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%
January 14, 2022 01:46 PM UTC
62 Comments
The world will be a slightly better place when this weeping pustule on the left buttock of humanity drops dead.
Hold on, there. Lemme’ just double-check that . . .
I guess McKean is clearly small (petty) enough, has a distinctive coloration (splotchy-white), and bears close-enough resemblance to a blister or pimple . . .
. . . And, he is definitely kinda’ whiny (weepy) . . .
I’m good with “weeping pustule” — seems accurate enough to pass the Webster’s test . . .
Perhaps it would have been better to say "right buttock of humanity" to reflect those political leanings.
Excellent point.
Thank you, Diogenesdemar! Had you said otherwise, you would've been guilty of "misunderstanding" me.
That same explanation seemed so much more believable back a few days ago when Elliot suggested it . . .
. . . I guess that’s why there are lawyers?
. . . to find or give manufacture to a suggestion for plausibility to the preposterous.
Exactly. Defending the indefensible is a BIG part of the jerb.
You realize that some words have multiple definitions, right?
But, of course; — like someone calling someone else “mother fucker” — that doesn’t necessarily have to be taken as an insult; it could be merely a speaker’s more colorful word choice alternative acknowledging an understanding of the parental status of the spoken-to as a “father.” (I’m pretty sure that’s the way my kids meant it.) . . .
And, as ruled in: Humpty, Dumpty, et al v. Alice –
Anyway, I’m not arguing that some words don’t have multiple meanings. I’m looking at the likelihood of what McKean actually intended to convey as meaning when he said it, versus the what he said he intended his meaning to be three days later when he was confronted — (commonly known as, the post hoc preponderantly sniveling, coward’s I-got-caught-so-I-just-checked-with-my-dictionary-and/or-attorneys-about-what-they-think-I-could-now-claim-to-say-I-meant-to-convey defense).
But, I guess this is preferable to, and all so much easier than, expecting or calling for some circumspection from politicians, or for their ever just simply acknowledging and taking responsibility for their words and actions; and then apologizing — immediately — when they get those wrong?
Well…there's a novel idea.
Something, something , “intended audience” ?
It’s literally the third definition. Some gotchas are just petty. This one though is simply wrong.
Eliot, do you disagree with this statement?
This really is the point, in my opinion. We just don't use the word for anything but its primary meaning. And clearly McKean used it for effect, to be offensive, and then tries to hide behind . . . a dictionary?!
I don’t agree with that statement. I knew about the third definition before looking it up to confirm.
Might you also have known of, — oh — I don’t know — how about one, or maybe two, other definitions of the word? — that you wouldn’t have had to look at the dictionary to confirm?
I knew of all three. But I used to read a lot of history and rape gets used now and then to describe wanton destruction. Now that you mention it, I wonder which definition came first….
EDIT: as I suspected, the third definition predates the first
https://www.good.is/articles/the-history-of-the-word-rape
All that, just to avoid saying, “yes”? . . .
. . . impressive. (– not in outcome, in the lengths of denial-of-the-obvious/avoidance effort undertaken.)
“Now and then,” as in, ≠ commonly?
Clearly, Hugh McKean — misunderstood post-hoc historian . . . Got it.
Like the giant wall-sitting egg said . . . for now, until the next time you have to put one back together again.
The contortions required to claim McKean didn't really mean what he so obviously meant would be incredibly painful, provided the claimant had a spine.
It is literally the third definition of the term. A definition that predated the first definition. And the first definition makes zero sense in the manner he used the term which is strong evidence that he intended the third definition.
While there are contortions here, they are contortions you all are using to try get a silly gotcha moment that simply does not fit the facts. Move on.
The first definition makes perfect sense, considering the GOP's penchant for lurid imagery when claiming their own faux victim status, and their proven track record of minimizing actual rape. Your defense is lame and completely unsurprising.
