Should Biden Debate Trump?

[NorthHawk]

What China fears most is nations forming a bloc against their way of doing business.
The TPP was going to be that bloc.
China needs to trade with the world to keep the population content. They desire
the things we have and if they are cut off or limited in access they won’t be happy.
And the political regime knows it.

[Aseahawkfan]

What China fears most is nations forming a bloc against their way of doing business.
The TPP was going to be that bloc.
China needs to trade with the world to keep the population content. They desire
the things we have and if they are cut off or limited in access they won’t be happy.
And the political regime knows it.

They don't fear that at all. I suggest you do more reading on China. They have zero fear of anyone. Anyone telling you they care one minute of one second is lying to you. 1.4 billion consumers don't have much concern about TPPs or anything of the kind. China is the big dog of Asia. Their population is bigger than most of those nations combined. Their military is unassailable. They have as much fear of the TPP as we have of the European Union.

No one has any power over China or will any time soon. The days of China needing the world are gone. The days of the world needing China are here.

All you need to do is think it out more. The combined markets of America and Europe are more powerful than the combined markets of Asia except China. We already had Japan, South Korea, and The Phillipines on our side with very good trade agreements. It didn't stop China at all. You're fooling yourself if you think they give a rip about the TPP. You can mark my words right now. If the TPP somehow forms, it will allow easier access to China, not harder. China's growth won't slow at all. China will still sell more products and be more attractive to investors than any other nations due to its infrastructure, low costs, stability, access to capital, increasingly strong middle class consumers, and all the advantages China has over every other Asian nation other than perhaps Japan, who they outnumber 10 to 1.

Americans just don't get it. China is the future. Nothing is stopping them. They will continue to expand their economic and political power barring a world war or similar catastrophe. The only nation that could challenge China and the next market people want to see grow substantially is India. They have a 1.4 billion consumer market. Every nation in the world needs additional stable, wealthy, consumer markets to expand in to grow. Domestic growth always reaches a point of maturity where they have nowhere to go, which is why immature and growing markets like China and India make businesses salivate.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the power of the Chinese market and market economics period if you think the TPP will do anything but make the relationship between big business and China stronger.

I still don't understand why Americans are so ignorant of China. The amount of money being made by Wall Street and American business by China is immense. It has been one of the biggest growth catalysts for the world economy of the last 20 years. No one wants that train to slow down. Not China, not America. There is insufficient economic growth opportunities in the TPP to match what China provides.

So let me know what they need from America?

1. They have competitive phones with Huawei.

2. Their own oil companies that buy oil from other nations.

3. Their own computer and electronic brands.

4. Their own search engines and tech companies with Ali Baba like Amazon and Baidu like Google.

China produces nearly everything they need domestically. Most of their growth is via domestic sales to their 1.4 billion people. The main imports for China are agriculture and natural resources, which they are getting from other third world nations in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.

So if you believe what you posted, Northhawk, provide me evidence that China needs us more than we need them. I want to see that evidence. Because from an economic standpoint, it is America who will suffer if they can't produce in China, not China who will suffer as their market can sustain much more growth.

[I-5]

Haven't ditched your question, haven't even read your question...I'm not here every day. I'll look.

[I-5]

Except that we differ dramatically on issues like socialized medicine and the defund the police movement, of which I notice that you've (apparently) ditched the thread rather than answer my question.

I don't want to defund the police FYI. Did I say that? In fact, I quoted Chris Rock saying police should get paid more, but that we can't keep doing the same thing and expect better results. Yes, more whites are killed, but there are more whites in the population. Blacks get incarcerated and suffer violence from police at a higher proportional rate in terms of the number of blacks in the population. I would be all for keeping police budgets the same and even more if qualified immunity could be taken off the table. Otherwise, how do you get bad apples out?

[Aseahawkfan]

I don't want to defund the police FYI. Did I say that? In fact, I quoted Chris Rock saying police should get paid more, but that we can't keep doing the same thing and expect better results. Yes, more whites are killed, but there are more whites in the population. Blacks get incarcerated and suffer violence from police at a higher proportional rate in terms of the number of blacks in the population. I would be all for keeping police budgets the same and even more if qualified immunity could be taken off the table. Otherwise, how do you get bad apples out?

That does not mean the cause is racism unless we are presuming the police go about looking to kill black men. There should be more investigation into the causes than the standard racial narrative we see right now which obviously has not helped chance this situation. I was watching this same crap when Rodney King was beaten. Here we are nearly 30 years later and the same thing is happening.

I'd like some more questions answered such as where is the majority of this happening? Is it across the board or mostly in high crime rate areas? Are black middle and upper class being shot more often? Or is this a phenomena more likely to occur in high violence ghetto communities? What I'm saying is this less based on race and more based on location? Continuing to credit this all to racism doesn't seem to be working. Even cops of other ethnicities than white are involved in these shootings and violence situations. Are they racist too? How can we tell?

We need a deeper look into this than we're getting. One that starts to look at factors other than race. I'm betting that they will find less blacks are killed in middle class and upper class neighborhoods. This is not a "blacks commit more crime" argument you hear on the right or the "cops are racsist" crap you hear on the left. I bet they will find that this is more likely to occur in higher crime areas that happen to have a higher number of black folk, but race is not the causal factor.

