Nice try. The Express is a British scandal sheet that lives to publish sensational articles. When they can't find enough real scandals to fill page one, they make stuff up.
Read the page that contains this article and you'll find out all you need to know about them, and about the likely (in)accuracy of this headline.
Nice try. The Express is a British scandal sheet that lives to publish sensational articles. When they can't find enough real scandals to fill page one, they make stuff up.
Read the page that contains this article and you'll find out all you need to know about them, and about the likely (in)accuracy of this headline.
Looks like you didn't read very far. That article was quoting Michael Cemblast, the Chairman of Market and Investment Strategy for J.P. Morgan Asset Management:
The fact that Cemblast would publicly float such a thought suggests that there have been back-room discussions regarding the career trajectory of "Corporate Joe" Biden.
I read the article. It's a story about ten "surprise" predictions for 2024, made by someone who has nothing to do with the campaign or the party at all. He is a strategist - a financial strategist, not a political one. and in spite of all those conditionals, the headline of the article is "Joe Biden 'will pull out' of 2024 election on health grounds as approval rating plummets".
Clickbait, pure and simple. Speculation presented as fact, both by the Express and, now, by you.
Not at all. I asked a question, and provided a source for the thought. Others are welcome to think through for themselves what (if anything) it all means.
Sometimes a question is a suggestion, or a way to get an idea into consideration, or to have it create uncertainty or trouble. The тАЬI only asked a questionтАЭ ploy is no more principled than that тАж And the link to a crap article only compounds the lack of integrity.
I referred to the тАЬI only asked a questionтАЭ PLOY ias unprincipled. If you apply that statement to your comment, so be it. If the shoe fits тАж
I did not go back and check your precise words, but neither did I say I was quoting you. I was referring to the ploy that was used. It comes in several variations, but they are recognizably similar.
Your тАЬdeliberateтАЭ conflating of yourself with everyone who uses the ploy [it is not a rare technique тАФ itтАЩs often used by people to get out of admitting that they are spreading crap] just shows that you are continuing to misrepresent reality.
Your hypocrisy remains intact, as does your dishonesty. You obviously (and falsely) applied your "ploy" to my question, and then underscored your false point by stating "And the link to a crap article only compounds the lack of integrity."
And now you have the gall to brazenly pretend that you weren't talking about me.
You might want to consider quitting making an ass of yourself.
You might want to consider reading with comprehension.
I WAS talking about your use of the ploy. CLEARLY. And coupled with citing false information тАФ another ploy, using citations of crap to create the false impression of validation тАФ WAS aimed at your comment. CLEARLY. No one could think differently, upon reading the thread.
I would not presume to try to deny I was saying you used the ploy.
I am saying I did not, as you are trying to assert, QUOTE you. I quoted the PLOY, and I mentioned the use of citations to back up such a ploy.
BOTH of which you used, and I was clearly describing the nature of YOUR ploy.
I never quoted, nor MIS-quoted, you. {I edited here to expand what I siad!!]
You think you are тАЬinnocentтАЭ only because your comment did not include the word тАЬonlyтАЩ? YouтАЩre not. YouтАЩre splitting hairs to try to rescue your crap-disseminating comments. And you are still dishonest.
Fair enough. You did frame it as a question, which is far more honest than the newspaper was.
The idea of Biden pulling out of the race is a hypothetical worth discussing, although Cemblast went way past discussing the possibility when he specified the timing and the supposed reason for the pullout. To my mind, he lost his credibility when he did that, and crossed over into Nostradamus territory.
Read it how you will, but that's what I get from the article.
Nice try. The Express is a British scandal sheet that lives to publish sensational articles. When they can't find enough real scandals to fill page one, they make stuff up.
Read the page that contains this article and you'll find out all you need to know about them, and about the likely (in)accuracy of this headline.
