Blarghagh

Hm, it's interesting to note that I don't recall having ever seen you before today. It took me a couple of hours and a handful of posts to start treating you that way. Our first and only interaction certainly won't change that. Ah well, ciao.

Eh, I'm a hardcore leftie and I skim and dismiss your posts at best and skip over entirely at worst. Maybe consider it's not them.

Come now. His response was an implied accusation too, yes, but he wasn't a moderator. He's not the host. He's not the one who has to avoid bias, implicit or otherwise. CNN took a clear stance. As you say, they avoided asking Warren if Bernie was lying but they did so by phrasing her question in a way to make that conclusion for her. She didn't have to ask if Bernie was being truthful because the host settled that matter before she could even respond. CNN could have easily adressed the issue while avoiding bias by simply switching the questions around, or maybe adding such simple words as "you claim" to their question to Warren. "You said Sanders said this" instead of "when Sanders said this..." as if this was not in dispute. The question was framed, phrased, timed and juxtaposed to create a clear statement by the host that Bernie DID say those things. This is especially egregious because this was a news story that CNN themselves are the source of and that they have a vested interest in. You keep saying they had to address this and I've never once disputed that. It it is the manner they did that showed obvious, unprofessional bias. Also, side note, Bernie "coulda' responded any number o' ways"? Are you serious? Like how? Provide an alibi? Tiptoe around it? Plead the fifth? If I accused you of being sexist and you had to respond, would you not deny it? I am at a serious loss as to how Bernie could have handled that better. Also yes, as you correctly surmise, I did use this specific situation because the difference in how the candidates were treated was immediately clear in this example as it is the only example where Warren was directly asked to follow-up on Bernie. Though I'm not sure how you think that supports your conclusion that I must have picked it because of the topic of gender and I'm trying to manipulate you or whatever, since it by itself is the reason other than gender to pick this example. The other examples I posted above were also attacks on Bernie, but didn't illustrate the favoring of Warren at the same time. If those would have been posed to Sanders as well, especially timed in such a way that the follow-up implied his answer was a lie ("how will your policies bankrupt the country"), I would have used those. This example was simply clearer in illustrating my point of bias and, much more importantly, I thought it was more amusing. Accuse me of playing dumb and project ill intent on me if you must, but you're wrong and to be perfectly honest I have no interest in continuing to debate my intentions with you since you've clearly made up your mind and base your arguments on preconceived notions of my character rather than my actual statements.

Isn't it the politicians that usually do the attack smears and not the host?

Blue Heron chick looks like a dinosaur.

You're kidding, right? CNN is the homeplace of "Enlightened Centrism" which you may as well call "the ashamed right". Certainly a lovely way to get the "fake news" crowd to sympathize with Bernie and give them an alternative to the orange golfer, though.

No, it was not professional. The question posed to Warren deliberately implied Bernie was lying and Warren was telling the truth in the news story that CNN broke. It was a case of CNN determining that, CNN was correct. The juxtaposition of the questions in sequence is a purposeful manipulation. My post was to demonstrate the bias to the program implicitly stating Warren tells the truth and Bernie is a liar, topic notwithstanding. You're literally doubling down on a wrong statement because you can't take being wrong. You could make a death of the author argument about that *you* got a different intent from my post, but you're literally stating you know my intent was different than what I know my intent was. It's ridiculous.

I deliberately left the gender bit out when highlighting the obvious bias. But yeah, CNN's corporate ownership is showing.

The problem is that that wasn't the only issue. They consistently cut him off and at some point pretty much went "how are you going to bankrupt the country?". It wasn't on that single issue, it was consistent bias. It was like CNN was taking notes from Fox News. Probably Warren's influence, once a Republican...

That CNN debate. Mr. Sanders, do you enjoy the taste of babies? Mrs. Warren, what do you think about Mr. Sanders eating babies?

And to laugh at how Snipes is clearly rarely in the same room as any other actor in his scenes.

Calling "Godwin's Law" doesn't actually do anything to diminish an accurate comparison.

To be fair, there are some serious snubs on POC this year. Eddie Murphy, J. Lo, Awkwafina and Lupita all turned in powerhouse performances. But then snubs all around. Willem Dafoe was undisputably better in The Lighthouse than every single actor nominated including Phoenix.

Man, if Biden gets the nom you guys might as well skip the election because that old codger is as passionless and uninspiring as Hillary Clinton was last time. We've seen how that one turns out.

Wait, Joker got 11 nominations? It's a single fantastic performance surrounded by a perfunctory and derivative movie.

Yeah, sure, Fortune 500 company Activision Blizzard gets 228M dollars from the taxpayer in the same year it laid off 800 people to "create jobs".

Taxing the wealthy wouldn't be the biggest thing, fixing the tax system so that their massive corporations actually pay taxes would make a bigger dent, provided of course it is implemented well which, let's face it, it won't be because Republicans exist. There are megacorporations with negative tax rates in the US. The taxpayers pay them millions. Where does that make sense?

Are Wombats really that big?

My mood right now.

Color me surprised that in response to this post I googled her and found out that she isn't just a brunette white girl with too much time in the tanning salon. Does that make me less or more racist?

Netflix already uses such an AI iirc.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/24-australians-arrested-deliberately-setting-fires-season/story?id=68108272&cid=clicksource_4380645_null_hero_hed What the hell is wrong with people?

Iran 'threatening' Trump real estate in response is pretty chuckle worthy too.

Shoulda used the fairly simple color correction technique they used on Paula Patton in that WarCraft movie.

Drop bears are a joke about man eating koalas that fall from the trees. A bit redundant, since man eating koalas are already on the map.