[RiverDog]

Except that we differ dramatically on issues like socialized medicine and the defund the police movement, of which I notice that you've (apparently) ditched the thread rather than answer my question.

I don't want to defund the police FYI. Did I say that?

Here's the entire exchange:

Increase funding, make police work more financially attractive to prospective applicants, allow for more training, a higher rotation through problem areas, more monitoring and involvement by supervisors and other support personnel.

And here's your response:

They've been doing that (increase SPD's budget) for years, and the problem has gotten worse. Should expect different results this time? I'm not saying defund is the answer, but there seems to be a problem within the system itself. Question: do you trust any police department to investigate itself when its officers are accused of abuse? That just doesn't make any sense to me if you apply that filter to literally any type of organization. Do you believe in qualified immunity that protects officers in almost all cases of abuse?

Since 2000, the annual SPD budget has grown to almost double in 2020 (from $229M to $409M), while meanwhile the SPD headcount has not maintained growth with Seattle's population boom, hovering just below and above 2000 headcount over the past 20 years.

I'm all for increasing budget, but something fundamentally different has to be done, otherwise we can expect more of the same.

https://sccinsight.com/2020/06/30/under ... nt-budget/

And here's my question to you that I asked twice during the thread:

So specifically what has the SPD done wrong to where you can say that the problem has gotten worse? Has there been any unjustified officer-involved shootings where suspects were killed or seriously wounded? Relative to other similar PD's, has there been an unusually high number of complaints of excessive use of force? Have there been an unusually high number of racial profiling complaints or unjustified harassment? Are their hiring/promotional practices in need of revision? Do they not have enough minorities/women officers or promoted them into management positions?

It's not good enough to just point at a PD in Minneapolis, Atlanta, or Houston and say that the problem at SPD has gotten worse. These departments are paid for separately and should be judged on their own merits, not by events in other cities.

Saying that "they tried that (increasing funding) and the problem has only gotten worse" and supplementing your statement with data showing an increase in SPD's budget indicates to me that the fundamental changes you are talking about involves a decrease in funding even though you claim to be "all for increasing the budget." It's an oxymoronic statement, which leads me to believe that, despite your fine print disclaimer, you support the defund the police movement, and your 'oversight' of my repeated queries made in a thread in which you continued to comment in have only served to reinforce that opinion.

I also want to know why you think the "problem" at SPD has only gotten worse. What problem? How has it gotten worse?

[RiverDog]

Oh, and BTW, in the State of Washington passed I-940 regarding the use of deadly force by police in November of 2018. The initiative makes it easier to prosecute police officers for negligent deadly shootings.

https://www.king5.com/article/news/poli ... -605763824

Also, police departments in WA do not investigate their own employees when there is an officer-involved shooting incident:

The proposed rules drastically change how police respond to and investigate officer-involved uses of deadly force, setting up between 12 and 15 regional Independent Investigative Teams (IIT) composed of detectives from surrounding agencies. The team would respond to a deadly force incident and take over the scene from the agency involved, which would be excluded from the investigation. Rahr made it clear that these are criminal investigations and completely separate from any internal review the department might conduct.

Officers involved in shootings are put on paid leave until the investigation is completed. Unless you consider all law enforcement entities as one and the same, they do not investigate themselves. If there is a shooting in Seattle, neither the SPD nor any of their employees are involved in the investigation. Ideally, you'd like to have law enforcement not involved in the investigation at all, but I'm not sure how you could assure that the quality of the investigation wouldn't be compromised if you did not involve investigators that have been trained in the very specialized techniques practiced exclusively by law enforcement that go into a crime scene investigation.

[NorthHawk]

They don't fear that at all. I suggest you do more reading on China. They have zero fear of anyone. Anyone telling you they care one minute of one second is lying to you. 1.4 billion consumers don't have much concern about TPPs or anything of the kind. China is the big dog of Asia. Their population is bigger than most of those nations combined. Their military is unassailable. They have as much fear of the TPP as we have of the European Union.

No one has any power over China or will any time soon. The days of China needing the world are gone. The days of the world needing China are here.

All you need to do is think it out more. The combined markets of America and Europe are more powerful than the combined markets of Asia except China. We already had Japan, South Korea, and The Phillipines on our side with very good trade agreements. It didn't stop China at all. You're fooling yourself if you think they give a rip about the TPP. You can mark my words right now. If the TPP somehow forms, it will allow easier access to China, not harder. China's growth won't slow at all. China will still sell more products and be more attractive to investors than any other nations due to its infrastructure, low costs, stability, access to capital, increasingly strong middle class consumers, and all the advantages China has over every other Asian nation other than perhaps Japan, who they outnumber 10 to 1.

Americans just don't get it. China is the future. Nothing is stopping them. They will continue to expand their economic and political power barring a world war or similar catastrophe. The only nation that could challenge China and the next market people want to see grow substantially is India. They have a 1.4 billion consumer market. Every nation in the world needs additional stable, wealthy, consumer markets to expand in to grow. Domestic growth always reaches a point of maturity where they have nowhere to go, which is why immature and growing markets like China and India make businesses salivate.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the power of the Chinese market and market economics period if you think the TPP will do anything but make the relationship between big business and China stronger.

