Octopus Overlords

Well that's interesting, thanks

My wife and I got our primary ballots in the mail today. Kind of exciting - first mail in ballots I'll ever use. Big question is Markey vs. Kennedy. I'm assuming that I'll ultimately vote for Markey - he seems like a good guy, I like that he comes from a working class background, and I've never really heard anyone complain about him. And I haven't really heard an argument for Kennedy's primary campaign other than "I'm younger and I'm a Kennedy".

Ours haven't arrived yet. Should be here any day. I look forward to being able to google all of the candidates for minor offices and make more informed choices than usual, rather than walking in and going "county commissioner? We still have counties?"

I'll support Markey because power in the Senate derives from seniority, connections, and experience. If he hasn't done anything to earn our wrath, why toss all that out so that someone else can start over? Markey has an especially strong record on climate change, which will surely be the next pandemic-level crisis after four years of not only ignoring it, but deliberately aggravating it. Kennedy's day will come in due time.

NY Times

Joe Arpaio, the bellicose former Arizona sheriff whose harsh immigration tactics earned him international notoriety, narrowly lost his Republican primary as he tried to regain his old office in Maricopa County.

Voters instead backed Jerry Sheridan, Mr. Arpaio’s former chief deputy, who promised to revive many of Mr. Arpaio’s policies but without the showmanship that defined the office under Mr. Arpaio’s 24-year reign. Mr. Sheridan will face Sheriff Paul Penzone, the Democrat who trounced Mr. Arpaio four years ago, in the November general election.

Kamala Harris is the VP pick.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

Does Trump have a lame nickname for her yet?

Poca-Harris?

Octavious wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 4:45 pm Does Trump have a lame nickname for her yet?

His campaign already has an attack ad out.

pr0ner wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 4:52 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 4:45 pm Does Trump have a lame nickname for her yet?

His campaign already has an attack ad out.

And according to that ad, she's "Phony Kamala."

Really just phoning it in.

She impressed me enough in interviews and the impeachment hearings that she was my first choice going into the primary. I'm excited that she'll have a prominent voice during the election, and if Biden becomes 46, she'll be a front runner to be 47.

The 538 election model is up today. Gives Biden a 71% chance of winning the electoral college (and 81% of winning the popular vote, FWIW). A lot depends on it still being fairly far out, unsurprisingly - if the election were held today, the model would give Biden a 93% chance of winning.

But as the Nate Silver column points out, Trump still has a decent shot, if for no other reason than he probably still has an electoral college advantage, so he only needs to get within range of Biden in the polls, he doesn't need to actually pass him.

But god, seeing that state snake chart again gave me bad PSD from 2016.

One of the big surprises that pops out to me is the path if he can lose PA and WI and still win *if* he win Minnesota, Oregon, and NH. That puts his Portland and this 'suburban housewife' focus in some sort of perspective.

malchior wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 9:54 am One of the big surprises that pops out to me is the path if he can lose PA and WI and still win *if* he win Minnesota, Oregon, and NH. That puts his Portland and this 'suburban housewife' focus in some sort of perspective.

The "he" in this is Trump? I certainly hope that Trump is trying to win Oregon, as it's best if he spends as much time as possible between now and November tilting at windmills.

And, as far as I know, that doesn't take into account all the shenanigans Trump will undoubtedly pull. That's got to bump up his chance of "winning" by at least 5 - 10%. Or maybe 100%, depending on the shenanigans in question...

El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 9:58 am

malchior wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 9:54 am One of the big surprises that pops out to me is the path if he can lose PA and WI and still win *if* he win Minnesota, Oregon, and NH. That puts his Portland and this 'suburban housewife' focus in some sort of perspective.

The "he" in this is Trump? I certainly hope that Trump is trying to win Oregon, as it's best if he spends as much time as possible between now and November tilting at windmills.

Yeah it definitely isn't a good idea but is the only winning scenarios that 538 put up *if* Trump loses PA. I don't know how they chose the map and maybe there is another more realistic route if he loses PA.

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 9:59 am And, as far as I know, that doesn't take into account all the shenanigans Trump will undoubtedly pull. That's got to bump up his chance of "winning" by at least 5 - 10%. Or maybe 100%, depending on the shenanigans in question...

