So now what for Colorado?

The tipping point has been reached and it's not gun control. Ain't no way Repubes are going to beat Santa Claus.

If the Republican party wants to prove it's the party of personal liberties as it was back in the day, they have to let go of non-issues such as gay rights and stop discriminating a population just because they don't agree with them. Much how the democrats kept the black community down in the past. As far as abortion goes, if anything at the very minimum the men of the Republican party need to stop making laws about women's choices. The right to worship doesn't mean show favoritism to one religion through legislation, and that's a personal matter anyway. You have a right to your beliefs, you don't have a right to tell me I can't buy alcohol on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by centrarchidae

Those two races were the difference between HB13-1224 passing the Senate, and HB13-1224 not passing the Senate with a good chance of the other bills not coming up for a Senate vote, and for the Senate not changing its rules in mid-session to ramrod the bills through.

---

BS. Gonna have to explain that one. Seeing as how only one of those was senate race and Dems had 5 vote advantage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buffalobo

BS. Gonna have to explain that one. Seeing as how only one of those was senate race and Dems had 5 vote advantage.

---

Senator Hudak won by fewer votes than the L took from (R) Lang Sias. Senator Morse won by fewer votes than the L took from (R) Owen Hill. In both cases, the Dem margin of victory was roughly a quarter of the votes taken by the L candidate.

Or I'm smoking crack and only one of those two is a senator.

And one Democrat (Tochtrop, SD24) who voted against 1224 anyway.

Flip two votes besides Tochtrop and 1224 would have failed by one.

And Morse wouldn't be in a position to set the state senate's agenda and change the hearing rules if he had been defeated.

The best thing I think you can do, take a friend who is not a gun owner and introduce them to the joy of firearms. In my experience there are many reasonable people who simply do not gravitate to a thing because they have no (as in zero) exposure to a thing. If you don't own a gun, and you never see yourself owning a gun, why would you possibly care about the loss or rights associated with it. In a way, the current drought is a good thing, as I know a number of people who have become 1st time gun buyers. That's really important, as you probably don't need to change the mind of your buddy who has a dozen firearms. Worst case is they get a taste, and don't like them any more than they used to. Best case, they convert.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mountainjenny

The republican party would gain voters if they dropped the religion and legislating of morality. Abortion is a single issue vote for many people and they will not even consider voting for a republican as long as it is a part of their platform. Same with gay marriage. I view gay marriage as an equal rights issue and I cannot believe our government has the power to discriminate against a portion of the citizens. If I were gay, I could see this being a single issue vote for me. The republican party is losing voters on issues that are private matters that government should not be involved in. Take these off the table and people will have more reason to look deeper into the issues.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roberth

I think homosexuality is a natural human condition, just like heterosexuality. The (R) needs to let it go and let them be. I don't see why homosexuals can't be wed either.

---

Better: Why is the government involved in ANY of our marriages? Why did I need a "license" to get married, something folks have been doing since the beginning of time?
Marriage should be between you and your partner and your God/religion (if applicable). Not between you and your government. $0.02

You want the tax break - that's a tax argument.
You want the social security (or other employment/health) benefits - that's a SS argument.
You want to force a church to marry you - that's a 1A issue, and a religious issue.

Why do we allow this issue to be framed up so narrowly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roberth

There are a great many things the government shouldn't be involved in. Morality, finance, manufacturing, science, education, healthcare, and charity are just a few that come to mind.

---

Marriage. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shiro

The best thing I think you can do, take a friend who is not a gun owner and introduce them to the joy of firearms. In my experience there are many reasonable people who simply do not gravitate to a thing because they have no (as in zero) exposure to a thing. If you don't own a gun, and you never see yourself owning a gun, why would you possibly care about the loss or rights associated with it. In a way, the current drought is a good thing, as I know a number of people who have become 1st time gun buyers. That's really important, as you probably don't need to change the mind of your buddy who has a dozen firearms. Worst case is they get a taste, and don't like them any more than they used to. Best case, they convert.

---

Well said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Lebowski

Better: Why is the government involved in ANY of our marriages? Why did I need a "license" to get married, something folks have been doing since the beginning of time?
Marriage should be between you and your partner and your God/religion (if applicable). Not between you and your government. $0.02

You want the tax break - that's a tax argument.
You want the social security (or other employment/health) benefits - that's a SS argument.
You want to force a church to marry you - that's a 1A issue, and a religious issue.

Why do we allow this issue to be framed up so narrowly?



Marriage. :)

---

Exactly. $$ and power are why the government are involved in marriage, they steal a little money and get to control whether you get hitched or not. It is none of their damn business.

I'll elaborate further. Marriage is a religious institution, since the government couldn't mind its own business it should have chosen a different word.

Government shouldn't be involved in licensing anything, fishing, driving, or hunting either. ;)

I should clarify something about homosexuality. All homosexuals aren't naturally born, the ones that choose it are exercising the free will God gave them but once again just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by centrarchidae

Senator Hudak won by fewer votes than the L took from (R) Lang Sias. Senator Morse won by fewer votes than the L took from (R) Owen Hill. In both cases, the Dem margin of victory was roughly a quarter of the votes taken by the L candidate.

Or I'm smoking crack and only one of those two is a senator.

And one Democrat (Tochtrop, SD24) who voted against 1224 anyway.

Flip two votes besides Tochtrop and 1224 would have failed by one.

And Morse wouldn't be in a position to set the state senate's agenda and change the hearing rules if he had been defeated.

---

Apologies for calling BS.

I forgot the Dems(there were actually 2, Cheri Jahn and Lois Tochtrop) who voted against 1224. In which case only one of the the two races you reference would need to have been won.

I will not consider the Morse race as it was more than 2 yrs ago and there has been plenty of time to do something about it(as in recall). Also, Dems had majority in Senate, even if Morse had lost, a Dem would be president of Senate and rules shenanigans would be going on. The second race I was referencing was in the house.

I also question the assertion Libertarian votes are majority take aways from Repubs. I don't think data supporting such is quality data. While I rarely get to vote for Libertarians(no candidates in races in my districts), I have turned many more Dems to Libertarian than Repubs.

I think laying blame off on Libertarians is lame and hurts Republican voters(not politicos) by not holding the Colorado Republican party responsible for its very poor performance as a political party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buffalobo

I think laying blame off on Libertarians is lame and hurts Republican voters(not politicos) by not holding the Colorado Republican party responsible for its very poor performance as a political party.

---

Bingo. If the Republican party were actually conservative and not attempted religious authoritarian, you might stand a chance to bring people like me back in. They continue with more of the status quo, making deals, compromising my freedoms, further imposing government into my life...and I'll continue pulling that handle for anything but D or R hoping that eventually the damn thing flushes.