Open thread. Let us know you're thoughts.
Open thread. Let us know you're thoughts.
Anyone but the 3, out doing each other racing as far left as possible D candidates.
I'm an independent and was just watching both the Dem & GOP channel 9 governor's race debates yesterday. I was not impressed by any of the candidates except for Polis. He is a very polished politician, but obviously not a single position I agree with. Stapleton says most the things we want to hear but has no polish, doesn't say how and just does not communicate any of it very well. So, it looks like Polis vs Stapleton. I will go with whoever the GOP puts up but cannot figure out how I want to go in the primary.
I felt Channel 9 was playing a game of gotcha with the GOP, so was curious as to how they treated the Dems. So I ended up watching the Dem debate and sure enuf it was like night and day. The gotcha game may be why none of the GOP candidates came across very well to me. I will watch this thread to see what others say about the candidates.
I got both R and D ballots in the mail. I have no idea who I'm voting for yet.
Interviews of some of the candidates from the Independence Institute.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu-...Ha5ltYQ/videos
I'm thinking of voting for the weakest D.
Gov -- looking like I'll be voting Greg Lopez. Need to do some more research but several are out for their conditional "pro"-life stance, as well as either non-existent or non-committal statements on 2A.
Trea -- unsure. Waffling between Watson and Everett
I went with Lopez. The reason being, liberal heads will explode when he talks about No Sanctuary Cities.
Will they call him a Tio Tomas' ?
Yeah, I think he is saying the right things and his being Hispanic offers a tactical advantage against the Dems.
Another vote for Lopez here.
Whomever vows to repeal the antigun laws they passed in the last dictatorship gets my votes.
From Lopez:
http://www.westword.com/news/greg-lo...rview-10228012Quote:
You're a big Second Amendment advocate, and you support national carry reciprocity. Are there weaponry restrictions you would support, such as attempts to ban semi-automatic weapons? Or do you fear that might be a slippery slope?
No, there aren't any I'd support, and let me tell you why. The Second Amendment is one of the founding principles of what makes America great. And I truly believe the Second Amendment isn't only so that we can protect ourselves from harm, but it's also for us to protect ourselves from a government that may go rogue on us. If the government decides to do something, we should have the ability to defend ourselves with the same amount, or close to the same amount, of weaponry that they have. So I would not look at doing anything that would ban anything. I know a lot of people don't like to hear this, but it truly isn't the weapon. It's the person. If it was the weapon, anybody who walked into a gun store would never come out. We know there are a lot of challenges out there with mental health, and the family structure is facing all kinds of challenges. People are having tough times with trying to understand what life truly means. And I want to have compassion and empathy for those who are suffering — and I want to help them before they get to that point where they feel they no longer need to value human life, theirs or anybody else's. But when we talk about those types of things, I stand behind the Constitution.
I don't like to see people mass-murdered. Nobody does. But we can't weaken the document put together by our founding fathers, because that's really what gives us freedom and liberty. And most people don't understand the true cost of freedom and liberty. It costs a lot. That's why they call America an experiment. And it will go forward as long as people truly believe that they're entitled to freedom and liberty. When they start thinking they're no longer entitled to that, the experiment will start to fail.
...
On your website's list of major issues, you don't mention either immigration or sanctuary cities. I know you've spoken about being opposed to sanctuary cities. But do you feel some of the other candidates are putting too much of their focus on immigration?
As governor, I need to focus predominantly on issues that apply to the state. Immigration is a federal issue. States don't truly have a lot of say in how the immigration laws of the country are going to be applied or not applied. Sanctuary cities I think are very important, because as a governor, and as a mayor, you're sending a message — and that message is, if you believe in sanctuary cities, you don't believe in the rule of law. You're saying you believe some people among us are entitled to extra protection and extra rights. That's not what America is all about. I'm talking about equality. So I do not support sanctuary cities. I don't have a problem telling people I support legal immigration, not illegal immigration. But those issues aren't truly going to impact the future of the state of Colorado. It's education, small business, the transportation corridors — it's those kinds of things. And if immigration issues are truly having a major impact on the state, I would hope the general assembly and all the elected officials would join me and talk about what we're going to do about it.