I still don't understand why Americans are so ignorant of China. The amount of money being made by Wall Street and American business by China is immense. It has been one of the biggest growth catalysts for the world economy of the last 20 years. No one wants that train to slow down. Not China, not America. There is insufficient economic growth opportunities in the TPP to match what China provides.

So let me know what they need from America?

1. They have competitive phones with Huawei.

2. Their own oil companies that buy oil from other nations.

3. Their own computer and electronic brands.

4. Their own search engines and tech companies with Ali Baba like Amazon and Baidu like Google.

China produces nearly everything they need domestically. Most of their growth is via domestic sales to their 1.4 billion people. The main imports for China are agriculture and natural resources, which they are getting from other third world nations in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.

So if you believe what you posted, Northhawk, provide me evidence that China needs us more than we need them. I want to see that evidence. Because from an economic standpoint, it is America who will suffer if they can't produce in China, not China who will suffer as their market can sustain much more growth.

Then why did China ever open up at all? They needed and still need a source of money from outside to increase the total wealth of the country
and thereby make the people richer and give them a better standard of living. It's in part why the Soviet Union collapsed. They couldn't get
enough outside capital to compete with the west.
No society can increase their wealth from only the inside regardless of the number of people. It's simple economics - if you increase the money
supply, the value of the currency decreases and prices rise, but if you add in money from foreign sources that new money increases the opportunity
for more people to buy more things and generate more economic activity. The same amount of money in a system doesn't do that and simply
increasing the money supply will only create inflation.
China needs to trade with the rest of the world so it can bully and steal its way to prosperity. Agreements like the TPP or variants thereof will
rein them in if they have access to the wealthiest countries capital and resources restricted.
It's what they are most afraid of, and Trump handed them a gift by pulling out of the TPP instead of shaping it into a more palatable agreement.

[I-5]

I'm all for increasing budget, but something fundamentally different has to be done, otherwise we can expect more of the same.

That is what I also said, which I'm glad you quoted. I think the biggest difference between 20 years ago or 10 years ago and today is that instances of unlawful use of force by the police is captured on video much moreso now...so when I say worse now, I think it's this awareness. However, as I said the budget has nearly doubled over that time period, and the amount of people employed has stayed almost flat, so salaries are definitely going up. I found that in 2011 the DOJ found that the SPD found a 'pattern or practice of constitutional violations regarding the use of force that result from structural problems, as well as serious concerns about biased policing.' https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2011/12/16/spd_findletter_12-16-11.pdf

I do agree that passing I-940 in 2018 is a positive step towards keeping bad cops accountable - it's not quite as strong as removing qualified immunity, but it's a heck of a lot more than most jurisdictions in the country. I also applaud SPD hiring of more minorities than most police depts in the country. Incidentally, I was not in favor of replacing Carmen Best as police chief (even though a lot of my friends were glad to see her go). My thinking is that if anyone is going to help move this thing forward in terms of the police engaging with the black community, she would be in a unique position as a woman of color to do that. I myself was surprised by her retirement announcement, but I don't live in Seattle anymore, so I don't follow the daily news there as much as I used to.

[Aseahawkfan]

Then why did China ever open up at all? They needed and still need a source of money from outside to increase the total wealth of the country
and thereby make the people richer and give them a better standard of living. It's in part why the Soviet Union collapsed. They couldn't get
enough outside capital to compete with the west.

China needs to trade with the rest of the world so it can bully and steal its way to prosperity. Agreements like the TPP or variants thereof will
rein them in if they have access to the wealthiest countries capital and resources restricted.
It's what they are most afraid of, and Trump handed them a gift by pulling out of the TPP instead of shaping it into a more palatable agreement.

Russia and China aren't the same at all. There is no comparison to be made between them. Russia bankrupted itself expanding militarily and never created a free market economic system like China. No one ever remembers a slogan, "Made in Russia." There is no comparison to be made.

China opened up to make money. The TPP might have worked 20 years ago, but not now. Too many other markets rely on China including United States. Company supply chains rely on China. America allowed them to grow to too powerful a level economically. Did you read the how problematic pandemic response was due to Chinese supply chains? We're getting our masks from China because 3M the biggest mask maker doesn't manufacture in the United States, so when we tried to the Defense Protection Act we found out that we can't use it because our supply chains are in foreign nations like China.

There was a time when a TPP would have worked back when China was economically weak. We could have dictated terms. We could have made better deals. That time has passed.

China does need to trade with the rest of the world, but the rest of the world also needs to trade with China. This is not a one way relationship. Australia as an example relies heavily on the purchase of natural resources by China. It has fueled their decades long economic growth. You think Australia will honor TPP agreements when freezing out China will derail their economy? I doubt it. You can go read how reliant Australia is on China.

I can already see you believe your position to be correct. I believe mine to be correct as I invest in China and follow the economics of China closely. I am making a firm statement that the TPP won't do anything to rein in China. They don't care about the TPP. The TPP won't change that the Chinese market is more attractive for investors and companies than any of the nations listed in the TPP other than India. India does not currently offer all the advantages of China in terms of stability, capital, education, infrastructure, and cultural attitudes towards consumption and work that China offers.

