HorsesAss.Org

Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza!

by — ,

Matthew Filipowicz: Lack of living wills for too-big-to-fail banks defended by hedge fund executive.

Sam Seder: Can you guess how many toddlers shot people this year?

Jonathan Mann: Throw the pundits down a hole.

Jimmy Dore: Political jokes of the week.

Samantha Bee: Andrew Jackson was so, so bad.

The 2016 Top Clown Show

Amy Schumer: The Gun Show.

Mental Floss: 32 facts about NYC.

Hillary Clinton ruins “Hamilton”..

Republican Voter Suppression:

Jimmy Dore: Andrew Jackson full of wit and rage at being booted from the $20.

Politician’s less graceful moments.

Seth Meyers: Women and the draft…A closer look.

Daily Show: American soccer’s gender wage gap.

Comedian-in-Chief:

Thom: The Good, the Bad & the Very, Very Interlacustrinely Ugly!

White House: West Wing Week.

Mental Floss: Why do some countries drive on the right and some on the left?

Seth Meyers: Detroit teachers stage a sit-out.

Stephen: Political Week in Review:

Hillary celebrates Mother’s day.

Last week’s Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza can be found here.

Comments

  2. 2

    Maine’s obnoxious governor, Paul LePage (R-Moron), never misses an opportunity to be a total fucking asshole.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....f3789579f4

    Roger Rabbit Commentary: I’ve never visited Maine, and don’t want to. It’s a beautiful state, but I don’t understand the voters there. Something’s wrong with them.

  3. 3

    Already the GOP’s November prospects don’t look so hot:

    “A hasty effort to make peace between Donald J. Trump and Republican Party leaders veered toward the point of collapse on Friday as Jeb Bush announced he would not back Mr. Trump in the general election and Mr. Trump unleashed a caustic personal attack on a prominent senator who declined to endorse his campaign.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....f37895fdd6

    Roger Rabbit Commentary: I’m not exactly looking forward to the gunfights in Cleveland, but it should be interesting to see if any Republicans survive into 2017.

  6. 6

    @2 don’t you hate examples of the wealthy and powerful getting special treatment, they don’t give to the little people.

  7. 7

    “No Puddy?”

    Peak hate is coming. After the loon and his cult fuck the goat tonight, he’ll be back, stoked and full of hate.

  8. 8

    Officials: Scant evidence that Clinton had malicious intent in handling of emails

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/federal-prosecutors-in-virginia-assisting-in-clinton-email-probe/2016/05/05/f0277faa-12f0-11e6-81b4-581a5c4c42df_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_headlines

    Scant evidence isn’t the same as no evidence.

    I don’t think Patraeus acted maliciously when he shared prohibited info, either. How’d that work out for him?

  9. 9

    @7 Give me a dozen cold case files on unsolved homicides and I’ll find scant evidence connecting you to them.

  10. 10

    @ 8

    Give me a dozen cold case files on unsolved homicides and I’ll find scant evidence connecting you to them.

    Given that you found “fleeing felon”

    http://handbill.us/?p=37538

    to be a rational defense for a police officer who killed a guy who was charging directly at him at the time, RR, I’m really not surprised you would.

  11. 11

    @2 grew up in New England State. Many of us always knew that there is and was something wrong with Mainers. Although yes it is a very pretty State but only near the Coastline. The rest of the State is pretty much like any other state with lots of trees and where they inbreed.

  12. 12

    @7 I just bought a powerball ticket too. Scant chance I win but I think I have a great shot to win.

  13. 13

    @ 2

    Busy man makes time to visit an animal shelter in the middle of a workday and adopt a dog in need of a home. Woman who hadn’t yet taken the time to visit whines about it.

    This makes aforementioned man a total fucking asshole.

    Got it.

  14. 14

    @12 The next time someone cuts in line ahead of me, I’ll imagine he’s LePage while I’m kicking his ass.

  18. 18

    So, it turns out the popular girl’s spin concerning Trump’s domination of the Republican Party is just a myth.

    All across the shit-head-‘o-sphere you’ll read one screed after another from Andrew Sullivan to David Brooks all blaming the overwhelming success of Trump’s race-baiting nationalism among Republican primary voters on “the plight” of “working class conservatives” “fed up” with “the establishment”.
    Right.

