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%
September 03, 2013 08:13 AM UTC
48 Comments
She's so damned clever I just threw up in my mouth a little.
Laura Carno is smart. Deal with it.
Because attempting to deceive voters is just so clever? Really?
Sen. Morse prevented women from defending themselves with what — personal nukes?
Please list the weapons Morse banned?
Either that or just do what you normally do and raise an irrelevant point to distract from the real issues.
What do you refer to as the "deceiv[ing] voters"?
Elliot, you're not that stupid. No point in looking like it.
If Eliot isn't that stupid then he's just another rightie putz. One or the other.
Wrong! He's not stupid, he's a spineless, egg-sucking GOP lapdog, who will take any position as long as it pleases the people he wishes to please.
I heart you too Curmudgeon.
I doubt it. I hold no standing in the GOP. But if I did, I'm quite confident I could make you fetch a stick.
Why don't you try going on some GOP pages and asking people how much I toe the line? I'd love to see their reactions.
(because, per your logic,"fetching a stick" means voting for/supporting dem candidates that I agree with less than dems on issues of constitutional interpretation, unions, entitlements, affirmative action, educational choice, etc.)
(meant not "fetching a stick")
Since it needs clarification, "fetching a stick" means you, Elliott, have made it abundantly clear that you're willing to abandon logic, common sense, and self-respect to please those that you want to please. You'll defend the indefensible, villify those who are justifiably offended, and take ANY position that will score you points (however many meager points are earned by posting online) with the ones you're trying to curry favor with.
Whatever character you may play on other sites, here, it's pretty cut and dried. You're nothing but a synchophant.
Curmudgeon,
It is one thing to say you disagree with a position. It is another to say that a position has no logic. Not only have you gone beyond the former, you have passed the latter by saying I have made a pattern of dong it.
To show this you would have to show there is no rationale possible on my positions as a regular basis. Quite simply you cannot make that showing. And you know it. So what your words really boil down to are the words of a sour curmudgeon who cannot debate in a successful manner and thus tosses inapplicable insults at the opponent he cannot best.
It is pretty pathetic that you have fallen to such a level
I've never considered you an opponent in a debate, Elliott; a debate requires that parties answer questions if they're taking a side. As a rule, you don't. A debate require that you pick a side. You defend without admitting you're on the side of those you defend, because you want it both ways. That's your business. You'll argue with the furthest fringe of the GOP because it's safe to do so. When the real power players speak, you lip sync (or, the typing equivalent, I suppose).
Pathetic? Perhaps. I've always been pretty straightforward about my beliefs, boundaries, and standards. As low as you may find those, at least they're consistent. Since the people in politics are unimportant to me personally, I don't have to change to make them happy.
Apparently you aren't familiar with the Socratic method. Moreover, debating does not require that one pick a side they agree with – it only requires that they be honest in exploring a position.
Fact is that too many people on this site have strong beliefs about fringe conservatives. Sometimes those beliefs are right. Sometimes they are wrong. I don't have to agree with fringe conservatives to defend them when they are being unjustly attacked.
Dear Curmudge,
This is the last comment in this long exchange with a "reply" so here's where I'm going to jump in. It has been so long established that actual discussion involving addressing points is not possible with EF.
An example would be his refusal to state which weapons Morse voted to ban and asking an inane question about deception instead. Obviously it's deceptive to claim that weapons have been banned by a piece of legislation when they have not but it's the usual Fladen way of avoiding having to admit that there are no newly banned weapons to list.
So there really isn't any point in long drawn out back and forth with EF. I know he gets our goat and it's hard not to respond but I really do think Daft is right about this. We shouldn't dignify his pointless silliness with serious responses. Leave him hanging and if he gets tired of being ignored and goes away… no loss whatsoever. I think that's the ticket here.
Bluecat, the point elsewhere on this thread was that the Colorado gun laws created new restrictions. Now maybe you think those restrictions are minor and/or good policy. That is your call. However, many people feel same about parental notification laws.
If you are going to take the position that minor/good policy restrictions do not limit "choice" in the gun context at least be honest enough to take the same position in the abortion context
Abortion rights advocacy groups shouldn't own a monopoly on the word "choice" or the phrase "right to choose." If they're frustrated, they should've chosen a less ambiguous rallying cry.
Yeah cool, whatevs, there is the part about how the accusation itself is a load of shit.
That's obviously more important.
The whole pro-life, pro-choice thing has always been a pet peeve of mine, though. I like life! Also choices! And neither of those positions has anything to do with how I feel about abortion.
Regardless of whether you agree with abortion or not, the idea is that it is the ability to make a choice that people are defending. Same in the gun debate.
The unwillingness of Dems to see the applicablity of not only "pro-choice" to the gun debate but also the applicability of war-on-drugs-prohibition-failure-type concerns on the same is quite "interesting"
Exactly what choice is has been curtailed?
I suppose the choice of a wife beater to buy a gun at a gun show has been curtailed. Is that the choice you're complaining about?
Simple. The choice to transfer your gun without notifying the government, including someone who may need it for self defense. Democrats also took away the choice of a magazine larger than 15 rounds, even though those are the standard magazines for many weapons.
That's all ya got? Seriously?