Yeah it's hard to put odds on 'attack democracy'. I would hope low but I don't know anymore.

malchior wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 10:22 amYeah it's hard to put odds on 'attack democracy'. I would hope low but I don't know anymore.

I'm confused. The odds that he 'attacks democracy' are 100%, as he's already openly and consistently doing so.

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 10:26 am

malchior wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 10:22 amYeah it's hard to put odds on 'attack democracy'. I would hope low but I don't know anymore.

I'm confused. The odds that he 'attacks democracy' are 100%, as he's already openly and consistently doing so.

Not the odds he'll do it. How the odds are affected by him attempting to tip the election since we've never dealt with anything like this.

This argument is so crazy that it just might work!

*Tabletop game rules lawyer mode*

Do the rules say, "Before 5" or "By 5?" If that latter, he's got a point.

The latter.

Is he a student in one of my classes? bUt I sUbmItTeD iT aT 12:01 am??

Fixed

Trump's lawyers are arguing "that the seconds from 5:00:00 to 5:00:59 are inclusive to 5pm"—meaning that before 5:01pm should be considered on time for a 5pm deadline.

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 11:17 am *Tabletop game rules lawyer mode*

Do the rules say, "Before 5" or "By 5?" If that latter, he's got a point.

The court filing say they say "not later than". I could find no direct sourcing.


"not later than"... if that is verbiage then 5:00:01 is too late. What if they said no later August 01 and it was submit on 00:00:01 on August 02? What if they said no later than Midnight August 01 and it was submit on 00:00:01 on August 02? 17:00:01 is later than 17:00:00. It is not the same time as. It is not before. It is later.

For the average observer, arriving before 5:01pm is arriving 'not later' than 5pm. The phrase 'not later' is particularly instructive in that it indicates the presumption that the seconds from 5:00:00 to 5:00:59 are inclusive to 5pm. As the statute states '5 p.m.', for something to be filed later than '5 p.m.' it would have to be filed at 5:01 p.m

If he has punched a clock or sat in class room with a bell, then he would know what the average observer knows.


That said, I would be inclined to let him file. I didn't care for the logic when Republicans shut down Gary Johnson in Michigan in 2012 for being 3 minutes late (I wonder if that was more than 3:01 or less) and I don't care for it now. I am rules follower but there is a time and a place for wiggle room and a time and a place to deny wiggle room.

Also note the GOP collectively called Johnson a sore loser, what do they say about Kanye?

Yeah, I would include it, unless it said before, or included seconds (5:00:00pm)

At least it didn't specify midnight - that would likely make even more confusion (hence why you set such deadlines as 11:59pm)

LordMortis wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 1:10 pm "not later than"... if that is verbiage then 5:00:01 is too late. What if they said no later August 01 and it was submit on 00:00:01 on August 02? What if they said no later than Midnight August 01 and it was submit on 00:00:01 on August 02? 17:00:01 is later than 17:00:00. It is not the same time as. It is not before. It is later.

I think you're mixing a couple of concepts here. 'Not later than' depends on the level of precision specified. 'Not later than 5:00 PM' is different from 'not later than 5:00:00 PM' in the same way that 'not later than Tuesday' is different from 'not later than close of business on Tuesday.' 5:00:01 is included in the former but not the latter.

Also, midnight is a point in time, so 'no later than midnight' is super-clear: 12:00:01 is later than midnight. As is 12:00:00.00000000001.

LordMortis wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 1:10 pm What if they said no later than Midnight August 01 and it was submit on 00:00:01 on August 02?

Well, in that case you're about 24 hours too late.

(Assuming, under your clock, midnight is 00:00:00)

QAnon believer wins a runoff in Georgia, and will likely be elected to Congress in November.

GOP Congressman from Illinois rightly denounces QAnon as a conspiracy theory, says they have no place in Congress.



Trump's campaign attacks the Congressman.



Oy.

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 1:21 pm I think you're mixing a couple of concepts here. 'Not later than' depends on the level of precision specified. 'Not later than 5:00 PM' is different from 'not later than 5:00:00 PM' in the same way that 'not later than Tuesday' is different from 'not later than close of business on Tuesday.' 5:00:01 is included in the former but not the latter.

Yep. The language matters.

Now I'm stuck playing devil's advocate for a point I don't really believe in, as I think that kind of hard and fast deadline isn't a sort of thing I care for.

