Sen. Al Franken Accused Of Sexual Assault By LA Model And Radio Host

[jayjayj 571]

3 hours ago, ready4ONE said:

It is worth mentioning unless the goal is to hide it. Oddly, the people who bought the Dear Leader locker room talk seem to want to leave out the victims career at the time of the USO tour. They also refuse to recognize that Franken has both apologized and taken ownership of his actions. Dear Leader would be firing off Twitter disses and claiming the photo was a Clinton Photoshop hit job. Dear Leader rule #1 Deny and ruthlessly attack back.

Liberals aren't used to that huh?

 

Why do you keep bringing up Kim Jong Un?

[Boiler 45,482]

10 minutes ago, jayjayj said:

Why do you keep bringing up Kim Jong Un?

Hero of the MDL

[Dashinka 24,492]

6 hours ago, Boiler said:

Hero of the MDL

I thought it was a tie between KJU and Maduro?

[Dashinka 24,492]

10 hours ago, ready4ONE said:

It is worth mentioning unless the goal is to hide it. Oddly, the people who bought the Dear Leader locker room talk seem to want to leave out the victims career at the time of the USO tour. They also refuse to recognize that Franken has both apologized and taken ownership of his actions. Dear Leader would be firing off Twitter disses and claiming the photo was a Clinton Photoshop hit job. Dear Leader rule #1 Deny and ruthlessly attack back.

I have a hard time believing anyone is hiding it considering Leeanne Tweeden is a public figure and her history is out there.  Just Google her name and you will get it all, so the "trying to hide it argument" is moot unless you want to discuss the fact that Al Franken was married with children at the time of the incident.  Why is no one talking about that?  Because like the item you brought up, it doesn't take from the fact that Al Franken is a pervert.  He can stay in the Senate in my opinion and become the next ineffectual Kennedy by proxy for all I care.

 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

3 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

I have a hard time believing anyone is hiding it considering Leeanne Tweeden is a public figure and her history is out there.  Just Google her name and you will get it all, so the "trying to hide it argument" is moot unless you want to discuss the fact that Al Franken was married with children at the time of the incident.  Why is no one talking about that?  Because like the item you brought up, it doesn't take from the fact that Al Franken is a pervert.  He can stay in the Senate in my opinion and become the next ineffectual Kennedy by proxy for all I care.

 

Woman says Franken inappropriately touched her in 2010

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/20/politics/al-franken-inappropriate-touch-2010/index.html

 

[Dashinka 24,492]

1 hour ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Woman says Franken inappropriately touched her in 2010

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/20/politics/al-franken-inappropriate-touch-2010/index.html

 

Do we get to start having the statistics discussion here or are the numbers different for a Democrat leader?

[bcking 3,157]

4 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Do we get to start having the statistics discussion here or are the numbers different for a Democrat leader?

Well we don't really need to because Franken admitted to the original accusation. 

 

If you'd like me to we can go through it. One accusation would have a 0% chance of being false, and if you multiply the rest of the accusations by it (regardless of their independent risk of being false) we have a 0% chance that he didn't sexually harass anyone. 

 

I feel like at least that level of math can be handled here.

[Dashinka 24,492]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

Well we don't really need to because Franken admitted to the original accusation. 

 

If you'd like me to we can go through it. One accusation would have a 0% chance of being false, and if you multiply the rest of the accusations by it (regardless of their independent risk of being false) we have a 0% chance that he didn't sexually harass anyone. 

 

I feel like at least that level of math can be handled here.

No, I understand the math and the assumptions.  Not sure I agree with ignoring the assumptions, but whatever.  My question is that since the country is so divided, I imagine the numbers for someone on the Left are different than the numbers for someone on the Right.  I mean, can a Democrat even actually do this?

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

No, I understand the math and the assumptions.  Not sure I agree with ignoring the assumptions, but whatever.  My question is that since the country is so divided, I imagine the numbers for someone on the Left are different than the numbers for someone on the Right.  I mean, can a Democrat even actually do this?