There are more important issues as they pertain to quality of life and making sure the governor and the state legislature are making decisions that impact the daily lives of all of us, not just some of us.
I like Lopez, but I suspect it will be Stapleton. But maybe Lopez is the darkhorse Colorado needs.
Mitchell says a lot of good stuff but he strikes me as just another Perot ... a wealthy businessman out there pissing in the wind. I expect he'd lose by double digits against The Sodomite. Same goes for Robinson (except that I never hear anything from him because apparently he's only campaigning in the DMA).
I am pleasantly surprised that there are no downright idiots running this time for the GOP slot (although if someone here has evidence one or more of the candidates is an idiot, I'm all ears).
I believe all 4 of them have given lip service to rolling back the antigun laws ... but I think they know that if they make too big an issue of that, the'll lose the Denver Metro Area. I also have no idea how committed they would be to doing so and lastly, the R's have to take the house and senate too in order for repeals to make it to his desk.Quote:
Originally Posted by DOC
Colorado has the 5th largest population of Mexican-Americans in the US. So, he should swing some typical Dems over for that reason. Plus, I just cannot see Hispanics voting en masse for Polis, given his lifestyle. Lopez is the strongest in his language on the 2nd Amendment. As you say, it will have to get through the house and senate for anyone to do anything in a gubernatorial fashion. I think that as far as swing voters and bringing over Dems, Lopez is it. I think he can get out there and if he does a good job of hitting up the Hispanic community, explaining his positions, he has the gravitas necessary to help them realize the Dems are screwing them.
Stapleton is white bread and boring, with canned views imo. He represents an easy loss for the Republicans at the non-primary level. He won't bring anyone over, and I don't think he has the ability to shift swing voters. He's got that dad jeans and plaid button-up sort of vibe that is going to convince no one but the choir.
Mitchell is a no-go for me due to his rape, incest, life of the mother BS on abortion. Kick sand, yankee. Go back to NY. He's very business focused, but that worries me more than convinces me of anything good.
I just hope that silly twat Donna Lynne doesn't get ANY votes.
I doubt I'll receive either ballot. I'm registered with the Constitution Party ... but as soon as The Federalist Party is recognized in Colorado I'm switching.
Here are my thoughts after suffering through the charade of a "debate" on 9News.
Any one of these men would be better than Polis as governor. (Even Doug Robinson, who I think was the weaniest of these four.)
a) Kyle Clark is a jerk. I would throw him out of my house if he ever showed-up for any reason. His presumed moral superiority (which is unwarranted) is nauseating.
b) The few times this TV production turned into an actual debate ... Clark and Rittiman immediately shut it down. Stupid.
c) Stapleton has facility with numbers. (Duh! He's the Treasurer.)
d) Lopez seems to strike the best tone of the four ... with Mitchell a close 2nd.
e) Kyle Clark is a jerk.
In closing, any one of these men would be better than Polis as governor.
This state needs an enema. The Joker.
Haven’t gotten a ballot yet. Probably vote Lopez though.
“Don’t go slow, be careful” Jedi
Yeah, I was registered with that party, didn't get anything, so I've gone and switched to Unaffiliated out of curiosity if I'll receive a ballot now (since I think I'm doing this before the deadline). If not, no big.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic Tory
Anybody but democrats - Glad to be able to vote in a primary finally
Thank you. This was very helpful to read.
For treasurer I went with Everett. While he doesn't have the huge-business background of Watson, he is highly conservative with a record and recognition as such, has enough time in the Capitol to know the political reindeer games, and has a paper trail to show he can read large, confusing documents with numbers in them (MBA and JD). I'm not keen on the fact that Watson is pumping so much of his own money into the campaign and given his business background wonder what ulterior motive he has.
Lawrence was a non-starter for me. She seemed to not have many interviews, often noted as failing to get back to the interviewers, and her website is a canned piece of aesthetically pleasing junk (low on content).
Good thread!!!
Please let us know if you get the ballots.
