U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
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) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
July 18, 2016 08:12 AM UTC
36 Comments
lol
Another white lard-assed wingnut heart-attack-waiting-to-happen engaged in impotent bad ass bluster. Flotsam such as this clown is as common as earwigs these days.
Why is it so hard for these morons to understand that when someone (by that, I mean "most") says that "black lives matter," they're not saying that other lives don't?
Their point being that, while no one questions whether white lives matter ever, that the history (and, unfortunately, also the present) of this country is such, that the question of non-white lives mattering in practice needs to be pointed out so often to so many …
Jebus, this guy is a prototypical asshole!
Actually, Dio, my initial impression of Black Lives Matter was that the proponents were concerned only with black lives and that other lives really didn't matter. So, maybe use of the term "moron" isn't real appropriate. And I was in college during the original black power movement in the late 1960s, so I'm not without familiarity here.
As for Mr. Sampson, I think he should open his mouth wider so he can fit both feet in.
Regards,
CHB
(Proud to be a RAT: Republican Against Trump)
Sorry CHB. Obviously "Black Lives Matter" doesn't mean only black lives. It's a reaction to black lives being treated as having lesser value than "all" lives (read "white'") and a call to correct that, to treat black lives as having equal value, to recognize that black lives matter just as much. Wouldn't have thought someone with your intelligence would have needed that diagram.
Do you automatically assume that when someone says "Support the troops" they mean only the troops and screw everyone else? After all it's just "Support the troops" not "Support the troops too".
How about Blue Lives Matter''. Do you just naturally assume that means only the lives of police officers matter? Little kids, doctors, lawyers, truck drivers, teachers, fast food workers and everyone else can all go to hell?
Ever wonder why it is that people who say "Blue Lives Matter" don't see it as a message hostile to "All lives Matter' but definitely do see "Black Lives Matter" as incompatible with "All Lives Matter"? Bet not.
If you have assumed "Black lives Matter” to be exclusive and hostile and the other examples to be just fine, you might want to think about why that is.
Blue Cat: you're making a lot of assumptions and jumping to a lot of conclusions, all in deference to factionalism.
I don't think I'm the one making factionalist assumptions here but am not surprised at your refusal to subject your own assumptions and the assumptions of all those who think "Blue Lives Matter" is fine and not exclusionary but "Back Lives Matter" is toxic and divisive to reflection.
One of the more notable contradictions in the the right-winger narrative comes from those people who insist that "Black Lives Matter " means "Black lives matter more than white lives." They are being willfully ignorant and should just shut the fuck up.
I guess it must be those people who after time are unwilling or unable to think themselves past their "initial impressions" that have earned and deserve their sobriquet "moron."
See what you did here, CHB? Because you believed the black power movement of the 60s was only about black power, you acknowledge jumping to the assumption that Black Lives Matter in our current day is only about black power. Why is that? Seems time for some self-reflection as to why you jumped to that assumption.
Actually, gaf. I don't need to reflect on anything. I was there in the '60s; were you?
Yes, I was there in the 60s. But you got the comparison backward. Yes, the black power movement of the 60s was about black power. You seem to be saying the Black Lives Matter movement is the same, and referring back to the 60s as your rationalization. I'm suggesting you reflect on whether that is true. I don't think it is.
"comparison backward……." According to you and that's OK. We can agree to disagree, I would hope. And perhaps you may want to do some additional reflection.
The point of Black Lives Matter is that the thousands of people of color killed in police custody every year are real human beings whose lives matter. Only a moron (like Sampson) would deliberately misinterpret this to say that it means other lives don't matter.
If you look at the Freddie Gray video, or the Eric Garner video, or the Castille or Sterling video, or the investigation into the death of Sandra Bland, or Marvin Booker in DPD, or any of the 800 people who have died in police custody since her death, you understand that these lives did not matter to the police who killed them.
Of course all lives matter, including the lives of police. Targeting cops will only exacerbate the violence. But as Cornel West says,
Police need training and body cameras. When someone dies in custody, whatever their color, there needs to be a transparent investigation. A young white teen died recently in CA in an apparent "suicide by cop". He didn't need to die. There needs to be meaningful community policing and restorative justice. Police departments, including Denver's, need to stop trying to excuse and cover up all the deaths in custody, and start disciplining their own.
"thousands…….killed in police custody……." Sounds like a big time exaggeration. That's sort of like Occupy Denver disrupting a pro-police rally yesterday and trying to deny those persons their rightful freedom of speech.