1.

I don't know how many times I can explain it, and how many times it can go in one ear and out the other. I completely agree that assumptions shouldn't be ignored. But you can't incorporate them quantitatively if you don't have any data to use to estimate their impact. It has to be a qualitative adjustment, which should be done once you have the best quantitative model from the data available so that the quantitative evaluation isn't muddled by it.

 

Scientific papers don't "ignore the assumptions" that are required for their studies. They acknowledge the assumptions, and in their discussion they can discuss how those assumptions could impact the reliability of their study. However they don't make up some magical way to adjust their quantitative measures based on those assumptions unless they have some data to go off of. 

 

2.

The numbers wouldn't be any different. Perhaps the qualitative adjustments would be, if you think the confounders have a chance to impact a Democrat vs Republican differently. However,  the numbers come from an estimate of sexual assault allegations and how many are proven "true", "false" or don't go to court. That data (the original studied was linked in the other thread) didn't ask for the political affiliation of each person involved in the cases. The data has nothing to do with political affiliation.

[Dashinka 24,492]

Just now, bcking said:

1.

I don't know how many times I can explain it, and how many times it can go in one ear and out the other. I completely agree that assumptions shouldn't be ignored. But you can't incorporate them quantitatively if you don't have any data to use to estimate their impact. It has to be a qualitative adjustment, which should be done once you have the best quantitative model from the data available so that the quantitative evaluation isn't muddled by it.

 

Scientific papers don't "ignore the assumptions" that are required for their studies. They acknowledge the assumptions, and in their discussion they can discuss how those assumptions could impact the reliability of their study. However they don't make up some magical way to adjust their quantitative measures based on those assumptions unless they have some data to go off of. 

 

2.

The numbers wouldn't be any different. Perhaps the qualitative adjustments would be, if you think the confounders have a chance to impact a Democrat vs Republican differently. However,  the numbers come from an estimate of sexual assault allegations and how many are proven "true", "false" or don't go to court. That data (the original studied was linked in the other thread) didn't ask for the political affiliation of each person involved in the cases. The data has nothing to do with political affiliation.

Yes, I know that.  I just wonder if those in the MDL know this?

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Yes, I know that.  I just wonder if those in the MDL know this?

I think I've been the only one here arguing for the (not exclusive) use of quantitative estimates of innocence for Moore. As long as we are both on the same page, I think we are good. 

Edited November 20, 2017 by bcking

[bcking 3,157]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/19/politics/al-franken-minnesota/index.html

 

"He is spending time with his family in Washington, DC, and will be through the Thanksgiving holiday," the spokesperson said. "And he's doing a lot of reflecting."

 

I really hate comments like that. We need to stop accepting them, and start asking the proper follow-up question. "Reflecting on what, exactly?" You don't need any deep thinking to realize what you did was wrong in cases like these. It should be very simple.

It ends up just sounding like they are reflecting more about how they could have done it without getting caught, and less on the actual act of doing it (which is quite simple and doesn't need deep thought).

Edited November 20, 2017 by bcking

[smilesammich 10,727]

6 minutes ago, bcking said:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/19/politics/al-franken-minnesota/index.html

 

"He is spending time with his family in Washington, DC, and will be through the Thanksgiving holiday," the spokesperson said. "And he's doing a lot of reflecting."

 

I really hate comments like that. We need to stop accepting them, and start asking the proper follow-up question. "Reflecting on what, exactly?" You don't need any deep thinking to realize what you did was wrong in cases like these. It should be very simple.

It ends up just sounding like they are reflecting more about how they could have done it without getting caught, and less on the actual act of doing it (which is quite simple and doesn't need deep thought).

agreed. 

[Eric-Pris 1,606]

Not condoning the acts mentioned here, but when did touching a breast become "sexual assault" (aka rape)?

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just now, Eric-Pris said:

Not condoning the acts mentioned here, but when did touching a breast become "sexual assault" (aka rape)?

when? never.