So some things are going to happen and you remember our conversation:

1. The TPP is going to happen. Trump may be against, but both Democrats and Republicans are for it.

2. The TPP won't affect China at all. It will make it easier to do business with China as well as the other areas within the TPP. The smaller nations are joining the TPP to gain more access to the American market, not to fight the monster that is China.

3. China's market is now too strong for anyone to turn from it. There is no other market as attractive as China to enter and sell your goods to.

Suffice it to say we will have to disagree on this. We will see who is right after the TPP happens. Don't worry, it will happen at some point. Though they are selling it as this treaty to help rein in China, it's really just a way for big business to further globalize the labor market for cheaper cost of production and higher profits with fewer taxes as big business negotiates great deals from poor nations they can muscle in exchange for jobs. It will not help the American people much at all and especially not American workers.

No society can increase their wealth from only the inside regardless of the number of people. It's simple economics - if you increase the money
supply, the value of the currency decreases and prices rise, but if you add in money from foreign sources that new money increases the opportunity
for more people to buy more things and generate more economic activity. The same amount of money in a system doesn't do that and simply
increasing the money supply will only create inflation.

Devaluing the currency does cause prices to rise due to devaluing the currency as in each dollar is worth less decreasing it's purchasing power creating currency deflation which causes the illusion of inflation. Not sure why you think this currently applies to China. It only applies to mature markets who have an amount of currency that would cause this effect to occur like we have in America at the moment, though I believe the inflation will be offset by concentration of cash at the top versus the dollars circulating with consumers. All the huge money supply is doing right now is driving up asset prices rather than consumer prices. We will see if it hits consumer prices depending on the unemployment level which will concentrate currency at the top rather than push it into the system to drive demand with a supply shortage which is what leads to inflation.

What China is reliant on is foreign purchase of Chinese goods as China is a cheap labor market for the world. But how do you replace this with a TPP? You have no other nation or even group of nations with the manpower China has or the infrastructure in place to manufacture at the same level as China. If you think the TPP is going to change that, you're in for a huge surprise.

Sorry, you're wrong about the TPP. You will find that out soon enough. China and the United States are now heavily dependent on each other and nothing is going to change that as long as each side is making immense money doing business with the other. The American worker will not benefit from the TPP. Most of the benefits will accrue to big business making it easier to manufacture and do business in TPP nations.

Then again we need to be sure of what we're actually debating. What do you think the TPP will do for the American worker? Or America in general?

I'll make clear what I think:
1. China will make some concessions on intellectual property and the like at some point to ensure companies like Huawei and other tech can do business in other markets.

2. The TPP will not help the American worker and will likely harm them by further globalizing the labor pool making American workers compete against workers in foreign nations without similar labor laws for jobs, standards of living, wage levels, freedoms, and such.

3. The TPP will not rein in the Chinese market, slow China's growth, or make the world any less reliant on China as a source of cheap labor or foreign investment.

4. The TPP will not give anyone any leverage against China in negotiations. China has more muscle to push every nation in the TPP and is a more attractive market than any nation in the TPP not named America.

So why do you think China will fear a TPP agreement? Let me hear the logical reasoning on why the 2nd largest world economy and soon to be the first largest will fear this agreement that is mostly unenforceable and entirely dependent on the United States involvement.

[Hawktawk]

Asea you are an extremely intelligent dude. Loved that breakdown. China and Russia have one thing in common. They are our chief geopolitical military foes and they are both playing chess to Trumps golf.

[Aseahawkfan]

Asea you are an extremely intelligent dude. Loved that breakdown. China and Russia have one thing in common. They are our chief geopolitical military foes and they are both playing chess to Trumps golf.

China been playing chess to Trump and other American leader's golf for ages. America is hungry for that huge market. The growth opportunities are just getting underway.

The biggest issue with China is we need their currency manipulation to stop. As long as they keep their currency in line with the dollar rather than aligned with their productivity and money supply, they will continue to dominate as an attractive market for production. America needs China to become even more economically powerful with a subsequent strengthening of their currency. Once China flips from a megaproducer with a weak currency to a strong economy with a massive middle class looking to consume with a strong yuan, the worm turns and it could be more attractive to produce goods in other nations like America.

In the long-term China becoming economically powerful will help the United States as long their currency value rises. Then we have a market for our goods and we can become a producer for them rather than vice versa. A nation of 1.4 billion people should eventually buy way more from us than we buy from them.

Russia isn't a threat any more other than some lunatic getting hold of their nukes. Their economy is weak. They have 140 million people. They don't have many allies worldwide. Their main export is oil which the world is trying to move away from. They haven't innovated for ages. Their companies aren't competitive. Russia is a dying star that for some reason America is trying to revive as a geopolitical enemy. They're too weak to compete any longer, economically or militarily. Russia was a real power when the Soviet Union was an expanding powerhouse of many nations together. Now it's 140 million people and shrinking whose economy barely rates a look from the international community.

[NorthHawk]

In the long-term China becoming economically powerful will help the United States as long their currency value rises. Then we have a market for our goods and we can become a producer for them rather than vice versa. A nation of 1.4 billion people should eventually buy way more from us than we buy from them.

