cj
Socialist
These fragments I have shored against my ruins
Posts: 3,282
|
Post by cj on Sept 5, 2019 21:16:22 GMT
No, Hemingway would have had a drink or six. "Pour one jigger absinthe into a Champagne glass. Add iced Champagne until it attains the proper opalescent milkiness. Drink three to five of these slowly."
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Sept 5, 2019 21:18:12 GMT
"Pour one jigger absinthe into a Champagne glass. Add iced Champagne until it attains the proper opalescent milkiness. Drink three to five of these slowly."
hit someone fall over repeat
|
|
cj
Socialist
These fragments I have shored against my ruins
Posts: 3,282
|
Post by cj on Sept 5, 2019 21:27:07 GMT
"Pour one jigger absinthe into a Champagne glass. Add iced Champagne until it attains the proper opalescent milkiness. Drink three to five of these slowly."
hit someone fall over repeat
Should have had the 6th...
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Sept 7, 2019 0:31:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Sept 7, 2019 0:39:35 GMT
Poliquin's failed, so I don't think that's much of an 'if'.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Sept 7, 2019 0:48:21 GMT
Poliquin's failed, so I don't think that's much of an 'if'. Poliquin’s challenge failed largely on the grounds of States are allowed to organise their own elections, and was also never tested in Federal court. I think it’s a no brainer to expect this to end up in the Federal Court system and before SCOTUS on an expedited timescale (skipping the Circuit Court of Appeals) as the method of electing a President is in the Constitution and less devolved to the States. Personally I wouldn’t give very good odds on the Roberts Court being amenable to such a progressive measure.
|
|
|
Post by casualobserver on Sept 7, 2019 6:02:52 GMT
Despite all the heat over Biden here, the truth is that he's a shitty candidate. The forgetfulness, misremembering, the justifiable "Creepy Joe Biden" meme and just his age all show that. Don't get me wrong, if he's the candidate he'll most likely win, but that doesn't change the basic truth above. Worse than that, Biden is becoming an unlucky candidate, I thought, with the subconjunctural haemorrhage live on CNN while he was answering a question during the climate debate. Had that happened to Trump it would have been top of the news all over the papers and news channels, speculating about Trump's health. I can honestly say I've been shocked that the US MSM has effectively spiked the story.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Sept 7, 2019 16:07:16 GMT
Despite all the heat over Biden here, the truth is that he's a shitty candidate. The forgetfulness, misremembering, the justifiable "Creepy Joe Biden" meme and just his age all show that. Don't get me wrong, if he's the candidate he'll most likely win, but that doesn't change the basic truth above. Worse than that, Biden is becoming an unlucky candidate, I thought, with the subconjunctural haemorrhage live on CNN while he was answering a question during the climate debate. Had that happened to Trump it would have been top of the news all over the papers and news channels, speculating about Trump's health. I can honestly say I've been shocked that the US MSM has effectively spiked the story.Trump is president so his health matters more than someone who's barely a primary frontrunner according to polls, Clinton's health got far more coverage than Trump's during the presidential campaign (at least, far more coverage that people could recall), the blood in Biden's eye did reach the top of all coverage relating to him for a couple of days (Google's got you covered there), and that kind of blood entering the eye is both fairly common and usually harmless. Shades of Robert Fisk in the above accusation.
|
|
|
Post by casualobserver on Sept 8, 2019 7:26:45 GMT
the blood in Biden's eye did reach the top of all coverage relating to him for a couple of days (Google's got you covered there). That’s simply untrue. A quick scan of Google shows that almost all the Liberal press ignored the incident, and even CNN, on whose Network it occured, massively downplayed it. The story circulated primarily on blogs and other social media, with the MSM conspicuous by their absence. Now it’s not a major health issue in itself but it remains highly commentworthy for the unusual fact that it happened while he was being questioned on live TV. If you want to see the difference between responsible reporting of this incident and plain suppression then just use google to compare the coverage in the New York Post and theWashington Times with the suppression of the story in the New York Times and the Washington Post. That quick scan of google may also uncover this analysis: www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tim-graham/2019/09/06/joe-bidens-bloody-eye-cnn-somehow-spiked-everyone-fox or this piece: www.dailywire.com/news/51401/watch-bidens-eye-fills-blood-steals-cnn-town-hall-james-barrett both referencing the Liberal media’s apparent cover-up. The thing is the left leaning press are doing a disservice to the Dems in seeking to suppress stories about Biden’s gaffes and problems, since they are hedging their bets that Biden may win the selection but are actually undermining the purpose of the whole Primary process which is to weed out the weaker candidates, which (opinion polls notwithstanding) clearly include Biden. Personally, I’d be delighted were Biden to be selected. He’d be an absolute walkover for Trump in any head to head but, if he were elected, he’d do less harm to the US than most of the rest of the Dem field.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2019 15:32:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Sept 8, 2019 15:39:07 GMT
