Where were they complaining about the process when they had the majority? Oh, that's right, everything was wine and roses then. You don't like the apparatus you left for the Democrats to use? Win some elections.



No, that would be sour grapes.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Yes or no: urban Democrats enacted a law without inviting the people/industries involved to discuss it, a law that can be construed as punitive since it doesn't effect everyone equally?

By this justification you're alluding to, then you won't object when Republicans win majorities and pass laws that are de facto taxes on Democrats? Like an 8000% tax on patchouli oil?

GOP just wants more senators lol.

Puerto Rico, anyone?

When was the last time Republicans were in power in Colorado?

PR is reluctant to become a state because of the one-way nature of the metamorphosis.

They voted for it a few months ago, IIRC. But that one-way nature should give them cause.

That's called the benefit of winning elections. Republicans have no trouble telling Democrats what to do when they win. Just because I may object doesn't mean they can't do it. And can you tax sage sticks while you're at it, too? All this hippie crap interferes with our pot cloud.

The real reason they want to secede, by the way, is because they can read demographic charts (well, somebody who works for them can; have you seen or heard these hayseeds?). The racist redneck element knows that the twin scourge of Mexicans and urban transplants has swung the pendulum in a way that's not likely to come back in their favor.



The Colorado House was Republican before the last election. They controlled both houses a cycle or two before that. Democratic control is a fairly recent development.

We don't elect dictators (or ostensibly, oligarchs), we elect representatives, who are then entrusted to "represent."

For example, Barack Obama isn't the president of the Democrats of the United States, he's the President of the United States. When he and his cronies rammed through Obamacare, they at least had the courtesy of seating the Republicans at some of the tables to have hearings about it, and consulted them before they passed it. Elections have consequences, sure. It's just something else entirely when you don't even try to include the representatives of the people when you pass laws affecting them. That can reasonably be called lording over them, not governing.

Do you really think I agree with every bit of legislation that Republicans have passed (or Democrats for that matter)? Serious question: isn't the function of a representative democracy supposed to be that the majority gets to pass laws as long as they don't violate the applicable constitutions? If you are in the minority, and the majority passes a constitutional law, isn't your only reasonable alternative to do better in the next election? You can't honestly tell me you are shortsighted enough to want to see the Balkanization of the US because small minority groups can't stand that US demographics are changing can you?

By the way, I don't seem to recall you having similar reservations when the governor of Wisconsin "lorded" his power over teachers unions. You can't have it both ways. If you want to rule when you win, you suck it up when you lose.