Looks like you didn't read very far. That article was quoting Michael Cemblast, the Chairman of Market and Investment Strategy for J.P. Morgan Asset Management:
https://am.jpmorgan.com/us/en/asset-management/institutional/bios/michael-cembalest/
The fact that Cemblast would publicly float such a thought suggests that there have been back-room discussions regarding the career trajectory of "Corporate Joe" Biden.
I read the article. It's a story about ten "surprise" predictions for 2024, made by someone who has nothing to do with the campaign or the party at all. He is a strategist - a financial strategist, not a political one. and in spite of all those conditionals, the headline of the article is "Joe Biden 'will pull out' of 2024 election on health grounds as approval rating plummets".
Clickbait, pure and simple. Speculation presented as fact, both by the Express and, now, by you.
Not at all. I asked a question, and provided a source for the thought. Others are welcome to think through for themselves what (if anything) it all means.
Sometimes a question is a suggestion, or a way to get an idea into consideration, or to have it create uncertainty or trouble. The тАЬI only asked a questionтАЭ ploy is no more principled than that тАж And the link to a crap article only compounds the lack of integrity.
Yeah, I learned to stay away from crap journalism.
Good to do that, if you can recognize it. It comes in many forms.
ThereтАЩs a lot of good journalism out there, too.
In fact, it's a ploy that the ex-president has used numerous times as he seeks to avoid being blamed for the results of his "question".
It is telling that you misquote me. I did not say "I ONLY asked a question."
Your deliberate misrepresentation of what I said highlights your lack of integrity.
John Schm тАФ
No, it doesnтАЩt.
I referred to the тАЬI only asked a questionтАЭ PLOY ias unprincipled. If you apply that statement to your comment, so be it. If the shoe fits тАж
I did not go back and check your precise words, but neither did I say I was quoting you. I was referring to the ploy that was used. It comes in several variations, but they are recognizably similar.
Your тАЬdeliberateтАЭ conflating of yourself with everyone who uses the ploy [it is not a rare technique тАФ itтАЩs often used by people to get out of admitting that they are spreading crap] just shows that you are continuing to misrepresent reality.
My integrity remains intact.
Your hypocrisy remains intact, as does your dishonesty. You obviously (and falsely) applied your "ploy" to my question, and then underscored your false point by stating "And the link to a crap article only compounds the lack of integrity."
And now you have the gall to brazenly pretend that you weren't talking about me.
You might want to consider quitting making an ass of yourself.
You might want to consider reading with comprehension.
I WAS talking about your use of the ploy. CLEARLY. And coupled with citing false information тАФ another ploy, using citations of crap to create the false impression of validation тАФ WAS aimed at your comment. CLEARLY. No one could think differently, upon reading the thread.
I would not presume to try to deny I was saying you used the ploy.
I am saying I did not, as you are trying to assert, QUOTE you. I quoted the PLOY, and I mentioned the use of citations to back up such a ploy.
BOTH of which you used, and I was clearly describing the nature of YOUR ploy.
I never quoted, nor MIS-quoted, you. {I edited here to expand what I siad!!]
You think you are тАЬinnocentтАЭ only because your comment did not include the word тАЬonlyтАЩ? YouтАЩre not. YouтАЩre splitting hairs to try to rescue your crap-disseminating comments. And you are still dishonest.
Just stop it.
You try to pretend that you're "sweet and snarky," but you're just plain bad-tempered.
p.s. It's tough making money as a Biden thug unless you actually LIKE being an a**hole.
ProjectionтАж
Bye тАж
Fair enough. You did frame it as a question, which is far more honest than the newspaper was.
The idea of Biden pulling out of the race is a hypothetical worth discussing, although Cemblast went way past discussing the possibility when he specified the timing and the supposed reason for the pullout. To my mind, he lost his credibility when he did that, and crossed over into Nostradamus territory.
Read it how you will, but that's what I get from the article.
I think that "Nostradamus territory" was the whole point, continuing another (deceased) insider's long tradition of New Year's predictions.
You can read Cemblast's whole set of ten predictions here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12926467/jpmorgan-2024-biden-presidential-race-poor-health.html