Jump to content

Huckleberry

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    12116
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    20

Posts posted by Huckleberry

  1. I used to think that it made sense to vote libertarian or any 3rd party to show the GOP/Dems that they should change.   Then I turned 22 and grew up.
    A 3rd party vote is actually a vote for the favorite in the race.    Have the maturity to pick from the top 2 candidates in the general election.  Or just stay home to shorten the voting line for the rest of us.
    Don't blame you, you voted for Kodos.
    • Haha 1
  2. evest11-2.png

    11/2 is estimated based on the counties with totals on their websites. Missing from the data right now are Cameron, Dallas, El Paso, Galveston, and Travis.

    This would put us at a total of 3,801,086 in-person early votes in these 15 counties. 2014 had 1,504,076 and 2016 had 4,186,107.

  3. You probably won't, but watch the video I linked.  The campaign guy talks about helping people, using gift cards from the campaign, from the caravan.  I'm not making it up.

    I already watched it. It's as dumb as I thought and others have already explained why.

    You're basically Dolemite except from Texas and with a tiny sliver of self-awareness in the back of your mind telling you "maybe this is stupid" but you ignore the voice.

     

    • Like 1
  4. 9 minutes ago, zork said:

     

    The video was released last night, 12 hours or more before I basically posted a link to it. 

    Spending campaign funds for non campaign items is against the law with potentially huge FEC fines per occurence(apparently each gift card is tracked so that could be big fines if it is followed up on).  I suspect the money will be refunded or paid out of pocket with minimal fines.  But I don't know of course.

    BTW, the campaign staffer in the video mentions that they are helping Hondurans from the caravan crossing into El Paso.  It is in the video.   That is not an opinion.  It does refute a bit, if the Beto employee is to be believed, that all of the caravan is ~1000 miles away. 

    I was interested in the opinions of the people who post on both the threads where I posted the tweet.  I guess that does make me an idiot.

    Yeah, refutes it just a bit. Glad you could man up and admit that it's possible that O'Rourke campaign funds haven't been spent on caravan members crossing into El Paso given that they were 1,800 miles away yesterday

    For fuck's sake if they were that far away yesterday but were crossing into El Paso last night then we should absolutely let them all in so we can start winning Olympic track events again.

  5. El Paso reported now, essentially no change to that chart as they followed the pattern of an uptick on Thursday compared to Wednesday.

    Let it be known that Galveston has the shittiest County Clerk website of any large county.

    • Haha 1
  6. And this is why that video isn't going to do shit to the election. There aren't actually that many people who will be offended by the fact that low level staffers want to give blankets to poor migrants. And those who are will be countered by the number of people who think giving blankets to them makes a lot more sense than spending hundreds of millions of tax dollars to station thousands of troops at the border to stop these people:

    181028125335-02-migrant-caravan-1027-sup

     

    • Like 2
  7. 1 minute ago, NameWithHeld said:

    Or were thinking about voting but NOW will for sure. 

    It will make as much of a difference as the news that Ted Cruz caused the caravan by supporting the Honduran coup.*

    * - Neither candidate is actually responsible for these things and non-morons know that.

    • Like 1
  8. 12 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

    Neither of those are as clear as you just said, which is the problem of textualism. Plain language is never plain. Heller and the longstanding understanding it overturned shows that. 

     

     

    They really are. The fact that lawyers like arguing about law neither surprises anyone nor changes that.

    • Like 1
  9. You're an idiot. But it's okay, because you put a question mark at the end of it, right? Here, let me try again.

    You're an idiot? I'm just asking questions.

    • Like 1
  10. 6 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

    This reminds me some of the movement that led to Heller redefining the 2nd Amendment to protect an individual right to bear arms. A lot more ground work had been laid there but there are similar originalism arguments for the 14th to overturn 150 years of precedent and an earlier Supreme Court case. The thing about originalism is you often have your pick of original interpretations so it can be a vehicle for activisim. Here they'll focus on "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to exclude undocumented immigrants. It's not a totally far fetched argument, though it goes against mainstream legal thinking. That the second amendment protected an individual right also went against mainstream legal scholarship and we know how that turned out. Both the majority and dissent in Heller relied on originalist arguments.

    There's also a lot of dumbing down in the media of what Trump would actually do with an EO. It wouldn't change the 14th amendment. An would setup a legal challenge that could eventually lead to, depending on your views a reinterpretation or clarification of the 14th amendment. It's just like states passing laws to test Roe. There may be other issues with executive power and if an EO is contrary to a statute providing for birthright citizenship but those are different issues than this idea of changing the constitution by EO. Trump, or at least his handlers, know that's not possible.