I've been a member of the CP for six years. They talk a great game but they don't DO anything substantive. The CP keeps choosing the worst possible candidates and in many states (particularly my state of Colorado) their leadership is ... absent.Quote:
Originally Posted by RblDiver
I've taken to calling the CP the party of grumpy old men. They have no real plan. They cry poverty. They post diatribes against the GOP, but don't do anything to advance their cause.
The Federalist Party has a plan ... publishes it ... and is following it. I have more confidence in them than my (present) registration of CP.
So I just checked out their (federalist) official page. I'm not keen on a few things:
1) The name. Do they intend to essentially rebirth the same ideals? Where did they get us the first time?
2) Due to their ambiguity of future platforms, it seems open to an injection of political poison
3) They use language which seems to necessitate a very involved Federal government (should I be surprised, given the name?), instead of the more solid method of subsidiarity (wherein each level/sphere deals with its own issues unless it cannot[thus kicking it up the chain]; no encroachment from higher into lower without necessity, and no usurpation of higher sphere issues by lower spheres). Such a method as subsidiarity lessens the bloat as one goes "up".
They seem to have a Libertarian bent (which has moral problems), and further they seem to confuse not only the ability, but the duty, of the Federal government to enforce, with red hot 240B barrels if necessary, that states will NOT violate Constitutional Rights.
~600 morons removed themselves from deciding anything... lol
http://www.kktv.com/content/news/Hun...485721261.htmlQuote:
EL PASO COUNTY, Colo. (The Gazette) - Nearly 600 unaffiliated voters in El Paso County returned ballots for Republican and Democratic primaries, an error that disqualifies each of the ballots
As of Friday morning, 595 of the county's roughly 140,000 unaffiliated voters had turned in ballots for both primaries - despite four different reminders printed on ballots and envelopes that voters should only mark and return one ballot, according to the County Clerk and Recorder's Office.
By state law, none of those ballots can be counted, said county Clerk Chuck Broerman.
For the first time this year, unaffiliated Colorado voters can cast ballots in either the Democratic or Republican primary. Secretary of State Wayne Williams kicked off a Colorado-wide campaign in the spring to educate unaffiliated voters about the change.
"I hate to see even one person's vote not count," said Broerman, whose office has also repeatedly publicized that unaffiliated voters were to receive both parties' ballots in the mail this year, but could vote in only one.
[LOL]Quote:
Originally Posted by CavSct1983
I'm okay with this.
Another reason we should go back to physical polling places with ID. If you can't/won't present yourself to cast a valid ballot, in English, you really shouldn't be voting. Property ownership would be a even better qualifier.
I got my local Douglas county choices made! Ready to mail this out today.
I didn't get a ballot, but I didn't expect one because I'm registered with the Black Panther Party.
It took me quite some time to establish residency in Wakanda. It cost me all the vibranium I earned in a year. [Flower]
What parts on www.TheFederalistParty.org 's website gave you these ideas? (Another political group attempted to (quite literally) steal The Federalist Party from the original organizers. They almost succeeded. But if you're not on the site linked above, you're not seeing The Federalist Party.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CavSct1983
Quote:
Originally Posted by sroz
I voted for Donna Lynne for this very reason (with my wife's vote). I do NOT want Polis in. He is the one that scares me most. Let's drop him in the primaries and deal with the BS of whomever later.Quote:
Originally Posted by rondog
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic Tory
2A: http://thefederalistparty.org/2017/1...s-work-it-out/
What? The only process of exercise which should be enforced is a process by which one who has provided the conditionals for removal and shows that they have negated those rights by a crime. Any other method of enforcement for exercise is ipso facto an infringement on said rights. This is as utterly retarded as saying all persons have a right to life from conception to natural death, but states have the ability to make abortion laws -- NO. THEY. DON'T. For such laws are unjust and thus no law at all. So while they may attempt it, and even enforce it, it's not an ontological law (that is to say, it's a phantasm, and doesn't exist despite claims to do so) because it's outside the purview of the one attempting to make and enforce said law.Quote:
“We don’t need DC to tell us it’s okay to conceal carry our firearms,” said Federalist Party co-founder JD Rucker. “They told us it was okay with the 2nd Amendment. How states enforce their laws concerning guns is up to the states as long as they don’t infringe on the 2nd Amendment itself. DC should be protecting our rights, not telling us the process by which we can exercise them.