If I get you the stats on the 1000s killed in police custody, CHB, will you read them? Because it's a lot of work to go through for someone whose mind is already made up and doesn't want to be confused with facts. I don't have time today, it would have to be tomorrow.
I reviewed some stats yesterday on deaths in police custody and nowhere near your "thousands." I get a couple of far out liberal publications; like the Progressive and Hightower Lowdown, to balance out my opinions. Nothing there either about "thousands."
Forget the thousands. How about the disparity only in cases of police shootings and killings of the unarmed? Unarmed African Americans are far more likely to be killed in encounters with police than unarmed whites. Period.
Of course I realize that there is no point in getting anyone who at this point in time still refuses to acknowledge any disparity in the way blacks and whites are treated to pay any attention to studies that contradict that denial but here goes anyway. With more time I could find more studies but I'm sure you'd dismiss all of them as well.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/study-finds-police-fatally-shoot-unarmed-black-men-at-disproportionate-rates/2016/04/06/e494563e-fa74-11e5-80e4-c381214de1a3_story.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/01/black-americans-killed-by-police-analysis
No, let's not forget the "thousands." Kindly stay on the topic that mamajama started.
Nice pivot to avoid addressing studies showing real disparity. Exactly the kind of response I knew I'd get if I I got any response at all and the reason why I knew providing links was a waste of time and providing any more would be as big a waste of time as trying to have a reality based discussion with Modster.
"Avoid addressing studies…….." I believe that's known as "thread drift."
The thread is about comments relayed in this diary pertaining to issues surrounding Black Lives Matter. Another nice deflection. Never mind, CHB. You're a perfect example of our main stream culture's baked in bias and denial. That is all. No more to say to you on the subject.
The context for this list, CHB, is in the longer comment, as you would know if you had bothered to read it. I think that you did read it, but you have no real counter-arguments, so you’re putting up a screen of BS. In the diary, I’ll include the “list” next to the context. Posting an image in an edited comment involves using html tags which are a pain. I’m sure you can relate, since you can’t be bothered to even paste a link to an article which you SAY proves your point.
Here's the BJS report I pulled for prisoner deaths in 2009.
CHB, I haven't forgotten about you. I've been on the road the last two days. You made me re-open the research for an old diary I had started, which I may publish this week to commemorate the 4th police officer acquitted in the death of Freddie Gray. So I will be sure to credit your inspirational influence in the footnotes to that diary.
I notice you don't cite the liberal websites you say that you looked at, CHB. But here's some of my research from such liberal sites as police reports, the Bureau of Prisons, the FBI, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics.(BJS)
To understand the big picture of excessive force resulting in police killing suspects, you have to look at arrest-related deaths, plus deaths in custody of jails or prisons, plus deaths in transit.
1. killedbypolice.net (on web and on facebook) keeps a rolling record of deaths in police custody. 3,730 deaths since they started tracking in 2013. So that's an average of 1200/year just from deaths while in the process of arrest and charge. This does not include jail and prison deaths. These deaths are compiled from police and news stories. 639 so far this year – on track to be more than 1,000 in 2016.
2. The BJS report for the 6 years between 1/03 and 12/09 reports 4813 arrest -related deaths (not prison or jail deaths) which is an average of ~800/year.
I'm posting here a report I pulled of deaths in custody from the BJS site just for the year 2009, broken down by county: You can see that people are dying in droves in California, but Pennsylvania also claims a high rate of prisoner mortality. Colorado had 39 deaths that year.
(report will be posted later)
You can see that the total will be approximately ~1400. Even if you posit that these were all deaths where police use of force was justified, a dubious proposition on its face,
3. The Marshall project (after Supreme Court Justice Thorogood Marshall) uses the BJS reports. However, the Marshall project also says that the police and FBI undercount in-custody deaths by at least 100%, and estimates that there are probably twice as many. Many states do not track deaths of prisoners or suspects.
4. No less "liberal" personages than FBI director Comey and President Obama have decried the under-reporting of deaths in custody. However, the Bureau of Justice Statistics report estimates that there were “an average of 928 law-enforcement homicides per year”.
So there are "at least" 800 arrest related deaths plus 1400 deaths in custody per year, and the head of the FBI believes there are twice that number if all were reported. That adds up to at least 2200 , i.e. "thousands".
How to fix it? Well, CHB, you've already read and dismissed my ideas. But this is what the Marshall Project says about How to Fix American Policing.
And here's an inspiring picture of Iesha Evans, a nonviolent Black Lives Matter protester in Baton Rouge, whom Mr. Sampson would undoubtedly call one of those "punk ass bitches".
