A problem about enforcement remains Johnson’s failure to do anything about the Cummings lockdown bre

noneoftheabove said:

TOPPING said:

noneoftheabove said:

LadyG said:

kinabalu said:

Nigelb said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Gallowgate said:

Wine experts of PB, I had a deliciously sweet and crisp Chardonnay at an Italian restaurant a while back and I think it was this: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Colombella-Bianco-Salento-Puglia-2011/dp/B00CJEDZKM#ace-g3536363283

It doesn't seem to be widely available. What do I need to look for if I want to buy something similar? I know nothing about wine apart from that specific one being delicious.

That's not a Chardonnay, it's a Trebbiano, so it won't be the wine you had (or else you were mistaken on the grape).

There are lots of good white wines from Puglia, and indeed all over Italy, nowadays.

For some reason, Chardonnay has always tasted of soap to me.

I find it cloying. But I'm a budget wine drinker. Perhaps if I was prepared to go above £4.95.

If you pay £4.95 for wine, £2.30 of that will be tax, and another £2 will be the cost of packaging, shipping, marketing. You are actually buying a bottle of wine worth about 27 pence.

Unsurprisingly, this wine will not be very good. It will be plonk. Better plonk that you got 30 years ago, thanks to the industralised wineries of the New World, but still plonk.

The sweet spot for value is about £15-£20. A bottle that costs £20 will be four times as expensive as yours, but the value of the wine itself will be 22 times higher. This is reflected in the taste.

Go above £40 and you are paying mostly for rarity and prestige, which is fairly pointless, tho appealing to some.

In most blind testing people can't tell the difference. When they see the price they prefer the more expensive one. Its a very effective snob tax.

Absolutely. Most people can't tell the difference. As I said earlier, at room temperature most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a red and white wine.

But there is a significant difference between a £40 bottle of wine and a £200 bottle of wine for those that do know the difference.

Pretty sure it is £160?

Nailed it.

kinabalu said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

kinabalu said:

It's interesting to ponder what the unenlightened believed about race back then.

You don't need to ponder, it's all well documented in the history books. You might need to ponder a bit more about what the slave-owning and slave-trading Ashanti and Benin peoples believed in the 18th century, but I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have been entirely Woke.

It seems odd to try to contextualize our historical racist crimes against black people by reference to the historical crimes of black people against other black people. It sounds rather like the more topical and oft heard (almost undoubtedly racist) sentiment, "Yeah, sure, Black Lives Matter, yada yada. But how about they start by not killing each other so much." That's what it sounds like to me anyway.

Not at all. It is simply pointing out that it is completely ludicrous to judge people from a very different age and culture, with a very different level of knowledge, by today's standards, and even more ludicrous if you are not going to be consistent about it. Would you object to a statue of the great Ashanti figure, Osei Tutu? If not, why not?

It's particularly ludicrous in the case of David Hume, one of the prime figures of the Enlightenment, without which we wouldn't even have the concepts by which they are being judged.

TOPPING said:

noneoftheabove said:

LadyG said:

kinabalu said:

Nigelb said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Gallowgate said:

Wine experts of PB, I had a deliciously sweet and crisp Chardonnay at an Italian restaurant a while back and I think it was this: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Colombella-Bianco-Salento-Puglia-2011/dp/B00CJEDZKM#ace-g3536363283

It doesn't seem to be widely available. What do I need to look for if I want to buy something similar? I know nothing about wine apart from that specific one being delicious.

That's not a Chardonnay, it's a Trebbiano, so it won't be the wine you had (or else you were mistaken on the grape).

There are lots of good white wines from Puglia, and indeed all over Italy, nowadays.

For some reason, Chardonnay has always tasted of soap to me.

I find it cloying. But I'm a budget wine drinker. Perhaps if I was prepared to go above £4.95.

If you pay £4.95 for wine, £2.30 of that will be tax, and another £2 will be the cost of packaging, shipping, marketing. You are actually buying a bottle of wine worth about 27 pence.

Unsurprisingly, this wine will not be very good. It will be plonk. Better plonk that you got 30 years ago, thanks to the industralised wineries of the New World, but still plonk.

The sweet spot for value is about £15-£20. A bottle that costs £20 will be four times as expensive as yours, but the value of the wine itself will be 22 times higher. This is reflected in the taste.

Go above £40 and you are paying mostly for rarity and prestige, which is fairly pointless, tho appealing to some.

In most blind testing people can't tell the difference. When they see the price they prefer the more expensive one. Its a very effective snob tax.

Absolutely. Most people can't tell the difference. As I said earlier, at room temperature most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a red and white wine.

But there is a significant difference between a £40 bottle of wine and a £200 bottle of wine for those that do know the difference.

£160 of difference.

Have such a refined palette is expensive.

And its also leads to people thinking you're a pretentious twat who's pretending to have an ultra refined palette.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Romney's statement is very carefully worded. He is not committing to supporting whoever Trump might nominate; instead, he's committing only to decide on the basis of the merits of the candidate, which is fair enough.

The timing of the decision being THE key question at the moment. Is a very faithful barometer for determining the top leadership of the church formerly called Mormon. Anti-Trumpsky

Richard_Nabavi said:

kinabalu said:

Fair comment. But coming from such a progressive figure of the time the quote does illustrate how deeply embedded racism was in Britain not so long ago in the grand scheme of things, and thus how hopelessly naive or complacent it is to think that the legacy of this does not persist in us today.

In Britain as opposed to where?