    But check FiveThirtyEight’s data and you’ll quickly discover that Trump’s primary voters are pretty typical Republican voters, that they earn more than average of all voters, that their earnings are typical of Republican voters, and that their earnings are considerably better than Democratic voters. There’s absolutely no evidence that Trump has increased turnout among lower income “conservatives”. And Trump supporters are generally better off than most Americans.

    So the whole “conservative” intellectual sing-song about the “economically aggrieved working class conservatives” rising up to strike back at the “establishment sell-outs” by voting for Trump is just a smoke screen. Trump supporters are solidly middle class or better white folks who are pissed off at “establishment Republicans”. That much is probably true. But it has nothing to do with “economic strife” in their communities or “the scourge of opioid addiction and fracturing family structures”. That’s just bullshit.

  19. 19

    @ 17

    Maybe I’m missing something but I’m wondering how a fairly precise median income of $61,000 for Wisconsin voters can be derived from an exit poll

    http://www.cbsnews.com/electio.....VA_R_1.pdf

    that asks respondents to place their salary within one of five fairly broad ranges. Wouldn’t the median income in a poll such as this have to be the range ($50,000-99,999) in which that voter’s reponse falls, rather than a significantly more precise figure?

  20. 20

    @18,
    Here’s the footnote:

    “The main “trick” is that I use Census Bureau microdata in each state to provide more precise estimates than the exit polls’ broad ranges. Empirically, the median of an income range is not the same as its midpoint. For example, you might assume that the median income of voters in households earning between $50,000 and $100,000 a year is about $75,000. In fact, it’s closer to $70,000, although this varies somewhat from state to state. “

  21. 21

    @ 19

    Saw that, too. So, the census bureau in 2014 knew which citizens would be Trump voters, vs. voters for Cruz, Kasich, Clinton, and Sanders, in 2015?

    I’m thinking it didn’t, and something, somewhere is missing.

  22. 22

    @ 19

    To elaborate, here’s the gist of my question:

    If a white female respondent in WI said she voted for Trump and earned somewhere between $50,000 and $99,999 in 2015, and another WI white female respondent said she voted for Clinton and earned within that same exact range, were the two voters assigned the same precise salary in the 538 study? If so, how do you know that, and why did he assume they earned the same? If not, why not, and how do you know the salaries he assigned are different?

  23. 23

    @20,
    Are you suggesting that he’s making fundamental errors here? Or that his methodology is introducing statistical error that he fails to include in his estimate? And even if this were true, which I really doubt, how would such error applied across all the data selectively skew incomes upward for Trump voters, or downward for all others? Are you suggesting that the “error” knew who the Trump voters would be? Or is it just that you really really want to introduce some doubt here? And why would that be (I don’t really wonder)?

    Look, maybe there’s some identifiable and measurable uncertainty about the median incomes assigned in his tables. Seems reasonable. But I don’t see any way to conclude that within such a given range of uncertainty the actual median income randomly skews selectively in one direction for one group but in the opposite direction for all other groups.

    So the conclusion remains valid. In terms of economic circumstance as measured by income Trump voters are representative of Republican voters in general. They are not an economically disadvantaged subset of Republican voters. And on average they are better off economically than the average of all voters, and certainly better off than Democratic voters. Others have reported on this before Nate Silver. And I for one don’t find it surprising or really even interesting.
    What I do find interesting is the reaction to this news by folks like you. As a partisan, I honestly hope you convince yourself to ignore this information, as so many other “conservatives” are doing right now. Learning is change. And change is uncomfortable. Make yourselves comfortable while we win back the Senate.
    Did that come across as smug? I hope so.

  24. 24

    @21,
    okay. So you are suggesting that Nate Silver is deliberately injecting a numerical bias into his data in order to favor a particular narrative. Good luck with that.

    Let me suggest a more likely source for the kind of error you are yearning for:
    Trump supporters are more comfortable with grandiose lying bullshit than the average of all other voters.

