Jump to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Surly Horns

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

Featured Replies

12 hours ago, Message Board User said:

 

This is the best article I have seen in months.  Spot Fucking On.  This should be required reading for all.

  • Replies 6.5k
  • Views 414.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • Bozo_Casanova
    Bozo_Casanova

    You said it in the only way that matters: you voted for it. 

  • I told my friends at work today to get ready for some excuse destroying reality.   We are no longer going to be able to excuse the behavior of voters in this election as 'being foolish', 'hoping Trump

  • Brisketexan
    Brisketexan

    Fire protection. Police protection. Local road construction and maintenance. Interstate highway construction and maintenance. Airport operation, air traffic control, airline safety

 

59 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

This is the best article I have seen in months.  Spot Fucking On.  This should be required reading for all.

Agree.  Really spells out the argument why the GOP needs to purge themselves to ultimately get rid of Trump.   Written by a republican.    This section really demonstrates how the congressional republicans have fallen to their knees:

Quote

Look no further than Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) who, in 2016, called Trump a “kook,” who was “unfit for office” and said he didn’t vote for Trump because he “couldn’t go where Trump was taking the party.” Recently, though, he’s become one of Trump’s golf buddies, has said the president is “growing into the job” and is now running interference for him: Last year, Graham said there would be “holy hell to pay” if Trump fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Last week, Graham gave Trump a green light to get rid of Sessions after Election Day. In July, via Twitter, Graham scolded Trump for his failure, to “hold Russia accountable for 2016 meddling” when asked about it during the president’s news conference with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, but then quickly demurred, “Meddling and collusion are not the same thing.”

 

I wish the polls broke down as blue collar v white collar to go along with educated v uneducated.  It be interesting to see if the latter is just a proxy for the former, without quite as much of an insulting implication.

So 51% of Americans polled think Donald Trump is intelligent?  How dumb do you have to be to think that? Lulz. 

3 minutes ago, Jack Straw said:

So 51% of Americans polled think Donald Trump is intelligent?  How dumb do you have to be to think that? Lulz. 

Very dumb.   But many people don't realize how much of Trump's self-proclaimed business "success" is fabricated, so they assume he must be smart to wind up where he is. 

  • Author
2 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

Bud Adams took the Oilers away. Nobody can be worse. He was a competent team owner though. McNair isn't.

Fitting that Adams died alone. 

5 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Fitting that Adams died alone. 

Trump will, too.

Wretchedly alone.

17 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Very dumb.   But many people don't realize how much of Trump's self-proclaimed business "success" is fabricated, so they assume he must be smart to wind up where he is. 

This is part of why I think Trump will be re-elected.  Even after it gets worse from here - and it will get worse - way worse - the combined percentage of voting Americans who are:  (1) that actually so dumb, real life life dumb, that they think Trump is intelligent and doing a great job, and (2) such complete and utter partisan hacks and shitbags that they will vote for Trump no matter how much fraud, incompetence, collusion, and embarrassment on the world stage he causes and angages in - and no matter how good the Democratic/ Independent/Other opponent(s) is (are) - is greater than 50%.  

I wish it weren’t true, but it is.   I’m afraid that this country is irretrievably lost. Seriously, if nothing has been done to remove this utterly worthless sack of shit from office by this point, nothing ever will.  I really don’t understand how there isn’t widespread rioting in the streets across the country right now. 

  • Author

I’m wondering how many polls are distorted to scare certain groups of voters, to get them out to vote.  

9 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I’m wondering how many polls are distorted to scare certain groups of voters, to get them out to vote.  

Seems like a dangerous game to play. Bad polls can sometimes suppress voter turnout just like good polls can. I'm sure a study has been done but lazy voters will find any reason not to go to the polls, although I suppose you could be saying that polls are distorted to make the race seem closer than it is. That would drive turnout no matter what I'd think.