Very true, but they have to play by the same rules as the rest of the 1st world and so far they haven't. They need capital to expand their businesses and employ their
people but they are doing it in an unfair manner. What Trump doesn't acknowledge is they are doing the same thing with the rest of the economically advantaged
countries. By forming a bloc like the TPP, pressure on China to change would have a huge influence. Right now they are just thumbing their noses at the rest of us
as they continue along the road of IP theft, buying politicians, reverse engineering technologies, stealing company secrets and more to give their companies a
big advantage.
Basically what we could say to them is if you want to play ball with us, you have to follow our rules and permit the same access to your markets as you have of ours.
Otherwise they will continue to steal our future for their benefit. That's what they really fear the most - being forced to play fair.

[RiverDog]

They've announced the moderators for the 3 Trump-Biden debates this fall:

The first debate of the general election, on Sept. 29, will be moderated by the “Fox News Sunday” anchor Chris Wallace. Mr. Wallace received high marks for his debut debate in 2016 and is known for his sharp interviewing style. He is also frequently a target of needling tweets by Mr. Trump.

The second debate, on Oct. 15, will be moderated by Steve Scully, the political editor at C-SPAN and a figure well-known in the Washington media community. Mr. Scully has served as an alternate moderator in past years but has never taken charge of a debate.

Kristen Welker, a White House correspondent for NBC News and a co-anchor of the weekend “Today” program, will moderate the third debate on Oct. 22. This will be her first time moderating a general-election debate.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... d=msedgntp

I'm a big fan of Chris Wallace. He drives a hard but respectful interview and gives R's just as thorough of a going over as he does Dems. I don't know much about the other two, nor do I know a lot about the format of the debates other than there will be just one moderator at each of them.

[Aseahawkfan]

Very true, but they have to play by the same rules as the rest of the 1st world and so far they haven't. They need capital to expand their businesses and employ their
people but they are doing it in an unfair manner. What Trump doesn't acknowledge is they are doing the same thing with the rest of the economically advantaged
countries. By forming a bloc like the TPP, pressure on China to change would have a huge influence. Right now they are just thumbing their noses at the rest of us
as they continue along the road of IP theft, buying politicians, reverse engineering technologies, stealing company secrets and more to give their companies a
big advantage.
Basically what we could say to them is if you want to play ball with us, you have to follow our rules and permit the same access to your markets as you have of ours.
Otherwise they will continue to steal our future for their benefit. That's what they really fear the most - being forced to play fair.

They will thumb their nose until it economically benefits them not to do so. I don't see a group that can stand up to them right now. If we cut them off, how many nations stick by the sanctions? Is there sufficient production capability to move production? I know we make chips in Thailand. We have some production elsewhere. What other nation has 1.4 billion people who love education, are highly productive, love to consume, love to work, and are generally as attractive as China for expansion? Where else can we match what China provides us and we provide them?

I'm having trouble seeing it. I read the TPP. It looked like a free trade agreement like NAFTA or what not, but more international. Those types of agreements haven't seemed to work against China. They still undercut wages and production costs against other nations. Just like the tariffs were a waste of time as even with the increased price from the tariffs, China still undercut goods produced by America or other nations. Then there is the education issue. China has a better education system than most other nations and is producing a lot of really smart people who make their high tech manufacturing base very capable.

China has a lot going for it which can't be matched by TPP nations. Even their oppressive nature leads to a level of stability you don't see in other than 1st world nations. Stability is valuable in economics.

[I-5]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election/joe-biden-donald-trump-debate-onscreen-fact-check-ticker-a9702021.html

Has this been done before? This election would be the perfect time to do it.

[Aseahawkfan]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election/joe-biden-donald-trump-debate-onscreen-fact-check-ticker-a9702021.html

Has this been done before? This election would be the perfect time to do it.

They could try it. Doubt it will do much. Not many fact checkers are considered unbiased. It's why we have people believing conspiracy theories. No one believes the facts as presented. They just believe what they want to believe and the evidence that supports their individual bias.

[RiverDog]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election/joe-biden-donald-trump-debate-onscreen-fact-check-ticker-a9702021.html

Has this been done before? This election would be the perfect time to do it.

They could try it. Doubt it will do much. Not many fact checkers are considered unbiased. It's why we have people believing conspiracy theories. No one believes the facts as presented. They just believe what they want to believe and the evidence that supports their individual bias.

That problem was highlighted in my little tizzy with Cbob. They are all subject to a bias. If Fox News did the fact checking, would you trust it? Do you think Idahawkman would trust CNN's fact checking team? Suppose Trump says something like "the only reason we look bad is because we test more", a frequent statement than nearly all observers would deem a lie. But you can't conclusively prove it false as the statement so subjective. What does it mean to "look bad"? And what does he mean by "more testing"? More total tests or more tests per capita?

All the fact checking I've seen says stuff like "mostly false" or "largely true" then go on to give some sort of percentage of truth, some with a graphic showing a gauge/needle, then go on to explain why they gave the statement the rating they assigned to it. That itself shows that it's derived from human analysis and opinion. You have to take the time to read the explanation, and that would make it nearly impossible to do real time during a debate.