...
But I would rather be barred from carrying in 18 liberal states, and work at the state level to get that changed, than put the power in the hands of the federal government to implement other nationally mandated requirements around a federally controlled National Reciprocity bill.
”
The states may go unceremoniously self-copulate on the issue of 2A. The Federal government has a right and duty to force this reality on the states because it's something constitutionally defined at the Federal level. States have many abilities to work within their sphere of authority, but if we are going to play D&D: Constitution, then the 2A is NOT one of them except to reiterate that they have no power to asphyxiate it. That the Federal .gov itself, via bench level legislation and congressional actions which are also contra the plain meaning of the Founders, often violated this very principle, is further proof that the American experiment is in fact a sham. It is framed well, but it's been dead for a while.
Protection of Life:
http://thefederalistparty.org/2017/0...-and-abortion/Quote:
"While it’s understandable that people in the 60’s and 70’s may cling to Roe‘s argument for “choice”, the ground is clearly shrinking beneath the feet of abortion advocates. In politics, in culture, and in business, the trend of the future is clearly toward acknowledging the value and rights of the unborn.
And that’s a trend the Federalist Party can embrace by showing leadership in the fight to protect life.
A Federalist approach to defending life
The reality of American politics is that most folks will stop reading after my last sentence – whether approvingly or disapprovingly. But if our stance on life sets us apart from the Democratic platform, it is our strategic approach that can distinguish us from a Republican Party that pays lip-service to abortion abolition, but has proven ineffective at advancing the pro-life cause.
We agree that personhood must be defined at the national level, extending the protections of the 5th and 14th Amendments to preborn persons. Failing to address this nationally would create a situation where state lines bestow and negate individual rights, and that’s both immoral and unworkable.
At the same time, states and communities play an important – and often overlooked – role in protecting life.
Pro-life advocates often find themselves assailed by anecdotes and individual case hypotheticals when discussing federal abortion law, and are sometimes forced into retreat by a lack of specific answers for these cases.
Federalists recognize that criminal law has historically been within the jurisdiction of state governments, and that these difficult cases are better handled by state and local authorities who are able to address the facts surrounding individual cases.
There’s no need to iron out every detail of every exception at the federal level, and it’s presumptuous to try. If the principle of personhood is established at the national level, application can be left to the states, where we already handle all other issues of justice and conflicting rights.
But beyond the legal principle, there’s so much more for states and communities to do. While the federal government is not constitutionally empowered to involve itself in health care, no such restriction exists on states or cities. States can establish funding for non-abortive health care clinics. Communities can provide help for women in crisis. There are endless solutions at the local level that would never work as a one-size-fits-all federal policy, and the more the federal government backs away from the abortion industry, the more room those solutions have to work."
So let me get this straight... (and at least they are internally consistent on the major points, I'll give them that):
The Federal .gov should define a right to life and then sit back and let states violate that with exception clauses with the force of law that the Federal government cannot then put the kibosh on? What?
There is no exception which is acceptable, ever. None.
So the Federalist position, it would seem, is to do the exact same thing at a Federal level they accuse (rightly) GOP and other politicians of doing: giving lip service but not actually doing anything. The only difference is it will be with a different icing on the shit cake.
Well knock me over with a feather. Where do I sign up?
Again, any state that attempts to violate the right to life of one who has committed no crime which as an act of the individual's will resulted in the giving up of said right (read: cannot be for the "crime" of merely existing, or being inconvenient, or any other cause not related to a definable criminal act), just as they might attempt to violate the 2nd amendment, should be faced with the following: immediate Federal interdict. Federal troops on the ground in said state. The public execution of every state level official and even private citizens who had a hand in that criminal act as passing into a fake law or otherwise attempted to adhere to it. And really, if we were truly a moral and religious people as the Founders intended our Constitution to serve and work for, all the Feds would need to do is come in and document the cleanup. Why? Because men of good will would take care of the problem quickly and en masse.