When you have multiple definitions of a word, you have to look at the context of the sentence. Here it was used in the context of increasing fees on Coloradans. Those fees are clearly akin to a robbery if you take the low tax point of view. How do you claim they would be akin to a sexual violation? That just does not make any sense.
“When you have multiple definitions of a word,” . . .
. . . it would behoove a speaker to just avoid using that word, in preference to a more suitable and less ambiguous word, particularly if your intended use of that word is uncommon, and one of those more-common definitions involves a vile repugnancy or a slur — so as to not be misunderstood or unduly give offense.
(Unless, of course, that’s what you’re actually wanting to do — give offense, describing your opponents as beings in the worst possible imaginable light.)
(Once upon a time, and in it’s earliest recorded usage, faggot was a bundle of sticks, . . .) “So, what I clearly meant to say was that particular group of Democratic legislators was behaving without thinking, just like a dumb bunch of sticks . . . It’s literally the first definition of the word, and it’s oldest usage.”
Nah, Elliot’s a good guy, and has plenty of spine, . . .
. . . he just sometimes suffers the lingering debilitations from a self-inflicted malady of youthful indiscretion — having gone to law school.
Seems pretty clear you fit the definition of slave.
The article is wrong – McKean represents Loveland, not Louisville.
Apologies to the good people of Louisville. Corrected.
Meanwhile another Hitler reference from the left that is totally acceptable…
Nope, not acceptable.
. . . but, it is a good thing you only had to go 1,600 miles for that bit of today’s unrelated-to-anyone-in-Colorado whataboutism.
Let me count the ways:
Tried to establish private militia: check
Wants to make civil protest illegal: check
Blames disease on immigrants of one ethnic group: check
Encourages misinformation and propaganda: check
Promotes death sentences as punishment: check
Wants to jail election officials who don't promote his Big Lie: check
Hangs out with racists , is celebrated by racists, makes racist remarks: check x3
Suppresses the votes of the opposition: check
Intimidate schools and teachers , inhibit academic freedom: check
So yeah, Nikki Fried was quite correct in comparing DeSantis to an authoritarian dictator, similar to Hitler in "a lot of ways".
Well, didn't have to go 1,600 miles for that….
I'm very sorry, kwtree. But trying to defend a progressive who compares the governor of Florida; regardless of his many shortcomings; to Hitler is unacceptable.
Ms. Fried owes a big apology to the governor, and to the people of Florida.
"Regardless of his many shortcomings".
Right, because in comparison to all his authoritarian actions, comparing him to Hitler is the really bad thing.
I wonder…did Hitlers' apologists take exception to people comparing him to Franco?
Asking for a friend.
My mother lived through the Anschluss in Austria. They were secular Jews, many converted to Christianity. . She saw Hitler rouse a crowd. Later, she saw and lived through much worse. They eventually had to flee Austria with what they could liquidate or carry. Those family members that didn't flee ended up in the camps;even if they had converted, Jewish ancestry was considered to be "a taint in the blood".
What the Austrian press, the elites, and the government did was minimize Hitler, call him a madman, ridicule him, or in some cases say that he had a point in blaming the Jews for Germany's decline. Yes, he did have his apologists. And still does. They did not see the Third Reich coming until it was too late. When Austrians voted for the Anschluss in 1938, Jews and Romas (Gypsies) were not allowed to vote.
Hitler, by the way, claimed to have copied many of his tactics from the Southern states model of slavery of African-Americans, and genocide of Native Americans. From the Atlantic's review of Whitman's "Hitler's American Model":
Responding to CHB's and Negev's critique of Fried's Hitler / DeSantis comparison, I will say that probably Fried shouldn't have let herself be baited by the NPR reporter into breaking Godwin's law and using Hitler's name. It will probably doom her candidacy. However, she was not wrong in calling DeSantis an "autocratic dictator". She was not wrong in pointing out DeSantis' specific policies and speeches that further autocracy. See list I enumerated – and there are more.