The two sides would have to agree on who and how the fact checks are ran, and I doubt that the Trump campaign would agree to any fact checking at all as they know as well as we do about Trump's propensity to just make up stuff. The only one that's going to be able to fact check is either the moderator or the opponent, and they'd both have to know enough about the subject to refute a statement immediately and without the benefit of a teleprompter.

[c_hawkbob]

This whole "fact checkers are biased" is BS. It's purely the right saying "don't call US liars!"

[RiverDog]

This whole "fact checkers are biased" is BS. It's purely the right saying "don't call US liars!"

Here's an article....not from Breitbart, but US News and World Report...that does a good job of describing some of the biases in the fact checkers". Here's a couple snippets:

As the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto has consistently reported, the fact checking business often – too often for anyone's good – turns on matters of opinion rather than matters of "fact."

"There is a "truth gap" in Washington, but it doesn't exist along the lines the fact checkers would have you think. It was Obama who said you could keep the health care you had if you liked it, even if Obamacare became law. It was Obama who said the Citizens United decision would open the floodgates of foreign money into U.S. campaigns. It was Obama who said Benghazi happened because of a YouTube video. It was Obama's IRS that denied conservative political groups had been singled out for special scrutiny. And it was Obama who promised that taxes would not go up for any American making less than $250,000 per year."

All of these statements and plenty more are demonstrably false, though some people still pretend there is truth in them. As the Lichter study demonstrates, it's not so much fact checkers that are needed as it is fact checkers to check the facts being checked."

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/pe ... epublicans

[RiverDog]

And here's another example, raised by the NY Post. Yes, I know it's a conservative rag, but the point it raises is valid and gives a verifiable example:

The New York Times provided a masterclass in bad-faith fact-checking by taking political contentions offered by the president and subjecting them to a supposed impartial test of accuracy. In his speech, Trump called the illegal border crossing “an urgent national crisis.” The New York Times says “this is false.” Why? Because illegal border crossings have been declining for two decades, they say. Customs and Border Protection agents, they go on to explain, had arrested around 50,000 people trying to illegally cross the southwestern border each of the last three months, which was only half of the arrests they had made in comparable months in the mid-2000s.

Even if those numbers are correct, there is no way to fact-check urgency. After all, a lessening crisis doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t a pressing one. We’ve seen a steep decline in gun violence over the past 30 years. Would the New York Times ever “fact-check” a Democrat who argued that gun violence was an “urgent crisis” of public safety? Of course not. But this fluctuating standard allows journalists to “fact-check” any subjective political contention they desire.

As you know, I have some very strong anti Trump opinions about his immigration policy and feel that he is over exaggerating the situation in order to justify is hideous border wall. But it's impossible to put an objective rating on subjective words like "urgent" or "crisis".

https://nypost.com/2019/02/09/impartial ... nst-trump/

[I-5]

It is hard to get away from bias, but it's ironic that this forum does a more credible job of handling it than the media on both sides. It's crazy that disinformation has won...which means Putin has won. I don't know what else we can do.

[Aseahawkfan]

This whole "fact checkers are biased" is BS. It's purely the right saying "don't call US liars!"

Do you really think either side is going to seriously buy fact checkers? Maybe a handful of people, but both sides are dug in. You can post a deluge of facts and due to personal political bias they won't buy it even if it's true.

Hell, the fact that we have people who don't believe in the moon landing and "flat-earthers" is a small example the ability of individual humans not buying facts even if they are believed by the vast majority of people due to their obviousness.

I still talk with religious people who think the earth is 10,000 years old and the science that says otherwise is lying.

The fact that you think this is solely focused on the right is your personal political bias, which would make any opposite person doubt you right from the beginning even if you were right. Just as you would ignore a person on the right whose facts were accurate due to your political bias.

The idea that you can't see this fact, yes fact, shows the problem with fact checking. The fact is your personal political bias causes you to consider sources that don't support your political bias as lies.

Which is why fact checking at the debates likely wouldn't sway the vote much at all. Because any fact check that supported Trump you wouldn't much believe and any fact check against Trump people like IDhawkman wouldn't believe.

I guess they can give it a shot for that small handful of truly unbiased voters who might be swayed. I don't think that percentage is very high myself, but they do exist.

[Aseahawkfan]

It is hard to get away from bias, but it's ironic that this forum does a more credible job of handling it than the media on both sides. It's crazy that disinformation has won...which means Putin has won. I don't know what else we can do.

The fact that you believe Putin has won is more political bias as people buy into the idea sold by the media that Russia is some kind of threat to us, which they are not. How a country of 140 million with few world allies, a weak economy, and a declining population became the boogey man again I do not know. China is the main real threat for the United States in the world, not Russia. China overshadows Russia by like sun is larger than the moon.

[RiverDog]

It is hard to get away from bias, but it's ironic that this forum does a more credible job of handling it than the media on both sides.

Rather than blaming the media, I blame those of us that are gullible enough to be swayed by a biased media or allow themselves to be channeled into a narrow chute by swearing off sources of information from one side or the other of the spectrum, such as Fox News or CNN, and won't even acknowledge that there are other POV's worth considering.