Russia? Where under Peter the Great and Czarina Elizabeth a central African kidnapped in Cameroon and enslaved in Constantinople rose to become a Russian military engineer, general and noble.

Note that his 21st century descendants include Duchesses of Abercorn and Westminster, also Marquis of Milford Haven.

According to wiki, Puskin's Black great-granddaddy came from a family of - wait for it - slave owners.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abram_Petrovich_Gannibal

williamglenn said:

Biden is taking the left wing vote for granted.

https://twitter.com/jthverhovek/status/1308420202728689669?s=21

Stupid comments by Biden. He could have avoided the beat the socialist bit and he really needs Sanders supporters to come out and vote . He was on Fox so the audience watching might have effected his comments but still it was an idiotic thing to say .

another_richard said:

TOPPING said:

noneoftheabove said:

LadyG said:

kinabalu said:

Nigelb said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Gallowgate said:

Wine experts of PB, I had a deliciously sweet and crisp Chardonnay at an Italian restaurant a while back and I think it was this: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Colombella-Bianco-Salento-Puglia-2011/dp/B00CJEDZKM#ace-g3536363283

It doesn't seem to be widely available. What do I need to look for if I want to buy something similar? I know nothing about wine apart from that specific one being delicious.

That's not a Chardonnay, it's a Trebbiano, so it won't be the wine you had (or else you were mistaken on the grape).

There are lots of good white wines from Puglia, and indeed all over Italy, nowadays.

For some reason, Chardonnay has always tasted of soap to me.

I find it cloying. But I'm a budget wine drinker. Perhaps if I was prepared to go above £4.95.

If you pay £4.95 for wine, £2.30 of that will be tax, and another £2 will be the cost of packaging, shipping, marketing. You are actually buying a bottle of wine worth about 27 pence.

Unsurprisingly, this wine will not be very good. It will be plonk. Better plonk that you got 30 years ago, thanks to the industralised wineries of the New World, but still plonk.

The sweet spot for value is about £15-£20. A bottle that costs £20 will be four times as expensive as yours, but the value of the wine itself will be 22 times higher. This is reflected in the taste.

Go above £40 and you are paying mostly for rarity and prestige, which is fairly pointless, tho appealing to some.

In most blind testing people can't tell the difference. When they see the price they prefer the more expensive one. Its a very effective snob tax.

Absolutely. Most people can't tell the difference. As I said earlier, at room temperature most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a red and white wine.

But there is a significant difference between a £40 bottle of wine and a £200 bottle of wine for those that do know the difference.

£160 of difference.

Have such a refined palette is expensive.

And its also leads to people thinking you're a pretentious twat who's pretending to have an ultra refined palette.

Not at all. If you have enough money to buy a £10 bottle of wine instead of a £4.95 one is it pretentious? If you have enough money to buy a £200 bottle of wine instead of a £40 one is it pretentious? Of course not.

If a bottle of wine is, say 0.XXXXX% of your net worth then the price of that wine will change depending upon your net worth.

Of course there are people who like to show off undoubtedly.

Nigelb said:

kinabalu said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/1308433857876824067?s=20

A touch hyperbolic. The SC is very important but it does not govern America. Not even close. Plus if a crazily Con judge is rammed through now for a 6/3 bias the Dems will mitigate either with term limits or expansion of the court from 9 to 11.

Term limits would be the best response.
A 20 year limit would retire Thomas and Breyer - and leave a 5-4 Republican court, which would be a restoration of the status quo before the Garland affair.
A non partisan reform which would justify no retaliation - particularly as it retires a liberal and a conservative.

Then move in the direction of restoring balance to the Senate with statehood for Puerto Rico and North Virginia.

Stir in an exercise of Article III power, and that ought to be more than sufficient payback. In an entirely principled and non partisan manner.

A North Virginia would be safe Dem, leaving the rest of Virginia safe GOP.

With a net result of +2 GOP Senators.

another_richard said:

LadyG said:

kinabalu said:

Nigelb said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Gallowgate said:

Wine experts of PB, I had a deliciously sweet and crisp Chardonnay at an Italian restaurant a while back and I think it was this: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Colombella-Bianco-Salento-Puglia-2011/dp/B00CJEDZKM#ace-g3536363283

It doesn't seem to be widely available. What do I need to look for if I want to buy something similar? I know nothing about wine apart from that specific one being delicious.

That's not a Chardonnay, it's a Trebbiano, so it won't be the wine you had (or else you were mistaken on the grape).

There are lots of good white wines from Puglia, and indeed all over Italy, nowadays.

For some reason, Chardonnay has always tasted of soap to me.

I find it cloying. But I'm a budget wine drinker. Perhaps if I was prepared to go above £4.95.

If you pay £4.95 for wine, £2.30 of that will be tax, and another £2 will be the cost of packaging, shipping, marketing. You are actually buying a bottle of wine worth about 27 pence.

Unsurprisingly, this wine will not be very good. It will be plonk. Better plonk that you got 30 years ago, thanks to the industralised wineries of the New World, but still plonk.

The sweet spot for value is about £15-£20. A bottle that costs £20 will be four times as expensive as yours, but the value of the wine itself will be 22 times higher. This is reflected in the taste.

Go above £40 and you are paying mostly for rarity and prestige, which is fairly pointless, tho appealing to some.

That's assuming the drinker can tell the difference between one wine and another theoretically 22 times better.

If they cannot - and plenty of the people buying the £20 wine will not be able to - then they're wasting their money.

Alhough we all know this poster is the archetypal good whine.