Collins dictionary entry #2 for "Hitler":
Sure, definition #1 was a bit worse and more specific…
Politically I think hyperbolic comparisons are fair game, aways has been. However, taking offense to the hyperbolic use of rape while endorsing the hyperbolic use of genocidal mass murder is asinine. You wanna make DeSantis out to be Hitler, have at it, just quit crying over silly rape comments while you do it…
So, that's the trade-off? We get to make fun of Hitler, you get to make fun of rape?
Let me help you out….
Cool…"Adventures in Questionable Equivalency".
Sorry, Negev, that's how I read it, too. I am not piling on about the rape definition thing…but it seemed what you were saying.
Negev is only skillfully diverting from the question at hand- McKean’s “taxation= rape” remarks- by bringing in Fried, Hitler and whatever else in an orgy of what-about-ism. As usual.
Since he is actually in a position to influence GOP thought and policy in Colorado, I expect he does this same exercise when he excuses whatever his party does, saying that Democrats are much worse.
Ok perhaps a quote would help:
Note the speakers vulgar violation of the requested demand.
Hope that clears it up. Mama might be able to help you with the Iambic Pentameter…
As McKean has just so skillfully demonstrated . . .
. . . that hyperbole can be useful to inject sheer raw emotion into a debate when you know your position is otherwise weak or lacking (e.g., factually, logically, practically, etc., etc.).
Agreed. One could argue the grander the hyperbole the weaker the position.
I didn’t make out DeSantis is to be Hitler. ( and Fried only said she was comparing DeSantis to Hitler “in a lot of ways”, specifically those of DeSantis’ actions that were like an autocratic dictator. )
So since you claim to be an expert in reading comprehension, perhaps you can explain DeSantis’’ actions in outlawing dissent and peaceful protest, suppressing voters, spreading misinformation and the Big Lie, building his own private militia, punishing and intimidating nonpartisan election officials, limiting academic free speech, scapegoating immigrants, showing extreme indifference to human life by refusing to implement public health measures, leading to Florida having 63,000 Covid deaths and 5 million cases.
Is this not what autocrats and dictators do? What is the difference? What does Churchill’s statement
mean to you?
I think until DeSantis murders 12 million people you might wanna let up on the doom porn Hitler reference. Its quite a leap.
Yeah, that was pretty much the thinking of the good people of Austria and Germany. “It’s not that bad yet he’s just a madman he’s just incompetent he’s a fool he hasn’t killed 12 million people yet, so we can ignore him and his autocratic ambitions. “
DeSantis is likely to be your presidential candidate in 2024. Wonder what you’ll be saying about him then.
The "Churchill" quote means nothing to me. That's because it's actually from George Santayana.
Edmund Burke, George Santayana, and Winston Churchill have all been credited with versions of the “history repeating” quote.
Burke's is substantially different and Churchill, far later, is an obvious paraphrase of Santayana. You are wrong to attribute it to Churchill.
Dudley Dumbshit and his idiot tu quoque aside, let us not lose sight of the high probability that slimebucket Hugh McKean had no idea of any "dictionary defense" to his appalling comment at the time he made it. He came up with the defense (or more likely someone else came up with it for him, considering how laughably stupid he is) on a post hoc basis in an attempt to defend the indefensible. When Fat Boy says he had "robbing" in mind when he said "raping," he's lying. Cuz that, of course, is what liars do.
No. I have zero to do with the GOP or Dudley (besides rooting for my old friend Eli Bremer on the former in his senate race which is irrelevant to this). I simply double checked that my understanding of the word’s secondary/tertiary definitions were in line with a dictionary. Which is what I assume everybody else who isn’t playing gotcha did too. This wasn’t something anybody “came up” with. It is a literal meaning of the word “rape” (see third definition in the dictionary).
What really happened is that the people playing gotcha here assumed there was only one meaning and now look like idiots who didn’t do basic due diligence before writing their hatchet pieces
The Fladen doth protest too much, methinks.