    Seems fairly plausible to me. And it’s just the kind of thing that statisticians like Silver are prone to reject outright. So Trump voters might very well have been far more likely to lie upward about their household income range on these surveys when compared to all other voters. To me that would perfectly align with your party’s nominee and his typical supporter.
    Go nuts. Run with it.

  25. 25

    @ 22, 23

    Now you’re just being a smug asshole. Which, BTW, is how you were previously confused with Liberal Scientist.

    I looked at the exit poll question about salary. Somehow from salaries grouped into five ranges Silver came up with a specific number in one example he shared.

    All I am asking is how he managed to do it. Apparently you do not know, either.

  27. 27

    @18 So Boob wants to argue statistics with Nate Silver? Uh, okay … this is gonna be fun.

  28. 28

    @ 25

    Most braggarts can’t actually put up when the time comes. You’re an incredibly tiresome braggart, RR. No bravery required to note that, nor to infer that there’s nothing behind it.

  29. 29

    It’s probably a good thing that Boob plans to retire shortly and meanwhile only sees Medicare patients who will die soon anyway.

  30. 30

    @27 “No bravery required to note that …”

    Well, that makes noting it feasible for you, doesn’t it?

  31. 31

    @22 I think Silver is onto something. You look at the GOP loons elected to public offices by the hundreds and it’s hard to think of Trump supporters as anything but typical Republican voters.

  32. 32

    @24 “Now you’re just being a smug asshole.”

    You ought to know, as that’s what you excel at.

  33. 33

    Trump is making headlines this weekend by saying the best way to manage the national debt is the same way he managed his business debts: File for bankruptcy, then repay the people who lent you mere money pennies on the dollar.

    Trump has done this enough times in his private business affairs that I think the Wall Street banks holding trillions of dollars of Treasury notes will take him seriously and do everything they can to stop him from becoming president. So will the covert operatives of foreign governments holding huge amounts of U.S. government debt.

  34. 34

    @24,
    “Somehow from salaries grouped into five ranges Silver came up with a specific number in one example he shared.”

    I think it is at least implicit in his footnote explanation as well as his explanations in the body of his essay.

    So, he takes a given range (let’s use your example) $50k to $99k, and he goes to the PUMS data for a particular state and he puts together all the households in that range from that state and then he calculates the median. That is his stated median income for that range of incomes for that state. So any exit poll respondent within that range is assigned that median income value for the purposes of his analysis.

    Furthermore, it is not true for only “one example”. He says this is how he calculated the median for every exit poll income range for every state. Is that median true for any one respondent in an exit poll? Of course not. No more than it is true for any one respondent in the annual census data. It is true of the group. It is true that the median income of U.S. households in the range from $50k to $99k is about $70k. At least that’s what Silver says his calculations result was. Am I going to import the CSV values from PUMS into my own spreadsheet to check him? Nope. If you are so certain he’s fucking up you’ll have to prove it yourself.

    Again, I don’t see any reason to believe that by some magical process Trump voters, and only Trump voters, unique among all voters in any given state, would magically as a group violate the median of households for the stated income range. Well, other than to presume that Trump voters are yuuuuge fucking lying pieces of shit who’s latent racism and nationalist resentment drives them to routinely overstate their income. That I could believe.

    This is beginning to feel like one of those debates with a Republican about climate change focusing on Fahrenheit vs. centigrade. Seems like a way to try to shift the focus. There doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with the way Silver calculated his median income levels. Sorry you find it confusing. But it won’t change the fact that in general Trump’s primary voters are pretty well off economically compared to all other voters, and particularly compared to Americans in general. They can be pissed. But it shouldn’t be because they’ve been “screwed over by The Man”. Compared to most Americans, they’ve had it pretty good.

  36. 36

    @24,
    “Which, BTW, is how you were previously confused with Liberal Scientist.”

    That might be how you got us confused.
    But as for that Fuckwad, I think it’s been established to a certainty that he learned it from the voices emanating from the pile of dirty laundry in the basement where he spends his days and night spewing hate to work himself up for another round of goat fucking and salt mining duty.
    Four hours and counting…

  39. 39

    Now everyone’s talking about how wrong the talking heads were. Maybe the problem is not that they were wrong but that journalism has become too much talking and not enough reporting. In the old days, they didn’t tell us what to think, they simply told us what was happening.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....9cb0471a75

    Roger Rabbit Commentary: However, if we want to get into analysis, then Trump is the candidate the media created, because he wouldn’t have gotten to first base without all the free media publicity he got. For the last year, all the reporting has been about Trump, Trump, Trump, and nothing else. What did they expect? Gilmore would win?

