U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-29-2018, 06:48 PM
 
Location: The 719
13,657 posts, read 21,503,411 times
Reputation: 13297

Advertisements

Don't vote Republican and you'll get Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-29-2018, 06:52 PM
 
Location: Denver CO
19,043 posts, read 10,066,076 times
Reputation: 27817
Quote:
Originally Posted by McGowdog View Post
I'm voting R straight down the board.

I would vote for Manchin if I could. He's the only decent democrat on the planet at this time.
.
Interesting that there were several posts of criticism for Dave saying to vote a straight D ticket, yet, this comment about voting a straight R ticket draws no similar criticism.

If straight ticket is wrong, then it's wrong on both sides, no?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2018, 06:55 PM
 
Location: Denver CO
19,043 posts, read 10,066,076 times
Reputation: 27817
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarryK123 View Post
I did, even before you said what you said.

The odd thing is I've seen no advertising FOR 112; just all the oil and gas industries' lies about how it will affect the economy.
good, esp. since I got it backwards to start with!

Unfortunately, run of the mill citizens wanting to have a larger boundary between their homes and fracking have a lot less money than the O & G industry.

I do see a lot of Yes on 112 yard signs, and I also see a lot of outreach in local groups on Facebook, Nextdoor, etc. with people sharing information to explain and try to persuade. And I've gotten a mailer, I think. But not a lot of $$ for tv ads
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2018, 06:55 PM
 
Location: Denver CO
370 posts, read 104,601 times
Reputation: 1117
Quote:
Originally Posted by emm74 View Post
Interesting that there were several posts of criticism for Dave saying to vote a straight D ticket, yet, this comment about voting a straight R ticket draws no similar criticism.

If straight ticket is wrong, then it's wrong on both sides, no?
It is unwise on either side. (R) or (D) is a good place to start, but you really should find out the specifics of each candidate, especially regarding the office for which they are running.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2018, 07:00 PM
 
Location: Denver CO
19,043 posts, read 10,066,076 times
Reputation: 27817
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey2k View Post
It is unwise on either side. (R) or (D) is a good place to start, but you really should find out the specifics of each candidate, especially regarding the office for which they are running.
Doesn't address my point which was that only one side got criticized.

Not to mention that I disagree, because if someone identifies as a Republican and supports the GOP platform, then by definition, they have policy positions that I am not in agreement with. Not that I agree 100% with the Dem platform, but I'll take 90% over my almost total disagreement with with the GOP platform. I don't need to research individual candidates to know that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2018, 08:12 PM
 
870 posts, read 424,769 times
Reputation: 1904
Quote:
Originally Posted by interloper1138 View Post
I'm a staunch liberal, but this is wreckless and misguided advice. In my county I voted for two local republicans and one independent because they were far and away the better candidates in their respective races.

Anyone who votes purely on party lines is directly responsible for the mess our country is in today. Yes, convictions and beliefs should absolutely influence your vote, but so too should qualification and integrity. Blindly voting for a candidate because of their party affiliation without doing any independent research is irresponsible and lazy.

Any functional and healthy government has to be guided by mutual respect, compromise, and a willingness to work across the aisle. Partisanship is a cancer that leads only to corruption and incompetence.

I don't care where you are ideologically, please don't blindly vote on party lines.
You act as if these are two separate things... I'm not going to vote for someone who is actively working against my interests just because they have an impressive resume. In fact I would much rather have an incompetent working against what is morally right than a seasoned politician.

Anyway, I always research every candidate and after looking end up voting exclusively party line for everything except, like, county coroner or whatever.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2018, 08:48 PM
 
Location: Denver
2,983 posts, read 2,399,742 times
Reputation: 1834
Quote:
Originally Posted by mic111 View Post
I think they are way over stating the financial implications. There are work arounds. They can buy the homes within the 2500 ft and knock them down. They can use different technologies to extract the material and/or located them in areas with the required set backs.

112 is all about set backs to protect home owners and school children. It is a shame that the oil and gas industry does not take it upon themselves to protect people's health but they don't. As a result 112 was formulated.

If we get earth quakes from the fracking it won't just be the homes within 2500 ft that are impacted. It is a shame that 112 doesn't actually ban fracking. It just requires a larger set back than is currently required.

A YES on 112 doesn't actually harm O&G except it sets a precedent for other states which is why they are spending the big $s on misleading ads. And they have to spend a little more money acquiring sites because they have to buy more land. This is the real reason they don't want it to pass. They don't want to have to spend the money to buy land for their sites. They would rather be able to plunk the mega pads they are planning right next to existing residential developments.

To the extent that existing home owners won't sell them their homes to make into fracking mega pads and accommodate a 2500 ft set back, I applaud them. People looking out for their neighbors is one of the things that makes this country great.

Edit: Wanted to add that the oil and gas industry not only doesn't want to pay for the land around the wells they want individual home owners to take the hit to their house values. Who is better equipped to bear the cost of the safer set back that a YES on 112 would provide? Obviously the oil and gas industry and not individual home owners.