19 minutes ago, Jack Straw said:

This is part of why I think Trump will be re-elected.  Even after it gets worse from here - and it will get worse - way worse - the combined percentage of voting Americans who are:  (1) that actually so dumb, real life life dumb, that they think Trump is intelligent and doing a great job, and (2) such complete and utter partisan hacks and shitbags that they will vote for Trump no matter how much fraud, incompetence, collusion, and embarrassment on the world stage he causes and angages in - and no matter how good the Democratic/ Independent/Other opponent(s) is (are) - is greater than 50%.  

I wish it weren’t true, but it is.   I’m afraid that this country is irretrievably lost. Seriously, if nothing has been done to remove this utterly worthless sack of shit from office by this point, nothing ever will.  I really don’t understand how there isn’t widespread rioting in the streets across the country right now. 

Talked with a Republican friend about this during the Longhorn game on Saturday.  Called Trump a douchebag, hates his tweeting, but his paycheck has gone up and his stocks are looking good, and those pros outweigh the cons in his mind.  Even when the downsides of tariffs came up, he mentioned how he liked Trump's trade strategy ("we were totally being taken advantage of before"), and that any short term struggles will lead eventually to benefits for the country.

He's a great guy who usually leans pretty hard right at the ballot box, and as long as he is personally still doing okay, then Trump is okay in his book, and I don't think anything short of a big stock market crash will change that.  While there definitely are people like me who have bailed on the Republican party over Trump, I know there are tens of millions just like him who are quietly sticking with their team.

Edited by Chuckie Finster

17 hours ago, retread said:

 

just as I was starting to like him. oh well, fuck you, again, g-dub

59 minutes ago, Jack Straw said:

So 51% of Americans polled think Donald Trump is intelligent?  How dumb do you have to be to think that? Lulz. 

imgur

7 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Talked with a Republican friend about this during the Longhorn game on Saturday.  Called Trump a douchebag, hates his tweeting, but his paycheck has gone up and his stocks are looking good, and those pros outweigh the cons in his mind.  Even when the downsides of tariffs came up, he mentioned how he liked Trump's trade strategy ("we were totally being taken advantage of before"), and that any short term struggles will lead eventually to benefits for the country.

He's a great guy who usually leans pretty hard right at the ballot box, and as long as he is personally still doing okay, then Trump is okay in his book, and I don't think anything short of a big stock market crash will change that.  While there definitely are people like me who have bailed on the Republican party over Trump, I know there are tens of millions just like him who are quietly sticking with their team.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/11/opinion/anonymous-op-ed-republican-party-trump.html

Quote

'Anonymous' Is Hiding in Plain Sight

 

27 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

Gillum 47 DeSantis 43 in new poll today from Florida Chamber of Commerce that usually leans GOP.

 

26 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

Marist poll has dems up 57 to 29 among women in generic party vote.

Yes, that's it. More please.

That article from the WaPo, Death of Expertise author is scorching. I gotta take a look at his Twitter feed.

29 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

He's a great guy who usually leans pretty hard right at the ballot box, and as long as he is personally still doing okay, then Trump is okay in his book, and I don't think anything short of a big stock market crash will change that.  While there definitely are people like me who have bailed on the Republican party over Trump, I know there are tens of millions just like him who are quietly sticking with their team.

Yeah - I think a lot of people underestimate just how many of the Slorch/Johnny Sack "I got mine, fuck everybody else" types there are in this country.

4 minutes ago, Jack Straw said:

Yeah - I think a lot of people underestimate just how many of the Slorch/Johnny Sack "I got mine, fuck everybody else" types there are in this country.

They sure underestimated last November.  I think we fully recognize how many there are now.

54 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Talked with a Republican friend about this during the Longhorn game on Saturday.  Called Trump a douchebag, hates his tweeting, but his paycheck has gone up and his stocks are looking good, and those pros outweigh the cons in his mind.  Even when the downsides of tariffs came up, he mentioned how he liked Trump's trade strategy ("we were totally being taken advantage of before"), and that any short term struggles will lead eventually to benefits for the country.