So given that you don't seem to think the above curtails choice, do you also believe that parental notification laws for minors seeing abortions fail to curtail choice?
Don't be a pedantic moron, Elliot…
Our modern society is replete with laws, mores, and customs that curtail choices of all kinds.
Davie called you on it. Stop trying to change the subject.
As Littletonian correctly pointed out:
Is the only way you can argue to invent things others didn't say? It's not even clever.
How about you answer the questions I posed above?
Exactly what choice is has been curtailed?
I suppose the choice of a wife beater to buy a gun at a gun show has been curtailed. Is that the choice you're complaining about?
Is it?
ajb, you suggested that Moderatus had no point in his argument – in other words that the gun bills did not restrict choice. If that isn't what you intended to have people think your point was you should be more careful with your choice of words.
Elliot, you never answered my simple questions. Please do so.
By your evasions, it's perfectly logical to infer that you want wife-beaters to have unfettered access to guns AND that no choice has actually been curtailed.
ajb,
Again, you think you have the right to compel me to give my beliefs on various things if I want to call out your leaps in logic. You don't have that right.
As for your question, the gun bills had varying effects of which you can debate whether they were major or minor. If you believe they had no effect of all then you must admit the bills were pointless. If you believe they at least had some effect, you still are stuck with trying to distinguish them from parental notification laws on abortion if you want to say using "choice" is inappropriate. Either way your argument fails.
Ajb, he won't answer questions. He just keeps coming up with more and more ridiculous reasons why not. I see below that the latest is that when he accuses you of a leap of logic and you ask him to explain why he makes that accusation, you have no right to demand that he do so.
Correct only in so far as you have no right to demand he or anyone else have a discussion with you at all but, as we all know, that's not the point.
Of course you have the right to ask why Eliot believes your point is wrong or your logic faulty. He has no idea what to tell you so he throws up ridiculous roadblocks.Since he ignores all of your points, all of mine and all of everybody else's on the grounds we have no right to expect him to address them except to say we're wrong, he doesn't deserve to be noticed much less favored with responses. Best thing to do is step away from the keyboard.
Me again, ajb. I think I finally have it figured out. Eliot thinks he's our Socrates here to teach us via the Socratic method and stay above the fray with no requirement that he spoil his above the fray role by divulging his own beliefs.
Of course he does tell us what he believes pretty regularly. It's only when we challenge him to back up those beliefs that he decides he's too lofty to engage. Perfect excuse for never addressing a point he doesn't want to address, never answering a question directly or coming up with reasons for anything he says. Free to tell us we're wrong without demonstrating why he believes that to be true or what's wrong with our facts.
Like I said, just ignore the pompous ass. He's no Socrates. He's just got nothing.
Bluecat, the point of the post was that it was inappropriate to use "choice" in terms of describing the gun debate. Your tangents are irrelevant to that question and thus need not be addressed.
Agreed.
The "right to choose"what? Whether to kill someone or not?Will wager this woman considers herself "pro-life", but here she is complaining that someone might have restricted her ability to maim or kill someone.
They never stop lying about that. No guns that were legal before have been made illegal by the recent legislation. If they had any substantive, honest arguments on the subject they wouldn't have to depend on lies and obfuscation. The fact that they do is proof that even they know they have no honest reasonable arguments. They are simply a bunch of cynical pols allied with arms industry lackeys who want their own way, regardless of the legitimate results of free and fair elections that their side happened to lose.
They have simply hit upon a new tool for circumventing legitimate elections. Anyone who doesn't want a descent into chaos after every election with the losing side drumming up enough people to sign a petition for a recall needs to vote "no" no matter what they think of Morse or Giron.
If the recalls succeed that's what's going to happen from now on anywhere the losers, R or D, feel they have any chance of success. Every legitimate win will be provisional. Outside money will rule the democratic process in the states to an even greater extent than it does already as national interests line up on either side in every state and local election judged to be vulnerable to a do-over.
Those elected to two year terms will now have to add time defending their win to the time they devote to raising money, leaving even less time for doing the job they were elected to do for the people they are supposed to be representing then they have for that purpose now. Good times.
Caldara and Carno are making the liberals so mad!
That makes them heroes in my book!
I think you're getting desperate to explain why Morse and Giron are going to lose in a week.
Caldara and Carno are republican extremists. You gun nuts are the ones that are going to lose in a week.
You may be able to hold off Giron's recall, but I hear Democrats are already planning their Morse is a goner speeches.
Source?
I didn't think so.
2014 is the way many republicans are going to lose their seats. Morse won the last two times. Don't count him out just yet republican extremist.
is the YEAR
News alert. Democrats are beating republicans in early voting 3 to 1 in Pueblo. You like that news right winger?
Not may, will. You gun nuts seem to forget how small of a minority you truly are.
That you are proud that GOP operatives manipulating their own base to cynically play on their ignorance is not surprising. Contempt for your voter base comes easily to the GOP.
Does it make "us liberals" mad? Not in the way you imagine. Mainly just more determined to deny the Dying Elephant Party as many victories as we can.
How's President Romney working out for you, btw?
Looking at the photo of Carno, I just realized she is both sneering and looking down her nose at the viewer.
It's an odd angle unless that's what she intended…