----
As far as I can tell, this group is using the term Federalism in the French, post-Revolutionary sense (and in some sense, the manner in which Jefferson opposed the Federalists is their actual platform; so are they Hamiltonian in their outlook or Jeffersonian? One of those things is NOT Federalist) and not in the sense that Hamilton, et al. used it. Further, they keep missing the point that it is entirely necessary that the spheres of power in a model of subsidiarity have a strict obligation not to encroach on the other spheres except in times of violation. Yet, that doesn't mean that when a lower sphere is in violation, the higher sphere cannot come in and kick ass. It also doesn't mean that the lower spheres cannot oppose and even dispose of elements in the higher spheres when the higher spheres violate lower sphere space or even their own duties.
They keep punting Federal issues to the States in the articles I've read so far. They keep talking about lower levels, but those lower levels have no ability to enforce certain things which they cast as American except under the authority of the higher level which does. Ultimately, any "right" of the American people should be defended at all levels, and when a lower level seeks to violate said right, the higher level has an obligation to stop it. With raw violence if necessary.
Where is their actual platform? Do they even have one? "The Constitution" is rather nebulous in my opinion. I want to see a defined list. That they claim it will evolve, well... *what* will evolve. They haven't even defined the foundation!
And, are they intending to just throw out case law and precedent? If so, good. If not, how do they plan to counteract those rank violations of true justice and true law?
Some of their stuff is great. Some of their stuff is horrific in its punting to the States when it's an issue which should not be punted. They have no defined platform, and that which they say is their platform is then itself violated by their policy and opinion papers. I can't put my finger on them and know, at a basic level, what they actually stand for.
They restructured within a year and a half of their formation:
https://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2017...restructuring/
But wait, they didnt!:
https://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2017...eover-exposed/
So we are supposed to believe a man who cowered and acquiesced over unprovably threats (or are they provable?) can tell any of us about anything?
Please.
Let's face facts: no new political party will change anything. All of the talent and hardwork necessary to do so can easily be applied to the GOP to work within the reality of the human terrain. I think that's actually necessary since the current two political parties are entrenched in the American lexicon. Tactical awareness should dictate that it's best to work within current structures as much as possible. There's no need to reinvent the wheel. Rather, just put air in the flat tire. Demand accountability.
Thank you for the reply. I can see you've put a lot of thought into this.
I was part of the original group which voted on the name. (JD wanted Jefferson Party (I think) but got voted down.) Federalism, as described by the founders DOES push more decision-making to the states. That's where it belongs, Constitutionally.
As one who "tried to fix the party from within" for over 20 years along with many other Conservative Republicans, I finally "faced facts" and realized the corruption at the "leadership" level of the GOP is so rampant, it is not possible to "fix" the GOP. I left that party six years ago and will not return.Quote:
Originally Posted by CavSct1983
COGOP is a clear example of the warped and corrupt "leadership". Look at how COGOP screwed up on so many important campaigns over the last 16 years.
The GOP should go the way of the Whigs if you ask me. It's not time for another 3rd Party. It's time for a TRUE 2nd Party. The GOP ain't it.
What about thoughts on a treasurer?
Today is the day to vote or drop off your ballots.
Drop off locations for DougCo--->https://www.douglas.co.us/elections/...off-locations/
Polis vs Stapleton. We’re screwed.
You know it will be Polis anyway.
I think Lopez could have had a chance to pull undecideds and hispanics. Stapleton will run a very predictable campaign. He only appeals to the I-25 corridor, RINO, HOA-living, plaid shirts and jean shorts crowd.
I really liked Lopez. He came off a common guy and held Conservative positions in a way that wasn't going to rile up Denver/Boulder on social issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by CavSct1983
I hope Stapleton isn't set up to be a good loser.
Polis is a radical lefty that will do everything he can to fully transition CO to CA. I'm not sure people want to pay for his ideas but there are plenty that will pull the stupid lever this fall.
Story of Colorado GOPs life...Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip