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.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

Featured Replies

Why doesn't Trump do a press conference or answer some question from Mr. Mueller?


Because his lawyers know their history.
  • Replies 13k
  • Views 825.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • henrygandorf
    henrygandorf

    oh, and to add, let's offer up a 'comparable' analogy reversal and see how it fits.  who's the aoc of the right?  jim jordan?  matt gaetz? this is basically like if there was a huge earthquake he

  • henrygandorf
    henrygandorf

    some people see 99% and consider that absolutism.  i am one of those people. this is not your wife grabbing your cell phone that you left in the other room.  this is not a quick favor.  this is a

  • RomaVicta
    RomaVicta

    Yes, of course. She is the only woman or woman of color the left right (edit) focuses their ire on. There are no other examples. Great point. It's really all intellectual and rational. And usually ver

Posted Images

26 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

You can't be this dumb.

The polls were right. They measure the national popular vote.

They sure as fuck don’t.

pathetic

17 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

They sure as fuck don’t.

pathetic

Yes, they do. All the highly publicized polls you see leading up to a presidential election are polls of the national popular vote.

They were incredibly accurate in 2016. 

38 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

You can't be this dumb.

The polls were right. They measure the national popular vote.

And they said landslide. Trump won't win a state....  wait........

Jesus you guys are a fucking beating

16 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

And they said landslide. Trump won't win a state....  wait........

Pundits said that. Not polls. The polls were right. Predictions based on those polls, not so much.

No you suck! 

No you suck!

No you suck!

No you!

You!

You!

You!

16 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Pundits said that. Not polls. The polls were right. Predictions based on those polls, not so much.

Whatever gets you thru those cold cold days for the next 3 years at least.........

16 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Whatever gets you thru those cold cold days for the next 3 years at least.........

Madam Speaker will take care of that.

20 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/upshot/a-2016-review-why-key-state-polls-were-wrong-about-trump.amp.html

They don’t just poll nationally dipshit.  ALL the polls were wrong even if national polling, which is fucking irrelevant anyway, were “right”.

try again fuck stick

The national polls were right, dummy. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.

42 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

This thread is a hot mess.

I found Slorch’s safe space thread. 

Also Onboard, Slorch, incredulity, this, and the rest of Surly’s Gray Old Pussies

40 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Also Onboard, Slorch, incredulity, this, and the rest of Surly’s Gray Old Pussies

Laughable,

 

link to “self-professed Nazis”.

don’t bother with links to WaPo, CNN or MSNBC.

44 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Laughable,

 

link to “self-professed Nazis”.

don’t bother with links to WaPo, CNN or MSNBC.

Arthur Jones says hi. He's the Republican nominee for IL-3.

Corey Stewart in Virginia isn't much better.

Edited by David Dennison

I recall the polls suggested Obama would win and the talking bimbos (male included) created and repeated some nonsense about how whites would poll one way but not actually vote for a black man.

24 minutes ago, Nivek said:

I recall the polls suggested Obama would win and the talking bimbos (male included) created and repeated some nonsense about how whites would poll one way but not actually vote for a black man.
 

Unskew!!

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

Arthur Jones says hi. He's the Republican nominee for IL-3.

Corey Stewart in Virginia isn't much better.

Again disingenuous.

Jones isn’t endorsed or a part of the republican party.

1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

Again disingenuous.

Jones isn’t endorsed or a part of the republican party.

He is the Republican nominee. 

The republican party has disavowed him.  But, you already know that.

 

21 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

The republican party has disavowed him.  But, you already know that.

 

Oh, that makes it better.

He's still the Republican nominee. A holocaust denier. 

That's the kind of person who runs as a Republican these days.

2 hours ago, Incredulity said:

Laughable,

 

link to “self-professed Nazis”.

don’t bother with links to WaPo, CNN or MSNBC.

“Guys don’t bother linking real news sources. If it’s not fox or brietbart then it’s obviously a lie.”

8 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

People get emotionally involved in their political and ideological beliefs.

News at 11.

and post for decades 

1 hour ago, Orca of Peace said:

and post for decades 

never log off

never stop posting

This whole "AOC is the new face of the Democratic Party" narrative is a complete fabrication and intended to create another boogeyman where one doesn't exist.

 

She whiffed pretty badly last week too in Kansas and Michigan. One of her candidates got through in Wa but 2nd Place in all Dem November race and the incumbent got 48%

This whole "AOC is the new face of the Democratic Party" narrative is a complete fabrication and intended to create another boogeyman where one doesn't exist.
 