What happens to individual home owners that suddenly find a fracking mega pad planned close to their house? They can try to sell but at what loss in price? Who are the buyers who would buy such a home? If their kids get leukemia because they couldn't sell then who has to find a way to pay the medical bills? Obviously the parents, but all our insurance rates will be affected. There are many important reasons to vote YES on 112.
I do understand the concern with health and safety, but the clincher for me is where the wells are located at. If they were closer to the populated front range or to the scenic spots of Colorado, I would be more concerned. But basically the drilling is concentrated to Greeley area and west of Trinidad. Getting rid of O&G drilling also kills the industry the people in the towns work for.

So, there's not really a competing use for the drilling land, Colorado already has decently strict regulations in drilling by comparison, and the people who would be effected likely are benefited by the industry.

I think a less far reaching proposal would be better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2018, 09:09 PM
 
Location: Aurora, CO
6,159 posts, read 9,451,530 times
Reputation: 8820
Quote:
Originally Posted by emm74 View Post
Depends on who you ask, really.

This gives a bit of info on both sides, with the ultimate conclusion being that no one will really know unless 112 passes and we see what actually happens - which I personally think is a bit of a backdoor way of saying that the No on 112 claims are perhaps a bit overblown

https://kdvr.com/2018/10/24/411-on-p...rados-economy/
That's really asinine reasoning for passing it. "We've gotta pass it before we can see how much damage it does."

If it passes and school funding takes a hit, you damn well better not expect taxpayers to pick up the tab. If that happens I'll be a staunch "no" on every educational tax increase. The anti-tax crowd and the O&G folks will have a field day reminding everyone that 112 was to blame.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2018, 09:11 PM
 
Location: Denver
2,983 posts, read 2,399,742 times
Reputation: 1834
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluescreen73 View Post
That's really asinine reasoning for passing it. "We've gotta pass it before we can see how much damage it does."

If it passes and school funding takes a hit, you damn well better not ask taxpayers to foot the bill for your mistake.
My general rule of thumb is it's better to err on the cautious side. I think it's easier for initiatives to re appear on next years ballot than for initiative to get repealed once voted in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2018, 09:13 PM
 
2,438 posts, read 3,266,779 times
Reputation: 4874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil P View Post
I do understand the concern with health and safety, but the clincher for me is where the wells are located at. If they were closer to the populated front range or to the scenic spots of Colorado, I would be more concerned. But basically the drilling is concentrated to Greeley area and west of Trinidad. Getting rid of O&G drilling also kills the industry the people in the towns work for.

So, there's not really a competing use for the drilling land, Colorado already has decently strict regulations in drilling by comparison, and the people who would be effected likely are benefited by the industry.

I think a less far reaching proposal would be better.
Phil P,
Where the wells are being proposed is the problem. They are trying to put them in Anthem in Broomfield and North Thornton. They are being put next to the cities planned water reservoirs and inside the 470 beltway.

Here is one of the info. sites for Broomfield.
Fracking Plans | Anthem Clean Air & Water

Here is one for Adams County. If you look at the map alot of the sites are south of 470. There are heavily populated areas. 32 schools are withing 1000 ft of active oil and gas sites.
Coming Soon Adams County | Residential Fracking Coming Soon to Adams County

The cities have been fighting like mad to get set backs in place but the state laws keep defeating them. People buy homes and then due to state laws, wells are being proposed in their back yards.

"A state judge has rejected Thornton’s rules requiring 750-foot buffers and pipeline safety to protect residents from intensifying oil and gas activity inside its boundaries — declaring these rules illegal because they conflict with more permissive state law.

And industry leaders on Wednesday issued a warning: Colorado cities that do what Thornton did will face a similar fate. The Colorado Oil and Gas Association and the American Petroleum Institute had filed a lawsuit attacking the rules that Thornton made in August.

But cities, including Broomfield, are pressing ahead carefully, prepared to face legal consequences."
https://www.denverpost.com/2018/04/2...ules-rejected/

This is a fight in Denver's suburbs. Not out on open land. If the land were open then 2500 ft setbacks would be no problem for the oil and gas industry.

There is already fracking next to homes in Erie.
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...ie-subdivision

Our Nextdoor feeds are filled with people who can't stand the noise and the smells. Some people have had themselves and their kids tested for VOCs and they are very high. One family moved away from the fracking and retested their kids. Their toxic VOC levels were low again.

It is very real and it is happening in the front range suburbs.
--------------------------
Edit to add: The areas you are talking about that aren't populated aren't affected by 112. 112 puts in place setbacks. It does not ban fracking or prevent drilling. It only puts in setbacks to protect the health of people who's homes and/or schools/hospitals are close to fracking. There is really no good reason not to vote for 112. The ads talking about school funding is just the oil and gas industry trying to find a way to scare people into voting it down.

And don't think that the south suburbs are going to be exempt. They are also over gas deposits. Oil and gas are fighting it out with the north cities now but if they start winning they will move on to the south suburbs with their mega fracking pads.
http://comingsoon.conservationco.org/

All of metro Denver needs 112, not just the north suburbs.

Last edited by mic111; 10-29-2018 at 09:32 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top