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

noneoftheabove said:

tlg86 said:

contrarian said:

If the Prem have got their hands out for money, goodness knows what state the clubs down the pyramid are in.

How much more money does Sunak have left to give? Why isn;t he giving it?

To a certain extent the lower league clubs are in a better position as they're all in it together and don't have players on three-year contracts. In the PL and Championship, the differences between those in a good position and those who have gambled will be larger.

Without support I would expect 15-25 football league clubs to go out of existence by the end of the season. Without support no Premier League clubs will go out of existence.

Partly due to TV money, and secondly they have a clear asset value that ensures others will buy them for prestige and guaranteed future revenue.

Despite the furore on here, AIUI the Premier League is working with the Football League on providing a rescue package. It will probably be on a very long term loan basis with Football League income for this year borrowed against the Premier Leagues future long term TV rights.

How much money did cricket get?

So far the same amount as football.

But the ECB are also expected to ask for a handout.

Personally, speaking as an avid cricket fan who finds football as tedious as watching paint dry, I don’t think either should be in line for huge bailouts. Premier league clubs will survive, and would anyone really shed tears if Nottinghamshire, who haven’t produced a consistent England player of their own since Bruce French while stealing dozens of players from other clubs, went tits up?

ydoethur said:

noneoftheabove said:

tlg86 said:

contrarian said:

If the Prem have got their hands out for money, goodness knows what state the clubs down the pyramid are in.

How much more money does Sunak have left to give? Why isn;t he giving it?

To a certain extent the lower league clubs are in a better position as they're all in it together and don't have players on three-year contracts. In the PL and Championship, the differences between those in a good position and those who have gambled will be larger.

Without support I would expect 15-25 football league clubs to go out of existence by the end of the season. Without support no Premier League clubs will go out of existence.

Partly due to TV money, and secondly they have a clear asset value that ensures others will buy them for prestige and guaranteed future revenue.

Despite the furore on here, AIUI the Premier League is working with the Football League on providing a rescue package. It will probably be on a very long term loan basis with Football League income for this year borrowed against the Premier Leagues future long term TV rights.

How much money did cricket get?

I doubt anyone, even the treasury, has collated the by sport numbers, including the various loans, cjrs and other grants, so I have no idea. The loan Spurs got would have been something any big company or organisation could have applied for, whether football, cricket, fishing or widgets.

LadyG said:

another_richard said:

LadyG said:

kinabalu said:

Nigelb said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Gallowgate said:

Wine experts of PB, I had a deliciously sweet and crisp Chardonnay at an Italian restaurant a while back and I think it was this: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Colombella-Bianco-Salento-Puglia-2011/dp/B00CJEDZKM#ace-g3536363283

It doesn't seem to be widely available. What do I need to look for if I want to buy something similar? I know nothing about wine apart from that specific one being delicious.

That's not a Chardonnay, it's a Trebbiano, so it won't be the wine you had (or else you were mistaken on the grape).

There are lots of good white wines from Puglia, and indeed all over Italy, nowadays.

For some reason, Chardonnay has always tasted of soap to me.

I find it cloying. But I'm a budget wine drinker. Perhaps if I was prepared to go above £4.95.

If you pay £4.95 for wine, £2.30 of that will be tax, and another £2 will be the cost of packaging, shipping, marketing. You are actually buying a bottle of wine worth about 27 pence.

Unsurprisingly, this wine will not be very good. It will be plonk. Better plonk that you got 30 years ago, thanks to the industralised wineries of the New World, but still plonk.

The sweet spot for value is about £15-£20. A bottle that costs £20 will be four times as expensive as yours, but the value of the wine itself will be 22 times higher. This is reflected in the taste.

Go above £40 and you are paying mostly for rarity and prestige, which is fairly pointless, tho appealing to some.

That's assuming the drinker can tell the difference between one wine and another theoretically 22 times better.

If they cannot - and plenty of the people buying the £20 wine will not be able to - then they're wasting their money.

A fair point.

20 years ago I am sure I would have been unable to tell the difference, so it would have been wasted on me. After two decades of constant guzzling, often of very famous wines, I think I have taught myself to discern the difference.
And I prefer the £20 bottle.

However, I'd still be a little bit nervous at a blindfold wine tasting. If French experts can't even tell red from white......

You know who else was quite famous for boasting about the wines he drank...

(With apologies to Ken Livingstone.)

williamglenn said:

Biden is taking the left wing vote for granted.

https://twitter.com/jthverhovek/status/1308420202728689669?s=21

Remember that socialist == communist for most of America.

sarissa said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/BBCJamesCook/status/1308400110687186944

I cannot imagine banning all visits to other households going down too well with Scots

They're not: [edit]: all banned I mean. Quite a few exceptions.

https://twitter.com/theSNP/status/1308400564296978432

“Informal childcare” - doesn’t Nicola want to keep out Cummings?

That’s why eye tests aren’t on the list.

TheScreamingEagles said:

In Spain the government bailed out La Liga to the tune of 600 million euros, they understood how important football is important to the country and to the Spain brand.

But with plenty of caveats, so that's why Real Madrid have released 14 players and not signed anyone.

Real and Barca might not have had anyone to play had that bailout not happened. Gate receipts are far more important to Real Sociedad than they are to Aston Villa.

LadyG said:

...
However I agree that the Brits generally seek out wines they feel they can trust, wines that are well known. The same goes for Chinese people: they go to Bordeaux or Burgundy because of prestige. For this reason renowned French wines from the classic regions are overpriced, to my mind.
...