  40. 40

    I have an old-school stockbroker. If you ask him what the market’s going to do next, he says he doesn’t know. If you ask him when interest rates will go up, he says he doesn’t know. If you ask him if you should buy General Electric, he says he doesn’t know. If you ask him if you should sell General Electric, he says, “Why?” It’s getting tough to find stockbrokers like him anymore. They’re getting more rare every day as the old ones die off.

  41. 41

    The exploding head and his cult have likely concluded tonight’s goat fucking ritual and peak hate is nigh.

  42. 42

    @38 sure, journalism has changed, but not sure they, except FOX, are to blame for anything….I blame the stupid listeners and viewers who are too stupid to figure shit out on their own.

  45. 45

    @ 39

    This is by far the finest, most successful investment strategy I’ve come across:

    I read carefully what Roger Rabbit says he does, or just did. Then I do the opposite.

    I call it The Notadumbfuck Method.

  49. 49

    Hillary’s vagina. Wide open.

    According to the NBC News report, Guccifer explained that in 2013 he hacked Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal’s e-mail and uncovered the now infamous hdr22@clintonemail.com. He soon realized the initials HDR match Clinton’s maiden name, Hillary Diane Rodham, the report says. Guccifer told McFadden that he then used data from the e-mail header to locate Clinton’s server

    “By running a scan, I found that server…that was completely unsecured,” explained Guccifer.

    “It was like an open orchid on the Internet,” he said of Clinton’s server. “There were hundreds of folders.”

    http://lawnewz.com/video/fmr-f.....plausible/

    So, Guccifer’s seen it more recently than Bill has.

  50. 50

    HAHAHAHAHA!

    More genius from high information psuedo-politician (HIPPster) Sarah Quittin’ Falin’:

    “I think Paul Ryan is soon to be ‘Cantored,’ as in Eric Cantor,” Palin said on CNN. “His political career is over but for a miracle because he has so disrespected the will of the people, and as the leader of the GOP, the convention, certainly he is to remain neutral, and for him to already come out and say who he will not support was not a wise decision of his.”

    http://www.nbcnews.com/politic.....er-n570116

    Oh when will they ever learn? Can you say NEVER? The fools think they have it figured out! They’re eating each other!

  51. 51

    I wonder , have conservative heads exploded over the results in London? The Conservatives campaigned like the Republicans, and it backfired! Other than London, the local and regional elections were a bad night for Labor.

    An interesting aspect of the London Mayoral Election, is that all cities in England with directly elected mayors, use a form of voting called Supplementary Vote, which gives voters a second vote. Don’t know if Mayor Sadiqq Khan needed that second preference vote.

  52. 52

    Goldy Retweeted
    Karoli ‎@Karoli
    BECAUSE BOTH SIDES. LOL… (bangs head on desk again) https://twitter.com/ron_fournier/status/729282613735784449 …

    Hey Goldy, read the tweet thread. Don’t just retweet.

    Ron Fournier ‏@ron_fournier 7h7 hours ago
    @DarrellsGurl90 holding one side accountable is lazy. Covering half the story is lazy.

    Although if you covered both sides for a change, you might not have time for that hammock.

  53. 53

    @ 50

    Yawn. The power of the London mayor is quite limited. He might as well be mayor of San Antonio.

    The chancellor of the exchequer is a Conservative. That’s who controls the pursestrings in London.

Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?

Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!

Follow Goldy

[iire_social_icons]

HA Commenting Policy

It may be hard to believe from the vile nature of the threads, but yes, we have a commenting policy. Comments containing libel, copyright violations, spam, blatant sock puppetry, and deliberate off-topic trolling are all strictly prohibited, and may be deleted on an entirely arbitrary, sporadic, and selective basis. And repeat offenders may be banned! This is my blog. Life isn’t fair.