Thom wrote:
mattbk wrote:
Francois wrote:
mattbk wrote:
Francois wrote:
I'm a Bayesian by training, so when I see a bunch of shit posted about Boebert, I have sufficient priors to think that the probability of the shit is close to 1.You should stay off jury pools with that attitude...
https://www.cnn.com/...gar-daddy/index.html
Close to 1… doesn’t mean 1. Reading carefully is required. Was very plausible.
If you remember my prior post I agreed it was quite probable. I am NOT a Roebert fan... but this smelled funny from the start. I'm sure she has plenty of legit points to attack, so go that way..
Why are you treating this like it's a complete exoneration? Their report was sloppy and irresponsible but they are standing by the main points. It will be easy to judge going forward. Boebert has said she is going to file a suit, we can just wait and see if that ever happens.
Doesn't matter now, mistakes were made and that's all she and her supporters need, they'll chant fake news and she'll win again.
https://twitter.com/.../1540694755138539524