire household income.Evil all the way around.

        1. Obviously, such marketing is wrong.  But I've also seen dispassionate discussion that there is another side.  Women are often fed less than men and male children in third world countries and that discrimination can extend to nursing mothers.  They simply may not ptoduce enough milk to feed their babies and the effort further weakens them. In such cases, supplemental formula can be helpful.  Of course, such poor families may not be able to afford formula in the first place.  For several years we provived goats to third world families via heifer international because goats milk can literally be a life saver.  But even in the U.S., there is an anti- breast feeding backlash building with harried moms and doctors arguing that the breast feeding advantages has been substantially overstated.

          1. I agree that  too much pressure to breast feed is misguided but there is no question as to the benefits which is not to say that it's horrible to make a different choice.  Actively discouraging breast feeding in favor of mixing formula with dangerous water solely for the purpose of growing markets and increasing profit, however, is a different story. 

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

119 readers online now

Newsletter

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