I'm not so sure about that. Burgundy of course is made in small quantities and has always been expensive, as per this line from a Meredith novel: "Poor Jorian, I know no man I pity as much; he has but six hundred a year and a passion for burgundy". But nowadays the most over-priced wines are often Italian (Barolo, I'm looking at you), or Californian.

Pulpstar said:

Sandpit said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gallowgate said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TOPPING said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

It seems the Premier League are pleading for financial aid following the delay in allowing fans into grounds

You do have to wonder what planet they are on.

Apparently 100 million a month is suggested , just the amount Manchester United are considering paying for one player

Not one penny should be given to these clubs who pay millions for players and millions a week for wages

Time to take an axe to the number of players on their books and their salaries if they are so hard up

Absolutely. Let's destroy the Premier League which is not at all the envy of the world.

Do you support tax payers money being given to the premier league or not

The Government via the Bank of England gave Spurs a £175 million loan in the summer, did you object then?

I did not know that but on the wider issue of giving 100 million a month to the Premier league in this pandemic would be just wrong with so much need elsewhere

Depends. If the Government through the BOE is positioned to make a significant profit on the loan via interest, why shouldn't we make such an investment?

It is just wrong and unjustified

It’s also massively symbolic, and would lead to everyone poorer than a premier league footballer asking why they’re not being similarly bailed out.

I'd have thought the Prem would be able to head to *any of the big banks* and acquire a loan to tide them over given the obvious future revenue potential ?
If they're unable to do that, why should the taxpayer hop in ?

I guess it would depend on the vaccine news - if that's positive obviously there's a quick path back to repaying the loan (with interest) in 2022 and so forth. If not, well potential el busto.

Premier League Rugby is in dire straits I've heard on the grapevine.

Yes they can, but not at the 0.5% interest rate the govts Covid loans were offered at. Those were not specific for football, they were available for any large business impacted by Covid. Making it available to any large business bar Premier League clubs would have been a very weird implementation.

Unless something has changed in the negotiations, the discussions between the govt, PL and FL are that the FL gets long term loans from both govt and PL (around 200-250m), with the PL contribution mortgaged against PL future tv money.

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

Nigelb said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Gallowgate said:

Wine experts of PB, I had a deliciously sweet and crisp Chardonnay at an Italian restaurant a while back and I think it was this: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Colombella-Bianco-Salento-Puglia-2011/dp/B00CJEDZKM#ace-g3536363283

It doesn't seem to be widely available. What do I need to look for if I want to buy something similar? I know nothing about wine apart from that specific one being delicious.

That's not a Chardonnay, it's a Trebbiano, so it won't be the wine you had (or else you were mistaken on the grape).

There are lots of good white wines from Puglia, and indeed all over Italy, nowadays.

For some reason, Chardonnay has always tasted of soap to me.

I find it cloying. But I'm a budget wine drinker. Perhaps if I was prepared to go above £4.95.

Yes good point. Plenty on the Goldman floor like nothing better than a glass of red from a Stowell's of Chelsea wine box after a hard day's graft.

Well I wouldn't know. I have never crossed their portals. Seriously, never a single time. About the only bank I can say that of.

another_richard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/PeterSchorschFL/status/1308419972465598469

Trump lost Miami-Dade by 30% in 2016.

But any local poll is highly doubtful.

Yes, if Trump won Miami it would be a Trump landslide, Miami Dade county is one of the most Democratic parts of Florida and has not voted for a Republican for President since George HW Bush in 1988

Alistair said:

williamglenn said:

Biden is taking the left wing vote for granted.

https://twitter.com/jthverhovek/status/1308420202728689669?s=21

Remember that socialist == communist for most of America.

That might be the case but still there were better ways of putting it . I understand the message was more for the mid west swing states. Biden’s lucky that the GOP won’t be using that in attack ads as it’s self defeating for them . Perhaps Sanders understands the political game and won’t be too hacked off and Biden better hope that Sanders supporters understand that too .

In view of PB wine wonks (and wokes) are their any Washington State wines that are exceptional, or even drinkable?

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/PeterSchorschFL/status/1308419972465598469

That's quite a good poll for Trump still. Level in Dade was frankly unbelievable.

What is it with partisan pollsters in the US. At least polling companies here don't pre-announce they're a Conservative pollster or some such, it'd be thought complete mince. Anyway McSally behind with GOP polling.
https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1308447175513378819

LadyG said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

LadyG said:

...
However I agree that the Brits generally seek out wines they feel they can trust, wines that are well known. The same goes for Chinese people: they go to Bordeaux or Burgundy because of prestige. For this reason renowned French wines from the classic regions are overpriced, to my mind.
...

I'm not so sure about that. Burgundy of course is made in small quantities and has always been expensive, as per this line from a Meredith novel: "Poor Jorian, I know no man I pity as much; he has but six hundred a year and a passion for burgundy". But nowadays the most over-priced wines are often Italian (Barolo, I'm looking at you), or Californian.

Supertuscans have shot up in value for the same reason as Burgundy, I believe: Asian money

I have ALWAYS been disappointed by Californian wine. I don't know why. I've had some famous ones. They just don't do it for me. Maybe they are tainted by my memory of hideous Californian wine from 30 years ago

At the moment I am big on Balkan and Greek wines. Israeli wines are now interesting, as well

Yes, some very good Greek wines are appearing now, thanks to the EU and the protected designation system pushing up quality.

I think Californian (and Oregon) wines can be very good but they are very pricey so I don't buy them.