I've never heard of fact check websites before Donald Trump. That doesn't mean that he's the first POTUS that has ever lied or spread misinformation, but during the course of his presidency and the run up to it, he's thrown out so much pure garbage and outright lies and has been able to get people to believe him that he's created a demand for instant rebuttals in an attempt to get the record straight.

[RiverDog]

It is hard to get away from bias, but it's ironic that this forum does a more credible job of handling it than the media on both sides.

Rather than blaming the media, I blame those of us that are gullible enough to be swayed by a biased media or allow themselves to be channeled into a narrow chute by swearing off sources of information from one side or the other of the spectrum, such as Fox News or CNN, and won't even acknowledge that there are other POV's worth considering.

I've never heard of fact check websites before Donald Trump. That doesn't mean that he's the first POTUS that has ever lied or spread misinformation, but during the course of his presidency and the run up to it, he's thrown out so much pure garbage and outright lies and has been able to get people to believe him that he's created a demand for instant rebuttals in an attempt to get the record straight.

Do you really think either side is going to seriously buy fact checkers? Maybe a handful of people, but both sides are dug in. You can post a deluge of facts and due to personal political bias they won't buy it even if it's true.

Hell, the fact that we have people who don't believe in the moon landing and "flat-earthers" is a small example the ability of individual humans not buying facts even if they are believed by the vast majority of people due to their obviousness. I still talk with religious people who think the earth is 10,000 years old and the science that says otherwise is lying.

Truth.

[Aseahawkfan]

I see Trump finally found a medical professional to support his propaganda in Dr. Scott Atlas. This will be an example of fact checking problems as people backing Trump will believe his facts. And the anti-Trump people will believe that these protests didn't spread the virus at all or immigration isn't a way for the virus to spread, when every indication is that both are risk factors for spreading the virus. Then they'll fight it out in the media, both trotting out scientists to support their assertions. Some will call it fact checking, but it's more of the media circus to push their agendas.

[RiverDog]

I see Trump finally found a medical professional to support his propaganda in Dr. Scott Atlas. This will be an example of fact checking problems as people backing Trump will believe his facts. And the anti-Trump people will believe that these protests didn't spread the virus at all or immigration isn't a way for the virus to spread, when every indication is that both are risk factors for spreading the virus. Then they'll fight it out in the media, both trotting out scientists to support their assertions. Some will call it fact checking, but it's more of the media circus to push their agendas.

Except Atlas is not a qualified infectious disease expert. His field of expertise is in diagnostic radiology, meaning that he reads and interprets X-rays, MRI's, and CT's. It's a pretty naked attempt to appoint someone as an advisor that's going to tell him what he wants to hear. It's going to be pretty easy to discredit someone who's training is as different from a virus as football is to tennis.

Like everything else Trump does, it will paly well with his base but I doubt that it will make any headway with the moderates and undecided voters that will determine the outcome of the election.

[I-5]

The fact that you believe Putin has won is more political bias as people buy into the idea sold by the media that Russia is some kind of threat to us, which they are not. How a country of 140 million with few world allies, a weak economy, and a declining population became the boogey man again I do not know. China is the main real threat for the United States in the world, not Russia. China overshadows Russia by like sun is larger than the moon.

Ok, so the FBI and Dept of Homeland security are wrong about their intelligence about Putin. China is a big threat, too. It doesn't mean that Russia doesn't have a lot to gain by keeping Trump in power, as we've seen in his actions the last 3.5 years. If Trump wins, there is a good chance the US pulls out of NATO, another benefit to Russia more than China, at least for now. Your assertions by the way are in direct line with Pompeo and Barr, who both are in the news for breaking longstanding protocol within each of their departments as they relate to the election (taking part in a political process and declinging to follow the 60-day rule, respectively).

[Aseahawkfan]

Ok, so the FBI and Dept of Homeland security are wrong about their intelligence about Putin. China is a big threat, too. It doesn't mean that Russia doesn't have a lot to gain by keeping Trump in power, as we've seen in his actions the last 3.5 years. If Trump wins, there is a good chance the US pulls out of NATO, another benefit to Russia more than China, at least for now. Your assertions by the way are in direct line with Pompeo and Barr, who both are in the news for breaking longstanding protocol within each of their departments as they relate to the election (taking part in a political process and declinging to follow the 60-day rule, respectively).

Wrong? More like politicians are deliberately using intelligence from them to seed the waters against Russia. The FBI and Department of Homeland Security are apolitical organizations who gather intelligence.

Here is what is not being told to you by the media or the politicians who leak information from our intelligence:

1. China is engaged in the same behavior as Russia and is interfering in American elections.

2. Saudi Arabia is engaged in the same behavior and interfering in our elections.

3. Other wealthy people like George Soros, the Koch Brothers, and names you don't even know are interfering in our elections.

4. Individual groups from around the world are interfering in our elections with different agendas.

5. North Korean is interfering in our elections.

6. Iran is interfering in our elections.

A lot of interested parties are involved in our elections. I once again point to the fact that for some reason you can't accept: a foreign spy named Christopher Steele used Russian contacts to interfere in our election against Trump to build a dossier to politically assassinate Trump.

I know you don't like Trump, but those are just the facts of what happened. Even if Christopher Steele is from an ally country, it does not change the fact that he interfered in our elections using Russian contacts against a political opponent who was paid by the Clintons.