Rain forests matter.
Does not mean other forests do not matter
MJ: I didn't cite web sites. I cited print publications. I have continuing multi-year subscriptions to Washington Spectator and Hightower Lowdown. I got The Progressive for a year, which is about the length of time I can stomach that publication (and I've done Progressive that way since the 1970s). The first two are more common sense liberal. None of these publications have spent a lot of time on your policing issues. Regarding your BJS list, it is just that, a list. No context, no details, no clarifications. Same for your Marshall Report stuff.
Call me callous if you want; I don't care; but there is an old saying: "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime" Commission of crimes is a personal choice; resorting to violence against others is a personal choice; no one generally is forcing people to commit crime. You will get agreement from me on how white collar crime is treated in the US. A black guy who knocks off a convenience store gets time in a 10' x 10' cell. A white financial advisor who may fleece clients out of millions of dollars either gets probation, with a lifetime ban from the industry, or gets time at a "country club" prison. You'll also get agreement from me if you criticize the Obama Administration over its failure to prosecute the fat cat bankers, and their derivative schemes, who almost crashed the world economy in 2007-09 (at least some of those banks got monster fines, but no jail time for executives).
CHB, apparently you didn't bother to read my other long post addressed to you. But….as predicted by myself and BC, you've already made up your mind, you aren't going to stir your prejudices around at all.
And you didn’t “cite” anything at all. Citing involves putting up a link to the exact publication and article. If you can’t be bothered putting up in-text citations by using the little link icon on the edit menu, then just paste the bloody thing. Otherwise, it’s just laziness. You expect readers to take your word that there is no injustice or unwarranted violence disparately directed at people of color – yet you lazily offer no evidence to the contrary.
You’re also using one of V’s favorite tactics – when you can’t answer the arguments, shift the debate to other issues. Apparently, you have no counter arguments to the contention that people of color are disproportionately targeted for violent reprisals by police, and receive de facto death sentences for minor crimes.
You can’t answer that contention, so you change the debate to white collar crime going unpunished, which is a “gimme”. Very few will disagree with that, except perhaps white collar criminals.
Let’s say a black guy and a white guy each hold up a separate convenience store. Simple robbery, no mayhem. The black guy is much more likely to get shot dead on the scene, while the white guy is much more likely to get 20 years in stir at the taxpayer’s expense. That’s pretty much how the system works now.
That's OK….I'll still put up a police abuse diary, and dedicate it to you. Cheers! mj
Just can't resist a swipe at me, can you, MJ. The problem often is that your statistics don't support your prejudices and you often swallow the elephant while choking on the gnat.
For openers, your tally of deaths in custody doesn't equal "thousands" unless you refer multi-year totals. And even then, it doesn't reflect the complexity of the problem. A great many of the people in jail are mentally ill, treatment is inadequate or non-existent and they may be subject to the most horrid brutality not by jailors but by fellow prisoners. Yes, it's national scandal but one requiring a thoughtful (and expensive) response, not just assuming that if racist cops cleaned up their act the problem would go away.
As to police-involved killings — yes, the majority of victims are white, but blacks are involved far more as a proportion of the population. In ninety percent of such cases, the victim was armed, so the unarmed ones are outliers. And the racial disparity largely disappears when you account for the fact that blacks are far more likely be involved in the kind of violent crime that draws a police response. Yes, it would be nice if 400 years of racism hadn't ravaged black society. But it has, and at some point society needs to address it.
The issue , in short, is far more complex than your number-sticker mentality can address. And at least one major study, in Houston, by a black sociologist suggests police are somewhat more likely to use lethal force when the victim is white:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/13/why-a-massive-new-study-on-police-shootings-of-whites-and-blacks-is-so-controversial/
V, Please see the studies I link to that show that unarmed persons killed by police are disproportionately black. That removes several of the factors you cite. I find it hard to believe that you would really deny there is any basis to the perception that there is baked in bias in the way black men are perceived and the treatment they receive. If you are really saying that it is all imaginary and that unarmed African America young men are treated exactly the same, on average and over all, in encounters with police as unarmed whites are then I'm pretty stunned.
You seem to be insisting that racism in our culture, including the culture of law enforcement, has been completely eliminated and that every police shooting of every unarmed black man is above reproach, perfectly excusable and justified.
If that's what you believe there is really no point in further debate. Especially since it's not a debate between that position and a position that all police shootings of black men are criminal and unjustified, though you seem to want to make it that. Understandable because then it would be a debate between two equally hard to defend positions.