He's a great guy who usually leans pretty hard right at the ballot box, and as long as he is personally still doing okay, then Trump is okay in his book, and I don't think anything short of a big stock market crash will change that.  While there definitely are people like me who have bailed on the Republican party over Trump, I know there are tens of millions just like him who are quietly sticking with their team.

And how did the economy and stock market factor in with him when assessing Obama in, say, 2016?

11 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

And how did the economy and stock market factor in with him when assessing Obama in, say, 2016?

Ding ding ding.

main-qimg-4de5aa76d2b8c20177ef1e37e3e4ab

 

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Ding ding ding.

main-qimg-4de5aa76d2b8c20177ef1e37e3e4ab

 

Barack Obama thinks Trump touting his economy is adorable.

1 hour ago, Mojo Hand said:

And how did the economy and stock market factor in with him when assessing Obama in, say, 2016?

They don't care.  One of my best friends, who is an intelligent and well schooled guy, is almost exactly like Chuckie's friend.  His statement to me, "I hate Donald Trump the person, he's terrible.  But Donald Trump the President has been okay".  When pressed, he basically has no answers except SCOTUS (he's a conservative and originalist) and the economy.  When challenged further about what he means by the economy, he points to the stock market and unemployment numbers.  Look, it would be folly to say that some lagging or even coincident indicators such as unemployment, CPI and GDP aren't strong and my friend isn't interested if the rally started with Obama, he concedes this, he looks at his own situation and some overall top line numbers and figures Trump has done a good job in steering the ship.  He's less bullish on tariffs, but they have impacted him so he doesn't know what to think and will let them play out he says. 

He's probably one of the more conservative friends I have that has any type of strong political opinions and he's an attorney (around DC) so you know he's a douche bag..... I just laugh at him and shrug.  I'm not going to change his mind, he's too dug in and he's argumentative (remember he's a douche bag lawyer), so we agree to disagree..... Agree with Chuckie, millions of folks just like this, who desperately rationalize not only their choices (they don't want to be wrong with their Trump vote) but their futures, who bargain with themselves about what what and who matters.  They don't want to be wrong and unless it's going to impact them directly, they won't change anything about their small and limited views....

 

Edited by Patrick Bateman

That district is reliability difficult to poll due to the demographics. It’s the one place i think the polls won’t capture the outcome. Nevada as a state is similar. 

2 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

just as I was starting to like him. oh well, fuck you, again, g-dub

Fuck that guy

The 538 Senate model confirms what I’ve been saying - out of power party Senate incumbents just don’t lose, barring the 2 times the in-power party gained Senate seats in the midterms (98, 02) due to other factors (Lewinsky, 9/11). 

538 has Democrat incumbents favored in ND, IN, MO, MT and WV with the 2 tossups being Nevada and FL. Sinema is favored in AZ. Blackburn and Cruz favored due to the fundamentals of their states. I think we’re looking at 50/50 Senate with Democrats picking up 2 seats out West and holding their incumbents.  Legitimately, a Democrat Senate would come down to Bredesen or Beto in upsets. 

3 minutes ago, Js1 said:

The 538 Senate model confirms what I’ve been saying - out of power party Senate incumbents just don’t lose, barring the 2 times the in-power party gained Senate seats in the midterms (98, 02) due to other factors (Lewinsky, 9/11). 

538 has Democrat incumbents favored in ND, IN, MO, MT and WV with the 2 tossups being Nevada and FL. Sinema is favored in AZ. Blackburn and Cruz favored due to the fundamentals of their states. I think we’re looking at 50/50 Senate with Democrats picking up 2 seats out West and holding their incumbents.  Legitimately, a Democrat Senate would come down to Bredesen or Beto in upsets. 

Don't forget how far we've come.  Remember this is a terrible map for Democrats.  Now thinking about taking both chambers.

13 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Don't forget how far we've come.  Remember this is a terrible map for Democrats.  Now thinking about taking both chambers.