    The policy of birthright citizenship is also a lot more complicated. Birth tourism is clearly problematic but the certainty birthright provides is important. Eliminating birthright citizenship would drastically expand the number of people who, like the dreamers, are American in every day but under the law. That's a big problem.

     

     

    This silliness is why plain language should matter.

    The 2nd Amendment protects the individual right to bear arms because the plain language of the text says so. It gives the necessity of a militia as the main reason for that right to be protected but in no way limits that as the only reason. If I write the sentence "because reproduction is necessary for the species and therefore society to continue, the right of the people to have sex shall not be infringed" that doesn't mean that people only have the right to have sex if they're doing so to reproduce. It means that reproduction is so important that we're going to be safe and point blank say that sex is a right and you can't infringe on it in any way whatsoever because we don't want to start a slippery slope.

    Similarly, the 14th Amendment's language is clear. If you are born here and are subject to our jurisdiction then you're not a citizen. The only people who are born here and aren't subject to our jurisdiction are children of foreign diplomats, ambassadors, etc. Arguing that a child born to foreign immigrants is not subject to our jurisdiction is arguing that we can't deport him because he's, you know, not subject to our jurisdiction.

    • Like 2
  11. How?  If they are born here they can be shipped back with their illegal parents.  How is that actively punishing the children---they wouldn't know the difference.
    No they can't, because that would be a violation of their Constitutional rights.
  12. 1 minute ago, Storm the Field said:

    GOP pollster with a pretty bland take, based on daily trends among the NYT Upshot polling over the past 6 weeks.

    IOW, nothing has really changed in the House race since the start of September.

    What do the two Dem and Rep percentage columns mean in this guy's data? Is this national? Does his data really say that the national voting intention changed from +11% for Republicans to +3.3% for Democrats in one day?

  13. 28 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

    I bet we pull out of the current downward trend Thurs and Fri and probably level off as people try to get their vote in before the end of early voting.  So if we match yesterday's 233,000 on each of those days, it would be 36.99% early voting total.

     

    It looks like in 2016, 23.3% of votes came on election day from those big counties (percent of total vote, not percent of registered voters).  If we go by that, and get 23.3% of the total vote on election day, we will be up to 48.22% turnout.

    There's more than a leveling off, usually, in early voting as people get it done right at the end. You have the super enthusiastic at the beginning, a general dip, then the group of "oh shit I'm almost out of time to vote early" people.

    imgur

    This is only the counties that the Texas SOS site has numbers for in both 2016 and 2018. Day 8 was Halloween in 2016. Yesterday was a big dip for 2018, although I suppose maybe weather could have had something to do with it. Don't think it had that much to do with it, though.

  14. 1 minute ago, Js1 said:

    So you're telling me.....

    it could be 2, it could be 17, maybe it's 525,600?

    Exactly. I'm just being annoyingly repetitive about the fact that nobody knows anything.

    A great piece of information to have would be voters' party ID from the 2014 and 2016 elections. Then we could compare party ID to actual vote totals in those two elections to this year's party ID numbers. Then again I've only seen one person who published party ID numbers for early voters so far this year, who knows how accurate that was.

  15. Thanks for the update. This is just another one reinforcing that party ID versus actual vote is something we can't know for sure right now.

    If you apply the party ID from earlier data to the above voting total numbers, then Cruz would be ahead 50.9%-49.1% in early voting in these counties. But if you apply the way that the counties voted in 2016, then O'Rourke would be ahead 54.2%-45.8% in these counties. If you apply the Upshot-based voting percentages on party ID basis, then O'Rourke is winning 56.0%-44.0% in these counties.

    • Like 1
  16. 18 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

    Nothing I've said precludes backhanded compliments or commits me to writing an opus on every post. I actually thought his post was good and a nice break from his typical everyone who frustrates me is a nazi routine.  

    Incredibly weak response. So you think nobody noticed the bullshit snide comments about chemicals needed for him to make that post?

    You exposed yourself as a fraud with that post. No worries, it will be easier once you stop trying to pretend like you're above the fray.

  17. Good post.  You should stick with whatever combination of diet and exercise and concoction of pharmaceuticals it took for you to achieve the mental state you were in when you wrote it.  
    Quite the post from a guy decrying the lack of intelligent discourse in this forum on other threads.
    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...