Claret is beginning to seem relatively reasonably priced, unless you go for the very big names.

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1308373921943650305?s=20

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1308373283985907712?s=20

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1308367735336964096?s=20

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1308366431017414656?s=20

Solid set of polls for Biden, Iowa and Georgia amongst the 'reach' targets.

Pulpstar said:

Sandpit said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gallowgate said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TOPPING said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

It seems the Premier League are pleading for financial aid following the delay in allowing fans into grounds

You do have to wonder what planet they are on.

Apparently 100 million a month is suggested , just the amount Manchester United are considering paying for one player

Not one penny should be given to these clubs who pay millions for players and millions a week for wages

Time to take an axe to the number of players on their books and their salaries if they are so hard up

Absolutely. Let's destroy the Premier League which is not at all the envy of the world.

Do you support tax payers money being given to the premier league or not

The Government via the Bank of England gave Spurs a £175 million loan in the summer, did you object then?

I did not know that but on the wider issue of giving 100 million a month to the Premier league in this pandemic would be just wrong with so much need elsewhere

Depends. If the Government through the BOE is positioned to make a significant profit on the loan via interest, why shouldn't we make such an investment?

It is just wrong and unjustified

It’s also massively symbolic, and would lead to everyone poorer than a premier league footballer asking why they’re not being similarly bailed out.

I'd have thought the Prem would be able to head to *any of the big banks* and acquire a loan to tide them over given the obvious future revenue potential ?
If they're unable to do that, why should the taxpayer hop in ?

I guess it would depend on the vaccine news - if that's positive obviously there's a quick path back to repaying the loan (with interest) in 2022 and so forth. If not, well potential el busto.

Premier League Rugby is in dire straits I've heard on the grapevine.

I’d imagine that pretty much every professional sport is in serious trouble, apart from the Premier League football they all rely on income from a live audience more than they do from TV rights.

Formula 1 took a billion-dollar refining facility, and they’re one of the few sports to have something that looks like a championship season - albeit behind closed doors so far, and at a massive cost in testing and isolating people for long periods of time.

Lower leagues of any sport are going to be much worse than top leagues, as the top leagues take the lion’s share of the TV money.

In the Premier League, it’s up to the PL, FA, club chairmen, players unions and banks sitting down and working out a plan.

It'd be amusing if @LadyG lost in November, I suspect he'll hang on in the Palmetto state though.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

nico679 said:

williamglenn said:

Biden is taking the left wing vote for granted.

https://twitter.com/jthverhovek/status/1308420202728689669?s=21

Stupid comments by Biden. He could have avoided the beat the socialist bit and he really needs Sanders supporters to come out and vote . He was on Fox so the audience watching might have effected his comments but still it was an idiotic thing to say .

News Flash - Sanders voters already know that Biden is NOT a socialist. The also know he is NOT the leader of the party now rushing to pack the Supreme Court with right-wing reactionaries.

Conversely, the voters who NEED to get the word that our (21st century) Uncle Joe is not a bolshevik (or even menshevik) are Republican / Republican-leaning suburban voters, many of whom are pro-choice and/or otherwise alienated from Trumpsky and Putinist-Republican Party (GOPP).

Agreed - no big deal if a bunch of liberals in California and New York get pissed off with Biden.

Nothing wrong with Spanish wines and due to less tax the 5€ bottle is resonable quality.

kinabalu said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

kinabalu said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

kinabalu said:

It's interesting to ponder what the unenlightened believed about race back then.

You don't need to ponder, it's all well documented in the history books. You might need to ponder a bit more about what the slave-owning and slave-trading Ashanti and Benin peoples believed in the 18th century, but I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have been entirely Woke.

It seems odd to try to contextualize our historical racist crimes against black people by reference to the historical crimes of black people against other black people. It sounds rather like the more topical and oft heard (almost undoubtedly racist) sentiment, "Yeah, sure, Black Lives Matter, yada yada. But how about they start by not killing each other so much." That's what it sounds like to me anyway.

Not at all. It is simply pointing out that it is completely ludicrous to judge people from a very different age and culture, with a very different level of knowledge, by today's standards, and even more ludicrous if you are not going to be consistent about it. Would you object to a statue of the great Ashanti figure, Osei Tutu? If not, why not?

It's particularly ludicrous in the case of David Hume, one of the prime figures of the Enlightenment, without which we wouldn't even have the concepts by which they are being judged.

A re-evaluation of our colonial past is not "judging people". That is a rather tabloid way of looking at this topic.

‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’

BluestBlue said:

kinabalu said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

kinabalu said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

kinabalu said:

It's interesting to ponder what the unenlightened believed about race back then.

You don't need to ponder, it's all well documented in the history books. You might need to ponder a bit more about what the slave-owning and slave-trading Ashanti and Benin peoples believed in the 18th century, but I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have been entirely Woke.

It seems odd to try to contextualize our historical racist crimes against black people by reference to the historical crimes of black people against other black people. It sounds rather like the more topical and oft heard (almost undoubtedly racist) sentiment, "Yeah, sure, Black Lives Matter, yada yada. But how about they start by not killing each other so much." That's what it sounds like to me anyway.

Not at all. It is simply pointing out that it is completely ludicrous to judge people from a very different age and culture, with a very different level of knowledge, by today's standards, and even more ludicrous if you are not going to be consistent about it. Would you object to a statue of the great Ashanti figure, Osei Tutu? If not, why not?

It's particularly ludicrous in the case of David Hume, one of the prime figures of the Enlightenment, without which we wouldn't even have the concepts by which they are being judged.