It is a terrible map for Democrats. Under Democratic President Hillary Clinton.

actually works in their favor under Republican President Donald Trump. Because minority party incumbents just don’t lose in midterms! It took Bill admitting to an affair and a rah-rah rallying after a terrorist attack/war in Afghanistan to defy that CW. 

15 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Don't forget how far we've come.  Remember this is a terrible map for Democrats.  Now thinking about taking both chambers.

And as bad as 2018 is for Democrats in the Senate, 2020 is equally bad for Republicans.

The Democrats in 2020 could have the presidency, the House, and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

3 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

And as bad as 2018 is for Democrats in the Senate, 2020 is equally bad for Republicans.

The Democrats in 2020 could have the presidency, the House, and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

And then easily add two seats to the Supreme Court, quickly nullifying what Rs sold their souls to get.

How's about we make gerrymandering illegal and let computers draw districts?  Then we don't have to worry about fucking maps.

5 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

How's about we make gerrymandering illegal and let computers draw districts?  Then we don't have to worry about fucking maps.

The list of what Democrats could do with that kind of power is endless.  Inasmuch as they are the majority party, they could render the GOP powerless for a generation.

Just now, Ghost of LL said:

The list of what Democrats could do with that kind of power is endless.  Inasmuch as they are the majority party, they could render the GOP powerless for a generation.

Exactly my point.  I don't want either side to have that power.

9 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

How's about we make gerrymandering illegal and let computers draw districts?  Then we don't have to worry about fucking maps.

Who gets to write the computer program?

1 minute ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Who gets to write the computer program?

An independent body.  I don't know man, I'm just spit balling here.

9 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

How's about we make gerrymandering illegal and let computers draw districts?  Then we don't have to worry about fucking maps.

PSA.  I see this sort of thing all the time when we are discussing gerrymandering.  This sort of thing would likely violate the VRA by not providing "minority opportunity districts."  See section 2 here:  http://redistricting.lls.edu/where.php

If you got truly randomized districts, and there was racially polarized voting, the minority would never be able to have one of their preferred candidates.  I imagine randomly drawn districts in Texas would result in more R reps, not fewer.  (e.g.: If 60% of voters in Texas would pull the lever for an R, and 40% for D, then in each randomized district the R would win 60-40 , and every rep would be R despite millions of votes for Ds).

18 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

And as bad as 2018 is for Democrats in the Senate, 2020 is equally bad for Republicans.

The Democrats in 2020 could have the presidency, the House, and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

This is why Donald Trump being elected might end up being the best thing to happen to the Democratic Party in a long, long time.

19 minutes ago, Js1 said:

It is a terrible map for Democrats. Under Democratic President Hillary Clinton.

actually works in their favor under Republican President Donald Trump. Because minority party incumbents just don’t lose in midterms! It took Bill admitting to an affair and a rah-rah rallying after a terrorist attack/war in Afghanistan to defy that CW. 

I think it was meant that it's a terrible map in 2018 for Dems because they had 25 seats up for elections, including King and Sanders, while the Republicans only had 8.  2020 has 12 Dems and 21 Reps.    At a high strategy level, you want to defend as few seats as possible while being able to pick & choose your offensive targets.   

But you're right that IF Hillary had won, the GOP lead in the Senate would most likely be off the charts for 2019-2021.  

16 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Who gets to write the computer program?

Open source with code accessible to everyone. Only data inputs are geographic location and number of residents.

It's already been done.

https://bdistricting.com/2010/

16 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

PSA.  I see this sort of thing all the time when we are discussing gerrymandering.  This sort of thing would likely violate the VRA by not providing "minority opportunity districts."  See section 2 here:  http://redistricting.lls.edu/where.php

If you got truly randomized districts, and there was racially polarized voting, the minority would never be able to have one of their preferred candidates.  I imagine randomly drawn districts in Texas would result in more R reps, not fewer.  (e.g.: If 60% of voters in Texas would pull the lever for an R, and 40% for D, then in each randomized district the R would win 60-40 , and every rep would be R despite millions of votes for Ds).