the blood in Biden's eye did reach the top of all coverage relating to him for a couple of days (Google's got you covered there). That’s simply untrue. A quick scan of Google shows that almost all the Liberal press ignored the incident, and even CNN, on whose Network it occured, massively downplayed it. The story circulated primarily on blogs and other social media, with the MSM conspicuous by their absence. Now it’s not a major health issue in itself but it remains highly commentworthy for the unusual fact that it happened while he was being questioned on live TV. If you want to see the difference between responsible reporting of this incident and plain suppression then just use google to compare the coverage in the New York Post and theWashington Times with the suppression of the story in the New York Times and the Washington Post. That quick scan of google may also uncover this analysis: www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tim-graham/2019/09/06/joe-bidens-bloody-eye-cnn-somehow-spiked-everyone-fox or this piece: www.dailywire.com/news/51401/watch-bidens-eye-fills-blood-steals-cnn-town-hall-james-barrett both referencing the Liberal media’s apparent cover-up. The thing is the left leaning press are doing a disservice to the Dems in seeking to suppress stories about Biden’s gaffes and problems, since they are hedging their bets that Biden may win the selection but are actually undermining the purpose of the whole Primary process which is to weed out the weaker candidates, which (opinion polls notwithstanding) clearly include Biden. Personally, I’d be delighted were Biden to be selected. He’d be an absolute walkover for Trump in any head to head but, if he were elected, he’d do less harm to the US than most of the rest of the Dem field. I just Googled stories about Joe Biden from 4-5 Sep. under 'news'. Disclaimer: I made that claim because I was reading that story around the time that it broke, and NYPost and Washington Times were at the top of the News section headlining it. These are not obscure blogs, by the way - they are more often than not linked to on RealClearPolitics. It's true their opinion pieces usually aren't liberal, but your claim was that "the MSM" - whatever that means - spiked the story, not that liberal papers - which by no means make up everything defined as mainstream (if you want to claim that, we have an entirely different argument here) didn't engage in trashy speculation regarding a Democratic candidate. For 4-5 Sep, it is not the top story, which is actually another (Bloomberg) piece about Biden's health, in which a candidate Tim Ryan is suggesting he doesn't have the energy to be president. Other top pieces linked to this story, listed sequentially, headline as 'Joe Biden doesn't sound very serious about the climate crisis' (The Nation), 'Biden bumbles while Warren and Sanders score in CNN town hall' (WaPo), 'Joe Biden's stumbles open path for Democratic rivals' (FT), 'Joe Biden's bloody eye was the perfect metaphor for his disastrous CNN climate town hall' (The Week), 'Biden's eye appears to fill with blood during climate change town hall' (Fox), 'The Story Behind the Most Heated Moment of CNN's Climate Crisis Town Hall' (Gizmodo, also mentioning the blood), and a reasonably critical piece by CNN titled 'Joe Biden will attend a fundraiser co-hosted by a fossil fuel company founder'. RCP's video of his eye filling with blood is the most popular video result under a general search for 4-5 Sep, and a Snopes fact check about the bloody eye also shows up amongst the most popular results when 'news' isn't selected. There is also a number of unrelated pieces, but these ones were all fairly close to the top of the results generated by the initial search. The top story as of today under 'Biden' news is a CNN piece in which he is questioned about the eye. Tl;dr While this story seems to have had a softer impact than I'd initially thought (I regret misconstruing it), it's hardly as if a supposedly uniformly liberal mainstream media 'spiked' or hid the story and is protecting Biden from gaffes. I would also be against nominating Biden if I were a Democrat, but the press does seem to be going in hard on his gaffes, despite evidence that voters d on't directly care about them, and the fact that most of them are otherwise inconsequential. I don't think there is any sort of anti-Biden bias, to be clear - just that these stories tend to be covered because they are easy to cover, and because if the frontrunner's position were more in doubt, covering the race might be a good deal more exciting for the pundits involved (hence the enthusiastic jump on the Monmouth outlier). Gaffes don't require any serious investigation of deeper, subtler flaws (of which he, in particular, has many) and , and because they take up so much airtime, they are making coverage of the Democratic primary - from an intermittent observer's perspective - shallower than it otherwise would have been. One story I was surprised to see fairly low down in terms of coverage - beneath the bloody eye, and well beneath the gaffes - regarding Biden was this piece, which doesn't seem to have attracted much public comment at all. Perhaps it shouldn't 3 years into the Trump presidency, but I would have thought a number of hawkish internationalist Republicans (still quite a prominent faction) would object to this kind of politicking.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Sept 8, 2019 15:59:37 GMT
In terms of debates, that's a full set of 4 qualifying polls. Tom Steyer has made it to the next Democratic debates thanks to the associated Nevada poll in which he hits 2%, meaning there will be two nights.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Sept 8, 2019 16:04:50 GMT
In terms of debates, that's a full set of 4 qualifying polls. Tom Steyer has made it to the next Democratic debates thanks to the associated Nevada poll in which he hits 2%, meaning there will be two nights. Which debates, September or October?
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Sept 8, 2019 16:05:47 GMT
In terms of debates, that's a full set of 4 qualifying polls. Tom Steyer has made it to the next Democratic debates thanks to the associated Nevada poll in which he hits 2%, meaning there will be two nights. Which debates, September or October? October. Every poll that counts for the September debate (for which the deadline has passed) also counts for the October one.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Sept 8, 2019 16:08:43 GMT
Which debates, September or October? October. Every poll that counts for the September debate (for which the deadline has passed) also counts for the October one. Sorry, my mistake, I thought the polls reset.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Sept 8, 2019 16:09:40 GMT
October. Every poll that counts for the September debate (for which the deadline has passed) also counts for the October one. Sorry, my mistake, I thought the polls reset. They seem to do that every two debates.
|
|
nelson
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,645
|
Post by nelson on Sept 8, 2019 17:39:30 GMT
|
|
nelson
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,645
|
Post by nelson on Sept 10, 2019 9:26:47 GMT
Sanders ahead of Warren in national Morning Consult poll conducted 2/9 to 8/9. Biden 33% Sanders 21% Warren 16% Harris 7% Buttigieg 5% Booker 3% O’Rourke 3% Yang 3% Bennet 1% Castro 1% de Blasio 1% Delaney 1% Gabbard 1% Klobuchar 1% Ryan 1% Steyer 1% Williamson 1% Bullock 0%
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Sept 12, 2019 1:00:11 GMT
|
|
nelson
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,645
|
Post by nelson on Sept 12, 2019 10:32:18 GMT
|
|