A re-evaluation of our colonial past is not "judging people". That is a rather tabloid way of looking at this topic.

‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’

Winston Smith should have just got a new user name.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Oh God, the last season was crapper than crap, like watching Season 2/3 of Westworld whilst eating a pizza with pineapple on it.

Prison Break's Dominic Purcell says season 6 of the show is happening

https://www.digitalspy.com/tv/ustv/a34105521/prison-break-season-6-dominic-purcell/

If it’s taken six seasons, either something is wrong with prison security or they’re pretty shit at prison breaks.

Pulpstar said:

It'd be amusing if @LadyG lost in November, I suspect he'll hang on in the Palmetto state though.

Someone posted earlier, about SCOTUS confirmation hearings & votes meaning GOP senators in tight races won't be able to campaign due to being tied up in DC.

On the contrary, in the Year of COVID the untimely demise of RBG means that most who are on 2020 ballot will be able to campaign MORE effectively from hearing rooms, press conferences and the Senate floor FAR more effectively.

Lindsay G. is a case in point, indeed the poster child. HIS problem was not just that Democrats and many anti-Trump Republicans are planning to vote against him BUT that many pro-Trumpers are - or rather were - getting ready to scratch him from their dance cards.

NOW he has a very prominent platform - as chair of the Senate Judiciary committee - to demonstrate his love of Trump AND a conservative SCOTUS lock to skeptical right-wingers and wavering conservatives.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BluestBlue said:

kinabalu said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

kinabalu said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

kinabalu said:

It's interesting to ponder what the unenlightened believed about race back then.

You don't need to ponder, it's all well documented in the history books. You might need to ponder a bit more about what the slave-owning and slave-trading Ashanti and Benin peoples believed in the 18th century, but I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have been entirely Woke.

It seems odd to try to contextualize our historical racist crimes against black people by reference to the historical crimes of black people against other black people. It sounds rather like the more topical and oft heard (almost undoubtedly racist) sentiment, "Yeah, sure, Black Lives Matter, yada yada. But how about they start by not killing each other so much." That's what it sounds like to me anyway.

Not at all. It is simply pointing out that it is completely ludicrous to judge people from a very different age and culture, with a very different level of knowledge, by today's standards, and even more ludicrous if you are not going to be consistent about it. Would you object to a statue of the great Ashanti figure, Osei Tutu? If not, why not?

It's particularly ludicrous in the case of David Hume, one of the prime figures of the Enlightenment, without which we wouldn't even have the concepts by which they are being judged.

A re-evaluation of our colonial past is not "judging people". That is a rather tabloid way of looking at this topic.

‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’

What bad things do you think will happen in the future as a result of the National Trust providing information about the colonial past of their properties?

Indeed, far from concealing the past, they intend to shine a light on a few shadowy corners.

HYUFD said:

not_on_fire said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

nico679 said:

williamglenn said:

Biden is taking the left wing vote for granted.

https://twitter.com/jthverhovek/status/1308420202728689669?s=21

Stupid comments by Biden. He could have avoided the beat the socialist bit and he really needs Sanders supporters to come out and vote . He was on Fox so the audience watching might have effected his comments but still it was an idiotic thing to say .

News Flash - Sanders voters already know that Biden is NOT a socialist. The also know he is NOT the leader of the party now rushing to pack the Supreme Court with right-wing reactionaries.

Conversely, the voters who NEED to get the word that our (21st century) Uncle Joe is not a bolshevik (or even menshevik) are Republican / Republican-leaning suburban voters, many of whom are pro-choice and/or otherwise alienated from Trumpsky and Putinist-Republican Party (GOPP).

Agreed - no big deal if a bunch of liberals in California and New York get pissed off with Biden.

Rather bigger deal though if they do so in Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin.

Sanders got 36%, 40% and 31% in those 3 states Democratic primaries earlier this year

Luckily for Biden, the Greens are only on the ballot in Michigan out of those three - which is probably the safest for the Dems

another_richard said:

LadyG said:

kinabalu said:

Nigelb said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Gallowgate said:

Wine experts of PB, I had a deliciously sweet and crisp Chardonnay at an Italian restaurant a while back and I think it was this: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Colombella-Bianco-Salento-Puglia-2011/dp/B00CJEDZKM#ace-g3536363283

It doesn't seem to be widely available. What do I need to look for if I want to buy something similar? I know nothing about wine apart from that specific one being delicious.

That's not a Chardonnay, it's a Trebbiano, so it won't be the wine you had (or else you were mistaken on the grape).

There are lots of good white wines from Puglia, and indeed all over Italy, nowadays.

For some reason, Chardonnay has always tasted of soap to me.

I find it cloying. But I'm a budget wine drinker. Perhaps if I was prepared to go above £4.95.

If you pay £4.95 for wine, £2.30 of that will be tax, and another £2 will be the cost of packaging, shipping, marketing. You are actually buying a bottle of wine worth about 27 pence.

Unsurprisingly, this wine will not be very good. It will be plonk. Better plonk that you got 30 years ago, thanks to the industralised wineries of the New World, but still plonk.

The sweet spot for value is about £15-£20. A bottle that costs £20 will be four times as expensive as yours, but the value of the wine itself will be 22 times higher. This is reflected in the taste.

Go above £40 and you are paying mostly for rarity and prestige, which is fairly pointless, tho appealing to some.

That's assuming the drinker can tell the difference between one wine and another theoretically 22 times better.

If they cannot - and plenty of the people buying the £20 wine will not be able to - then they're wasting their money.