I never said that, as you know, BC. But for openers, you ignore the fact that 90 percent of people killed by police ARE armed, which makes your obsession with the ten percent unarmed rather awkward. We just blow by that 90 percent in our rush to assert moral outrage?
Second, you obviously didn't read the study I posted. It concluded that police were somewhat more likely to use NONlethal force (taser, etc) on black men than white men, but somewhat more likely to use lethal force on white men than black men in comparable circumstances. Yes, it's food for thought and , surprise, shows the world is more complex than black lives matter posters assert.
I don't know V. You just come across as being extremely resistant to recognizing racism or possible police misconduct. Maybe it's just your style to express things in ways that sound very emphatic, very black and white.
You also misunderstand why I chose a look at police shootings of the unarmed. It's not that I'm obsessed with this particular type of shooting or even because I think this represents the most problematic area but only because it's a specific type of shooting where several other possible factors aren't present, such as the person shot by the officer having a gun present, legally or illegally, disclosed or undisclosed.
From the point of view of empirical study it's just a cleaner, more focused study with fewer possible contributing factors to contend with. That is all.
V, all you demonstrate here is that you, too, didn't bother to read, since it conflicts with your preconceptions. It's fine. I'm taking a break from driving around – hopefully, I can get a diary up and you all can fire away (so to speak) at that.
800 plus 1400 = 2200 which is "thousands" per year. And per Obama and Comey, this underestimates officer-involved shootings by half. But I wouldn't expect you or CHB to acknowledge that. Facty whacty wench out.
have a good day, but "thousands" doesn't mean 2200 in casual usage and saying it may be twice that is a long way from rigorous application. But thanks for the response.
You are right, V, that in casual parlance "thousands" is assumed to mean more than a couple thousand. Besides that no comparison based on raw numbers serve to support, fail to support, prove or disprove anything with much credibility.
It's precisely due to the desire to avoid as much imprecision and muddying as possible that I chose studies concerning a sampling with much more limited parameters, the study of police shootings of unarmed persons, to support the contention of racial disparity in the results of encounters with law enforcement.
Outside of a lab, single factors can never be studied in absolute isolation but the more extraneous factors you can eliminate the better. Once again, my choice of a more limited subset of shootings to back up a point doesn't in any way imply a belief that the shootings in that subset are more important, much less denote an obsession with that subset.
As I reject your accusation of obsession, I also reject CHB's accusation of thread drift. I was simply trying to introduce into a discussion of disparity of treatment a more focused and therefore potentially more useful subset of data than the raw, broad, less than precise information presented by mama and subject to so many more potential influences other than race.
Cheerios to you and CHB both, BC
There are worse sins than thread drift and I surely should have said your"focus" rather than obsession. My main question of MJ is her joining police shooting statistics with deaths in jail as " in police custody" Wildly different situations. It's the latter where I think mental health issues, lack of treatment, brutality including rape from other inmates., etc. contribute to horrifically high suicide rates. And, yes, it's useful to isolate as many factors in such a study as you cited as possible. The Houston study raises some very serious issues. It does study that one department in depth and may not related well to L.A., etc. For what its worth, the author is black and simply followed his data to its reasonable conclusions.
And have a grand evening, BC. As always, you earned it.
Thanks, V. You too.
"You're using one of V.'s favorite tactics……….shift the debate to other issues." Actually, MJ, it was Blue Cat who tried the thread drift tactic, not me. You define "citations" in one way and expect everyone to agree with how you define things. It's not laziness on my part; I gave you references from where I obtain my "liberal information." You can google those sources if you want, or not. That's your choice.
Bottom line is that deep down, I have little interest in your social justice crusades, or whatever you want to call them. Our interests may align in certain areas; you as an apparent leftist liberal and myself as a common sense conservative. In no particular order: 1) neither of us like Donald Trump 2) I detest the religious right in all its manifestations; a movement that I consider to be the biggest threat today to freedom and liberty in the USA 3) I'm a strong conservationist. I believe there is some human causation to global warming (note I'm not using the more politically correct "climate change"). I believe in a gradual shift away from use of fossil fuels, with a change over from dirty coal to cheaper & cleaner natural gas coming first. I don't automatically oppose fracking at this time. 4) I'm an avid proponent of keeping our public lands public, instead of giving them away to big money special interests 5) while I support a strong national defense, I don't worship the military-industrial complex, with all its waste and cost overruns 6) I support providing opportunity for people to better themselves in life. I don't support the welfare-handout complex, except to help those who can’t help themselves, like my non-verbal younger brother with an estimated IQ of 20.. Regards, CHB