I disagree. The VRA requirements can be easily met by a relatively simple algorithm. Remember, the VRA exists to avoid the types of weird elongated and far reaching districts we have now (obviously not very effective). An algorithm that accounted for geography and the location of populations could be designed such that districts would be made up of neighboring population centers, not far flung areas of the state.  Further, there is no requirement that any computer algorithm be entirely random. That is to say, we wouldn't have one that mixed up the entire population of the state in a bag and randomly assigned voters to districts. Instead, the algorithm would be tasked with keeping reasonable geographic boundaries for each district based on the location of population.  Accordingly, you would still have conclaves of districts (for instance, Travis County or really any metropolitan are in Texas) that would vote differently than a district that was randomly generated from a state wide voting pool (the mixed bag approach discussed earlier).  

PSA.  I see this sort of thing all the time when we are discussing gerrymandering.  This sort of thing would likely violate the VRA by not providing "minority opportunity districts."  See section 2 here:  http://redistricting.lls.edu/where.php
If you got truly randomized districts, and there was racially polarized voting, the minority would never be able to have one of their preferred candidates.  I imagine randomly drawn districts in Texas would result in more R reps, not fewer.  (e.g.: If 60% of voters in Texas would pull the lever for an R, and 40% for D, then in each randomized district the R would win 60-40 , and every rep would be R despite millions of votes for Ds).
That's not how it works in real life. People tend to live near others with common interests. They're not geographically randomly distributed.
Just now, Huckleberry said:
31 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:
PSA.  I see this sort of thing all the time when we are discussing gerrymandering.  This sort of thing would likely violate the VRA by not providing "minority opportunity districts."  See section 2 here:  http://redistricting.lls.edu/where.php
If you got truly randomized districts, and there was racially polarized voting, the minority would never be able to have one of their preferred candidates.  I imagine randomly drawn districts in Texas would result in more R reps, not fewer.  (e.g.: If 60% of voters in Texas would pull the lever for an R, and 40% for D, then in each randomized district the R would win 60-40 , and every rep would be R despite millions of votes for Ds).

Read more  

That's not how it works in real life. People tend to live near others with common interests. They're not geographically randomly distributed.

It works in both directions.  You’d be in the “pack” of “pack and crack” if you took advantage of that.   Same result.   A few districts of 95% D dilutes the D overall power.

 

 

 

It works in both directions.  You’d be in the “pack” of “pack and crack” if you took advantage of that.   Same result.   A few districts of 95% D dilutes the D overall power.
 
 
 
I don't care about party demographics, that's how we got into this absurd gerrymandering situation to begin with. You need to let that go, party affiliation should not have any bearing on redistricting.

As for pack and crack, that also wouldn't be nearly as bad in a computer generated map. While people tend to live near like-minded neighbors, it is not nearly 95%. The terrible gerrymander maps show that the "pack" districts are usually the most ridiculously shaped.
8 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

It works in both directions.  You’d be in the “pack” of “pack and crack” if you took advantage of that.   Same result.   A few districts of 95% D dilutes the D overall power.

 

 

 

Ok, but you realize the "pack and crack" districts tend to include voters over an expanded geographic area, with tendrils or arms reaching out to some area and avoiding others. That is that the VRA was designed to avoid. Districts made of something resembling simply geometric shapes, which is what I would expect from a decent algorithm, also avoids the problem. 

Edited by Dahobbs

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

I don't care about party demographics, that's how we got into this absurd gerrymandering situation to begin with. You need to let that go, party affiliation should not have any bearing on redistricting.

 

It’s only when a demographic is a proxy for voting habit (ie party).  That’s the first part of the test of section 2. So you have to care about that or VRA just doesn’t have any bearing.  

 

This is why Donald Trump being elected might end up being the best thing to happen to the Democratic Party in a long, long time.

But to get there, it’s almost a case of the treatment being worse than the sickness.

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.