I apologize for being unclear, Elliot. "Dudley Dumbshit" with the tu quoque fallacy is the idiot Negev, not you.
I also don't doubt that you had a preexisting understanding of the Merriam Webster definition before the current kerfuffle happened. It's abundantly clear to me, though, that Hugh McKean is a dumbfuck who had to have the "dictionary defense" fed to him by someone who isn't a dumbfuck. I'm not suggesting that you did the feeding.
But the notion that "rape" means "rob" according to "the dictionary" is incorrect as a simple matter of fact. First, there is no such thing as "the" dictionary. Merriam Webster is one of many, and the only one, per my admittedly quick and cursory perusal, that includes "rob" in a definition. The others use terms like "despoil" and "plunder" in their down-the-line definitions, terms that encompass misconduct far more extensive that "robbing."
Of course, the dumbfuck Hugh McKean had no prior knowledge of those definitions either.
What Genghis said. Eliot, really the point is NOT how you determined what the third definition of raped is, but how and why did McKean decide to use that word. Most anyone with any knowledge of how McKean and many other Republicans operate, understands the word was purposefully used for its most objectionable reason. Eliot, you're doing an excellent job of demonstrating that we humans are very good at rationalizing, and will rationalize anything if we have a good reason to do so.
…or even a lousy reason, for that matter.
Eliot is suffering from apologist fever. The GOP, bastion of their revered ” conservatism” is writhing on the operating table like an alien is about to explode from its chest
What are relatively intelligent people, like Eliot, to do? Their tribe has been transformed. It is not the people of William F. Buckley and William Safire. It is the party of Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller.
The Orange Horde runs the village which people like Eliot and CHB want desperately to save. The crazies are in charge and the neocons have no leader. They have no path
..and no hope. Their party is on a road to madness. It must be stopped.
Look, I’m not “affiliated” with the GOP and will happily rake it over the coals when warranted (see January 6th stuff as quick example). Nor does my friendship with Eli change that; after all we are also friends with Jared. Basically we are a family in the middle.
I just think you all are letting your strong anti-GOP bias color your analysis. I don’t think this is a close call.
One of the definitions of "raped" is, in fact, "robbed or despoiled," as in the Rape of Nanking or the Rape of the Sabine Woman; one might also speak of a timberland being raped. However, those are historical usages. Dictionaries may or may not be usage guides, and even prescriptive dictionaries are not updated frequently enough to capture the evolving usage of words.
In the case of "rape," its usage as meaning anything other than "unconsented to penetration of the vagina, mouth, or anus" has become strongly disfavored, particularly in public speech, because it is offensive–particularly to women.
The contention that McKean intended "rape" to mean "robbed" is simply ludicrous. He meant "fucking over" or "screwed," but he's both a prissy little twit and a nasty provocateur, so he used "raped."
I'm no Republican, nor a fan of Mr. McKean's politics, but I have to say this whole thing is overblown.
I think most people knew that Mr. McKean was not referring to a sexual assault when he used the word on the floor last week. It was a metaphor for "taking advantage." I disagree with McKean that the policy about which he complained is "taking advantage," but I don't think everyone should get all up in arms because he used the word "rape" in that context.
Democrats have lately gotten into the habit of policing people's words somewhat excessively. It's not helpful, politically, and it makes it harder to work with people when you play the grammarian.
I honestly don't think grammar is the issue, until his defenders start trying to explain it away.
And I have some sympathy for your feeling the discussion is much ado about naught. There is, however, a long history between the participants of the debate. There's that.
Democrats have no monopoly on obsessing over certain words.
Thank you, Not Hopeful for calling out this absurd fixation for what it is- an absurd fixation.
All it accomplishes is to make the left look like idiots and slaves to the PC language police.
A fixation?…You mean, like, when some people are constantly triggered about ” free stuff” or “Jill Stein”, say?
Like that?
Or to be fair…the Oily Boyz.?