But if you have ever sat in a classroom or punched a clock and you were to be seated or clock punch no later than X:XX time and you punched a clock or walked in at X:XX:01 then you were late.

I deny that "For the average observer, arriving before 5:01pm is arriving 'not later' than 5pm." The average observer has been trained X:XX is X:XX and X:XX:01 is later than X:XX and X:XX:00 -00:00:01 is before X:XX. If you arrive no later 08:00 and leave no earlier than 17:00 then you are late at 08:00:01 and you are cutting early if you leave at 16:59:59. Three tardee will result in discipline. The average person learned this in middle school and was trained to follow the bell for the next six years.

pr0ner wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 1:47 pm QAnon believer wins a runoff in Georgia, and will likely be elected to Congress in November.

GOP Congressman from Illinois rightly denounces QAnon as a conspiracy theory, says they have no place in Congress.



Trump's campaign attacks the Congressman.



Oy.

The QAnon cult has spread so widely among Trump's base that the GOP can't afford to alienate them. That's where we are.

If nothing else, they're the people most likely to believe whatever batshit claim Trump makes on November 4 that he didn't really lose.

Meanwhile, there are something like 70+ candidates for Congress state or national office who've openly embraced the conspiracy theory. Even if only a handful of them win, that's just sheer lunacy.

Before we hold a fundraiser for Kinzinger...

I'd agree that 5:00:14 is still 5pm as it's 5pm and 14 seconds.

What I'd like to know is how they determined it was submitted at 5:00:14.

Is 1759:59 is just 5 PM and 59 minutes and 59 seconds?

(post space reserved to document the consequences)

Max Peck wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 5:07 pm Is 1759:59 is just 5 PM and 59 minutes and 59 seconds?

No.

Again, as with some semantic arguments, both arguments can be correct. There is a distinction made between everyday usage and technical usage.

In everyday usage, 7:43 lasts from the time the clock says 7:43 until it says 7:44. 5:00 is from 5:00 until 5:01. If it hasn't turned 5:01 yet, it's still 5:00. You look at the clock. It says, "5:00". What time is it?

Technical usage can bring in seconds as being significant. In that case, 5:00 lasts for exactly one second, from 5:00:00 until 5:00:01.

It is up to the courts to determine which one applies here. And it will likely lead to more precise phrasing in the future.

The Hill

A campaign spokesperson for President Trump took aim at a GOP congressman on Wednesday after the lawmaker dismissed the QAnon conspiracy theory in a Twitter post.

Matt Wolking, deputy communications director for Trump's reelection campaign, called on Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) to publicly reject the credibility of the dossier authored by former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele, which allies of the president have argued was the basis for the Russia investigation lead by former special counsel Robert Mueller.

Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz told members of Congress that the opposition research compiled by Steele did not prompt the investigation into the Trump campaign and its ties to Russia.

"When will @RepKinzinger condemn the Steele Dossier fabrications and conspiracy theories pushed by Democrats?" Wolking wrote, adding, "That actually WAS Russian propaganda."

WUSA

Some Twitter users may have been shocked Wednesday to see that the account of former Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, who was laid to rest last week, tweeted out a story about a video attacking the Democratic presidential ticket of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
...
An earlier tweet linked to a post on Cain's website written by his daughter, Dr. Melanie Cain Gallo in which she said she and others on the website's editorial team would be continuing Cain's legacy.

"We’ve decided here at Cain HQ that we will go on using this platform to share the information and ideas he believed in. He often talked about the site going on once he was ready to step away from it. We had hoped he could enjoy reading it in his retirement, but he made it clear he wanted it to go on," Gallo wrote.

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 12:31 pm WUSA

Some Twitter users may have been shocked Wednesday to see that the account of former Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, who was laid to rest last week, tweeted out a story about a video attacking the Democratic presidential ticket of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
...
An earlier tweet linked to a post on Cain's website written by his daughter, Dr. Melanie Cain Gallo in which she said she and others on the website's editorial team would be continuing Cain's legacy.

"We’ve decided here at Cain HQ that we will go on using this platform to share the information and ideas he believed in. He often talked about the site going on once he was ready to step away from it. We had hoped he could enjoy reading it in his retirement, but he made it clear he wanted it to go on," Gallo wrote.

I'm 100% sure there are conspiracy-addled MAGAs out there reading the posthumous Cain tweet as a secret signal to them that the virus is a hoax and that no one has actually died from it.