Hickenlooper: Colorado ‘reckless’ to legalize marijuana

[paper thorn]

usually the third party/indie types take away votes from the Repugnantcans.
Looks like this guy will take away votes from the Dem.

Hmmm.

I'm a Rep. but if in CO, I'd prolly go for lickenpooper.

 

[barnyard]

good points all

we want Hickenlooper back in office for sure...he is actually a decent guy and did help make Colorado Amendment 64 happen in spite of his own personal belief...that's the beauty of democracy...

what's everyone's take on P3's? and I'm not takin' pure power plant but rather Public Private Partnerships...like when you sell CO highway 36 to goldman sachs

 

[barnyard]

stick it in the box...

stick it in the box...

or drop it like its hot.

 

[RetroGrow]

good points all

we want Hickenlooper back in office for sure...he is actually a decent guy and did help make Colorado Amendment 64 happen in spite of his own personal belief...that's the beauty of democracy...

what's everyone's take on P3's? and I'm not takin' pure power plant but rather Public Private Partnerships...like when you sell CO highway 36 to goldman sachs

If you're dealing with Goldman Sachs, you're getting screwed.

 

[milkyjoe]

Nah, don't STFU... perspective and civil dialog is always valuable.

But whether ya don't have to "choose between the lesser of two evils" depends on whether you view a winner-takes-all election as a straight up choice between the candidates (ALL the candidates in the field, not just the two major parties) -or- as a 'Keynesian beauty contest'...

see, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_beauty_contest

In politics, this leads to the 'tactical voting' that you are [seem to be?] decrying. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_voting

Problem is, in the kind of winner-take-all plurality system we generally use here in the good ol' US of A, tactical voting is not just perfectly [short-term] rational & common... it inevitably leads to two-party dominance.

Until/unless the voting system is changed to something like a ranked-choice or Bucklin-style/majority-judgement type of system, 3rd party candidates have no real shot... this is true even in my state (Maine) where there is a tradition of independents winning (e.g., Jim Longley in the 70s, Angus King more recently... they just haven't sustained anything in terms of building alternatives to the two dominant parties).

(FWIW, even these alternative voting methods have their own flaws/vulnerabilities)

All of which suggests that attempting to persuade voters in the middle of a existing winner-take-all plurality contest to vote for some 3rd party or independent candidate is a fool's errand.

Rather than try convincing voters currently facing choices in the existant plurality system that there really is some sort of meaningful alternative to Kittenlicker or Beaupuppy, it would perhaps be more long-term effective to argue for changing the system.

FWIW, if I were a CO voter, my choice would prolly be Harry Hempy (not Dunafon or the other libertarian wackdoodles... critical thinking my arse)

You make a great point no argument. But I like my legal weed. Police stop me and say damn your car stinks...and I say yes it does, whip out an ounce and say pretty fucking dank huh...and go on my way.

The system hooked me

 

[RetroGrow]

Nah, don't STFU... perspective and civil dialog is always valuable.

But whether ya don't have to "choose between the lesser of two evils" depends on whether you view a winner-takes-all election as a straight up choice between the candidates (ALL the candidates in the field, not just the two major parties) -or- as a 'Keynesian beauty contest'...

see, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_beauty_contest

In politics, this leads to the 'tactical voting' that you are [seem to be?] decrying. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_voting

Problem is, in the kind of winner-take-all plurality system we generally use here in the good ol' US of A, tactical voting is not just perfectly [short-term] rational & common... it inevitably leads to two-party dominance.

Until/unless the voting system is changed to something like a ranked-choice or Bucklin-style/majority-judgement type of system, 3rd party candidates have no real shot... this is true even in my state (Maine) where there is a tradition of independents winning (e.g., Jim Longley in the 70s, Angus King more recently... they just haven't sustained anything in terms of building alternatives to the two dominant parties).

(FWIW, even these alternative voting methods have their own flaws/vulnerabilities)

All of which suggests that attempting to persuade voters in the middle of a existing winner-take-all plurality contest to vote for some 3rd party or independent candidate is a fool's errand.

Rather than try convincing voters currently facing choices in the existant plurality system that there really is some sort of meaningful alternative to Kittenlicker or Beaupuppy, it would perhaps be more long-term effective to argue for changing the system.

FWIW, if I were a CO voter, my choice would prolly be Harry Hempy (not Dunafon or the other libertarian wackdoodles... critical thinking my arse)

Unfortunately, we have a President who is attempting a coup. His plan to bring tens of millions of illegals into the country, with the idea to let them become voters, as well as taking jobs away from Americans, means we would have a one party system. This will all happen after next week's elections, by executive action. Hard to believe the President and his cronies want this to be a one party system. Forget about a strong third party, which is obviously what we need. They want to make the Republican party disappear. They want it all. They want to eliminate the competition. This is the height of corruption, and the exact opposite of what our founding fathers wanted. It's disillusioning, to say the least.

 

[BrainSellz]

And today CO had a couple grow operations raided.

 

[RetroGrow]

And today CO had a couple grow operations raided.

You mean legal grows?
Links?

 

[BigBozat]

Unfortunately, we have a President who is attempting a coup. His plan to bring tens of millions of illegals into the country, with the idea to let them become voters, as well as taking jobs away from Americans, means we would have a one party system. This will all happen after next week's elections, by executive action. Hard to believe the President and his cronies want this to be a one party system. Forget about a strong third party, which is obviously what we need. They want to make the Republican party disappear. They want it all. They want to eliminate the competition. This is the height of corruption, and the exact opposite of what our founding fathers wanted. It's disillusioning, to say the least.

I would love to have a cutting from whatever it is that you're smoking, 'cuz it's clearly an over-the-top psychedelic hallucinogen that has punched your ticket to Paranoid Fantasyland...

 

[WaittillIdie]

dc

 

[JointOperation]

i just hope this doesnt tighten up the laws and regulations in states that are watching CO and CALI as the EXample.