Never mind.
The moderators have made it clear enough that an honest discussion of this issue is not going to be allowed here.
In which post?
Bricker didn’t refute anything that I posted, in fact he confirmed it. Everything I posted was factually accurate. Feel free to scour my post for inaccuracies that Bricker refuted and post them here.
Factually accurate and yet misleading, IMO. Your post was seemingly worded to give the impression that the pro-recall side massively outspent the other side; Bricker’s post showed that wasn’t the case.
Maybe CO Democrats should do what the Republicans did here in Michigan when one of them was recalled. Make it harder to have recalls.
It was never my intention to do a side by side comparison of what the two campaigns did. I just stated the facts.
Those numbers seem fishy to me, too. The Virginia based NRA gave $360,000 but the total of out of state donations was $368,000? A total of $8,000 from all other outside sources? That’s all from all of the gun manufacturers, magazine manufacturers, all other types of gun advocates?
That would be using procedural rules and law to make it easier for them to gain and keep political power. Only Republicans are allowed to do that.
By all means, if you can come up with a cite that shows differently, I’m sure we’d all take a look at it.
I have no dog in this fight; I’m just here to learn about what happened in CO and why.
It’s true that the NRA headquarters is in Virginia. But roughly 8,000 NRA members live on Colorado, and there is a state organization as well as a national one.
But I provided a link to my source. You are welcome to provide another source.
And I also stated the facts.
The current discussion is focused on what impression was left by the facts you chose to report and the facts you chose to conceal.
When you sell your car to anyone but a dealer, I think. But you have to involve the local taxing authorities to transfer title anyway, even if you give it away.
Yes, but Joe might be sanctioned, and Joe’s lawyer might be grieved to the Bar, for filing a frivolous lawsuit. It’s considered unethical, partly because of the inconvenience to Greta, mainly because it needlessly wastes the time of a crowded court system.
No, that’s what you would like it to be. The claim was made that you refuted my post, but you refuted nothing, you just created a strawman that would be easier to knock over. Refute means to disprove and you have done no such thing.
BTW, your site says “Almost all of the outside money collected by issue committees vying to oust the lawmakers came from the National Rifle Association, based in Fairfax, Va. The nonprofit’s issue committee has doled out about $360,000 and is expected to have shelled out more once final reports are filed in October.”
Since I was the one who used the word “refute” and not Bricker, and I have now acknowledged that what you wrote was factually correct (although somewhat misleading), what is your point?
ETA: I mean, what is your point regarding the spending that was done?
And I never claimed I did.
So I agree, as I always have, that you stated no inaccurate fact. But by the choice of facts you did present, you left readers with an inaccurate impression.
No point. I am not claiming the numbers are wrong, they just seem fishy to me.
Maybe they didn’t need the money because they had all of local talk radio cheering them on (and helping organize them), all for free. They also had the management of the Pueblo Chieftain actively and openly using their newspaper to wage a war on Giron, including signing her recall petition, a huge breach of journalistic ethics.
Okay, well, if you find a cite that contradicts or simply has more information, please share it.
I’m not sure that’s a breach of journalistic ethics. Every newspaper I’ve ever seen has editorialized in favor of candidates and ballot questions. Did the newspaper in question not differentiate between news & commentary? Could you provide a couple of examples?
Very well.
In a representative democracy, it sure is. That’s pretty much the definition of their job.
And, yes, I sure as hell am okay with recalling legislatures if they don’t stick with the public mandate. Why in the world should we have to put up with a maverick who is going off doing things on their own? That’s just a temporary tyranny–the politician is temporarily stealing power from the people. We should be able to get it back whenever we want–otherwise, we don’t have any type of democracy.
Representative democracy exists solely because it is impractical to have everyone vote on every issue. It is not because there is some politician class of society that somehow knows better than than everyone else. That completely undermines the point of “rule by the people.” It’s just yet another form of oligarchy.
Not that I agree with what happened here, but the blame is on the people who think guns are much more important than they really are. The legislatures still should not enact major legislation if it contradicts the desires of their constituents. If you do something big that we don’t want, we should always have a way to pull you out before you do more damage. You’ve illustrated you can’t be trusted to do your job.
And, yeah, you have some grace time, in case it was some sort of emergency you had to act on right away. You can try to convince people that you made the right choice, the choice they would have made. But, if we conclude you didn’t, then how do we know you won’t make the same mistake again?
I just don’t get why we should ever want to leave people in power who are not doing what the majority want.