That is their entire political party’s platform.
1 hour ago, Message Board User said:

This whole "AOC is the new face of the Democratic Party" narrative is a complete fabrication and intended to create another boogeyman where one doesn't exist.

If the narrative is false then DNC chair, Tom Perez, is primarily responsible for creating the “bogeyman.” It was he who said AOC was “the future of our party.”  That’s not quite the same as saying "AOC is the new face of the Democratic Party" but it’s close enough to be conflated.

I believe fivethirtyeight.com predicted that HRC had about a 75% chance of winning. Based on how close the electoral race was, and HRC winning the popular vote, the actual outcome suggests their prediction was accurate. I can't believe how many people I've had to explain that to over the last year and a half.

Now, I do recall that some news outlet predicted HRC had a 98% chance of winning. That was some bullshit.

Anyways, carry on...

Edited by ndawg

45 minutes ago, ndawg said:

I believe fivethirtyeight.com predicted that HRC had about a 75% chance of winning. Based on how close the electoral race was, and HRC winning the popular vote, the actual outcome suggests their prediction was accurate. I can't believe how many people I've had to explain that to over the last year and a half.

Now, I do recall that some news outlet predicted HRC had a 98% chance of winning. That was some bullshit.

Anyways, carry on...

that's aggy as fuck.

 

She barely lost, so they were right... LOlz.  75% right, at least.

28 minutes ago, slorch said:

that's aggy as fuck.

 

She barely lost, so they were right... LOlz.  75% right, at least.

Huh? That's an absurd conclusion to leap to, isn't it? I'm talking about the soundness of a prediction that has to account for a high amount of variability. Imagine someone just won the lottery. If someone else predicted, before the ticket was purchased, that the person playing the lottery was extremely unlikely to win it, they would have also made a sound prediction.

Edited by ndawg

43 minutes ago, slorch said:

that's aggy as fuck.

 

She barely lost, so they were right... LOlz.  75% right, at least.

No they were right because they accurately predicted what they measured, the popular vote. 

17 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

No they were right because they accurately predicted what they measured, the popular vote. 

I believe Fivethirtyeight made an electoral vote prediction. Either way, it doesn't matter. @slorch either lacks the understanding of probability needed to recognize my point, or else he's so biased towards the narrative that liberals still aren't over Hillary losing that he flat out won't recognize it.

slorch looks at probabilities like a drunk late night at a gas station rationalizing yet another lottery ticket purchase, "50 - 50 odds baby, you either win or you don't"

17 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

slorch looks at probabilities like a drunk late night at a gas station rationalizing yet another lottery ticket purchase, "50 - 50 odds baby, you either win or you don't"

I understand probabilities.

 

I am saying they whiffed on it big time, and some folks are attempting to rationalize it( see also: aggy) because it was "close."

I suppose if I argue that the 1980 Soviet hockey team was objectively better than ours, and that our victory was actually a miracle, I'm just a butthurt commie or something.

21 minutes ago, ndawg said:

I believe Fivethirtyeight made an electoral vote prediction. Either way, it doesn't matter. @slorch either lacks the understanding of probability needed to recognize my point, or else he's so biased towards the narrative that liberals still aren't over Hillary losing that he flat out won't recognize it.

the bias is not mine.  It is the substance of your post.

19 minutes ago, ndawg said:

I suppose if I argue that the 1980 Soviet hockey team was objectively better than ours, and that our victory was actually a miracle, I'm just a butthurt commie or something.

the Trump win is up there with the Miracle on Ice?  That probability was realistically in the 98 to 99% range.

Nice double down, my friend. 

Edited by slorch

Your bias directly caused you to misunderstand the substance of my post.

It might be the case that Trump had a 99% chance of winning. Or a 1% chance of winning. What matters is that the outcome cannot disprove any statistical prediction, but we can assess the extent to which the outcome and the prediction jive with one another. Guess what? Winning with a 25% of victory is extremely unsurprising.

19 minutes ago, slorch said:

the Trump win is up there with the Miracle on Ice?  That probability was realistically in the 98 to 99% range.

Nice double down, my friend. 

Can you set aside your biases in order to consider this objectively? I believe you completely misunderstood the analogy.

3 hours ago, slorch said:

I am saying they whiffed on it big time

Then you don't understand how probabilities work.

It's OK. You're safe here.

Goddammit.  Something "jibes" with something else.

One speaks "Jive". 

Don't make me have to correct you again.

Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

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.