The vast majority of people will prefer the better wine, regardless of whether they claim they would.

There is a stupid amount of hair-shirtism and reverse snobbery around wine “oh I wouldn’t be able to tell the difference”.

Next time you hear this, try a blind tasting. It’s fun. Nine times out of ten the reverse snob prefers the better wine.

rpjs said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigelb said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/1308433857876824067?s=20

A twenty year term limit would fix that.
Imposed by an incoming Democratic Congress, it would still allow a 5-4 Republican Court led by Roberts for the entire term of the next Presidency, so would be an entirely even handed reform.

Wouldn't a term limit hit the Democrats more than the Republicans for the next generation? Three of the GOP Justices (by then) were only just inaugurated so the term limit would hit the Democrats sooner.

Two of the current justices, Thomas (appointed by Bush 41) and Breyer (appointed by Clinton), already have over twenty years each on the bench. Most likely any move to set term limits would only be applied to new appointments. If the Ds tried to impose a term limit deposing existing justices by statute, it would probably fall foul of the prohibition on ex post facto laws. I think a bipartisan case for a constitutional amendment to set a term limit on SCOTUS justices could be made, but I don't see that getting anywhere unless the existing justices were grandfathered out of it.

Ah further to that, I just had a look at Article III, which establishes the federal courts, and it says that "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour", so it follows that it would require a full-blown constitutional amendment to create a term limit, not just statute.

Peter_the_Punter said:

not_on_fire said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1308373921943650305?s=20

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1308373283985907712?s=20

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1308367735336964096?s=20

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1308366431017414656?s=20

These are all poor polls for Trump - as I mentioned earlier, instead of wondering if MN is going to flip, we should be looking at Georgia, Iowa and Texas as potential Biden pickups.

Vermont is particularly noteworthy. Biden isn't doing as well as Clinton did, so there is no question of him piling up votes uselessly in safe States.

Who was the last Democrat to win Georgia and Texas? I’m guessing it was Carter.

BluestBlue said:

kinabalu said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

kinabalu said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

kinabalu said:

It's interesting to ponder what the unenlightened believed about race back then.

You don't need to ponder, it's all well documented in the history books. You might need to ponder a bit more about what the slave-owning and slave-trading Ashanti and Benin peoples believed in the 18th century, but I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have been entirely Woke.

It seems odd to try to contextualize our historical racist crimes against black people by reference to the historical crimes of black people against other black people. It sounds rather like the more topical and oft heard (almost undoubtedly racist) sentiment, "Yeah, sure, Black Lives Matter, yada yada. But how about they start by not killing each other so much." That's what it sounds like to me anyway.

Not at all. It is simply pointing out that it is completely ludicrous to judge people from a very different age and culture, with a very different level of knowledge, by today's standards, and even more ludicrous if you are not going to be consistent about it. Would you object to a statue of the great Ashanti figure, Osei Tutu? If not, why not?

It's particularly ludicrous in the case of David Hume, one of the prime figures of the Enlightenment, without which we wouldn't even have the concepts by which they are being judged.

A re-evaluation of our colonial past is not "judging people". That is a rather tabloid way of looking at this topic.

‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’

Marc Ferro summed it up: To control the past is to master the present, to legitimize dominion and justify legal claims.

But the Elizabethans knew that too - "Some say treason never prospers - what's the reason? If it prospers none dare call it treason."

And the old Soviet joke - "The future is certain! It's the past that keeps changing..."

LadyG said:

TOPPING said:

LadyG said:

TOPPING said:

LadyG said:

TOPPING said:

LadyG said:

kinabalu said:

Nigelb said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Gallowgate said:

Wine experts of PB, I had a deliciously sweet and crisp Chardonnay at an Italian restaurant a while back and I think it was this: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Colombella-Bianco-Salento-Puglia-2011/dp/B00CJEDZKM#ace-g3536363283

It doesn't seem to be widely available. What do I need to look for if I want to buy something similar? I know nothing about wine apart from that specific one being delicious.

That's not a Chardonnay, it's a Trebbiano, so it won't be the wine you had (or else you were mistaken on the grape).

There are lots of good white wines from Puglia, and indeed all over Italy, nowadays.

For some reason, Chardonnay has always tasted of soap to me.

I find it cloying. But I'm a budget wine drinker. Perhaps if I was prepared to go above £4.95.

If you pay £4.95 for wine, £2.30 of that will be tax, and another £2 will be the cost of packaging, shipping, marketing. You are actually buying a bottle of wine worth about 27 pence.

Unsurprisingly, this wine will not be very good. It will be plonk. Better plonk that you got 30 years ago, thanks to the industralised wineries of the New World, but still plonk.

The sweet spot for value is about £15-£20. A bottle that costs £20 will be four times as expensive as yours, but the value of the wine itself will be 22 times higher. This is reflected in the taste.

Go above £40 and you are paying mostly for rarity and prestige, which is fairly pointless, tho appealing to some.

Oh god we've had this conversation before and you embarrassed yourself then.

You are saying that there is no difference between a £40 JK Carriere Dolores Estate Pinot Noir and, say, a Charmes Chambertin from Domaine Rousseau?

You're of course right about the tax calcs, though.

lol. You always wheel out these long French names, like it proves something. Weird.

How about something from Harlan Estate?

Have you ever tried Georgian orange wine? I had a few bottles recently. It's quite unique, and sometimes absolutely delicious.

https://www.qvevriwines.co.uk/product/meskhuri-tetri-white_2015/

I think this is an interesting case where a price over £40 is justified by rarity.

Looks intriguing.

But it's precisely because there are all these hidden gems that many people prefer to stick to the ones they know and, for UK wine drinkers, that is mainly France and then Italy.

Australia also has a huge chunk of the UK market. Possibly the most by sheer volume.

However I agree that the Brits generally seek out wines they feel they can trust, wines that are well known. The same goes for Chinese people: they go to Bordeaux or Burgundy because of prestige. For this reason renowned French wines from the classic regions are overpriced, to my mind.

Macedonia is making great red wine. The Greeks now do stunning whites. I had a fine mountain wine from Bolivia, in Bolivia. It's much more fun to search out the weird ones.

In the UK by volume it’s Australia, by some margin, then USA, France, Italy, Spain, Chile, South Africa in that order. For still wine only. For sparkling, Italy beats France.

The US is the surprising one, but the Gallo empire is huge and churns out masses of mediocre wines under a lot of different brand names.

Yet in global terms the Australian wine industry is tiny. It’s just that most wine drinking countries don’t import any.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BluestBlue said:

kinabalu said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

kinabalu said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

kinabalu said:

It's interesting to ponder what the unenlightened believed about race back then.

You don't need to ponder, it's all well documented in the history books. You might need to ponder a bit more about what the slave-owning and slave-trading Ashanti and Benin peoples believed in the 18th century, but I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have been entirely Woke.

It seems odd to try to contextualize our historical racist crimes against black people by reference to the historical crimes of black people against other black people. It sounds rather like the more topical and oft heard (almost undoubtedly racist) sentiment, "Yeah, sure, Black Lives Matter, yada yada. But how about they start by not killing each other so much." That's what it sounds like to me anyway.

Not at all. It is simply pointing out that it is completely ludicrous to judge people from a very different age and culture, with a very different level of knowledge, by today's standards, and even more ludicrous if you are not going to be consistent about it. Would you object to a statue of the great Ashanti figure, Osei Tutu? If not, why not?

It's particularly ludicrous in the case of David Hume, one of the prime figures of the Enlightenment, without which we wouldn't even have the concepts by which they are being judged.

A re-evaluation of our colonial past is not "judging people". That is a rather tabloid way of looking at this topic.

‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’

What bad things do you think will happen in the future as a result of the National Trust providing information about the colonial past of their properties?

Folk might lose their taste for deifying Churchill and Spitfire flypasts, AND THAT WOULD BE TERRIBLE.

Peter_the_Punter said:

Vermont is particularly noteworthy. Biden isn't doing as well as Clinton did, so there is no question of him piling up votes uselessly in safe States.

Oddly enough, Biden is doing disproportionately well in red state strongholds. Polls in Kentucky, Montana, Missouri, Indiana and Mississippi have all shown swings of 4-7% to Biden which is greater than that suggested by national polling.

Trump is oddly enough doing better than the national polls in safe blue states. The Vermont poll is a 1.5% swing to Trump in a state he lost by thirty last time. I recall a similar small pro-Trump swing in a California poll the other day.

I've seen South Carolina polls showing Trump up by 6 in a state he won by 14 last time so that's a 4% swing to Biden. In Georgia, it's a tie but Trump only won by 5 last time so that's a 2.5% swing to Biden. The Senate race is also very tight with Perdue leading Ossoff 47-45.

Trump won Iowa by 10 so another tie means a 5% swing to Biden. Iowa and Georgia are 22 EC votes so significant for those playing the spreads.

Another Michigan poll this time from MRG but not so good for Biden with only a 5-point lead (46-41) compared to some higher recent numbers. It's a poll of 600 voters with a 4% Margin of Error. The Senate race has Peters leading James 42-40 so that's a bit tighter than some other recent polls.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2020/MRG_Michigan_September_2020.pdf

Richard_Nabavi said:

https://twitter.com/lizzzburden/status/1308464601000968194

On 1st Jan, COVID and Brexit are going to converge in one enormous clusterf*ck singularity, aren’t they?

Richard_Nabavi said:

kinabalu said:

...
2. The British Empire was a VERY notable example of racist colonialism.
...

Ah, I see your mistake. You don't understand the British Empire.

But are you going to answer my question about the Ashanti warrior?

Your question is asinine. Here's a better one -

Does my observation that the British Empire was a notable example of racist colonialism really indicate a lack of understanding of the British Empire?

Or is your saying that it does an example of self-serving and parochial cognitive bias?

I'm being generous btw.

not_on_fire said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

https://twitter.com/lizzzburden/status/1308464601000968194

On 1st Jan, COVID and Brexit are going to converge in one enormous clusterf*ck singularity, aren’t they?

I’m sure someone will be along shortly to tell you how wonderful it will be.

Richard_Nabavi said:

https://twitter.com/lizzzburden/status/1308464601000968194

Look on the bright side, just imagine how bad it would be if we didn't hold all the cards.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

In view of PB wine wonks (and wokes) are their any Washington State wines that are exceptional, or even drinkable?

Oregon Pinot Noirs are, in the round, better than Californian, as really Cali is too hot. I gather there are some promising growers of Pinot in Washington State, certainly that’s the grape you’d want to grow there. Like New Zealand South Island, Otago.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

In view of PB wine wonks (and wokes) are their any Washington State wines that are exceptional, or even drinkable?

For me, Washington State makes the US' best Pinot Noirs. Any mid-priced pinot should be good.

Ch4 featuring US militias who claim they will take to the streets 3/11