So yes, Russia is trying to interfere in our elections along with much of the world. But they are focusing on Russia to continue this whole boogeyman crap. You will notice no one much cares any longer that Saudi Arabia killed Jamal Khashoggi or how much money Saudi Arabia funnels to interfere in elections worldwide because the news isn't pushing it. Or China's moves in Latin America, Africa, and here.

So let's just say that when the government tries to prop up this dangerous Russian enemy, I don't much buy them as being any worse than the many other nations who interfere in our elections. They are just one of many and the current one in the news due to the Democrats push to politically assassinate Trump.

https://www.cyberscoop.com/2020-election-interference-cuba-saudia-arabia-north-korea/

If you dig on your own rather than let the mainstream media push their agenda, you will find a lot of stuff going on in America that is nefarious, off the radar, and constantly influencing America, just as we do to other nations.

[I-5]

None of that is suprising, nor are they mutually exclusive threats. Of course every country tries to influence, jut like the US does. The question, how does it affect the strategy to keep our elections legit?

[RiverDog]

None of that is suprising, nor are they mutually exclusive threats. Of course every country tries to influence, jut like the US does. The question, how does it affect the strategy to keep our elections legit?

Honest question: Has there been any actual vote tampering, stuffing ballot boxes, compromising voter registration lists, anything that would actually alter the number of votes cast for one candidate or another? Or is it all propaganda related, distributing fake news, smearing candidates, etc?

I'm not saying that we shouldn't take election interference seriously or not be aggressive in preventing the propaganda effort of other countries to undermine or favor one candidate over another, but if our actual process of casting votes is secure, IMO it's an overblown story except as it relates to someone like Trump either soliciting or not reporting such activities to election officials as they become aware of them.

[Aseahawkfan]

None of that is suprising, nor are they mutually exclusive threats. Of course every country tries to influence, jut like the US does. The question, how does it affect the strategy to keep our elections legit?

You accept that some election tampering is part of the process of legit and free elections. You hope the people handling elections are ethical enough to respect the vote, or at least enough of them are ethical enough. You continue to vote and improve the process as much as you can.

As long as we don't reach a point of a completely sham of a legit election like places like Russia, Iraq, and the like, then we should be ok. I still remember reading how 99% of Iraqis voted Saddam into office. And Putin just keeps bouncing back between president and prime minister. I'm not even sure if China even attempts sham elections.

America is such a big presence on the world stage, you have to expect interference from around the world. I'd bet money most Americans don't know the presidents of many other nations unless they end up in the news, but most people in other nations with a decent media know who America's president is. Nature of the game.

If you really wanted this interference to go away, we'd have to pull our military presence home and stop spending billions to keep relationships with other nations aka aid aka money to pursue an agenda aka bribery.

[I-5]

Honest question: Has there been any actual vote tampering,

Not vote tampering per se, but that isn't the only thing that affects the votes; it's things like the release of damaging news at a specific time designed to hurt one political rival at the other rival's benefit. To be honest, though, I'd say Comey did more to sway the election in 2016 than anyone else did, with his self-reversal about the investigation into Hillary's email..which was not that consequential in the end, except that it probably did sway a lot of voters in the middle.

[Aseahawkfan]

Not vote tampering per se, but that isn't the only thing that affects the votes; it's things like the release of damaging news at a specific time designed to hurt one political rival at the other rival's benefit. To be honest, though, I'd say Comey did more to sway the election in 2016 than anyone else did, with his self-reversal about the investigation into Hillary's email..which was not that consequential in the end, except that it probably did sway a lot of voters in the middle.

I'm glad I'm not the only that remembers this. It's why I didn't trust Comey after he had been fired. In an election as tight as the 2016 election, he was a key player in beating Hilary with that last minute release. Now he's some kind of "Patriot" who has the best interests of the nation in mind. He stood up to Trump because he's honest. Yet he was a key political player in the 2016 election releasing information at a key time. And also a key player in the investigation of Trump as a Russian spy.

Now open your mind I-5 to the BS games of the wealthy and powerful where you can't trust any of them because you never know who is pushing the buttons, pulling the strings, and the loyalty is ever changing for reasons you don't even fully understand other than when they're driven by simple and obvious motivations like the venal and pathetic Michael Cohen trying to save himself by offering information about his former boss to hurt him politically. Same with John Bolton and the like.

Someone like Mattis is the closest thing to somewhat honorable you'll see and even if he was a warhawk who didn't get along with Trump because Trump is anti-war.

I hope someday you step away from the BS the left and right spew, open your mind, and just look at what is and what isn't measuring each thing and stop letting the media lead you down their rabbitholes of hate and division. Because as much as Trump may play upon division, the media is the real driver of this division. They push it for ratings revving up the political bases against each other. It's insane that we allow it, but it was predicted a while back in movies like Network.

I wish we could get out of this somehow, but people are too damn dug in and crazy. How do you get millions and billions of humans to be reasonable and believe in good policies? I don't know. Seems like Mission Impossible.

[RiverDog]

Honest question: Has there been any actual vote tampering,

Not vote tampering per se, but that isn't the only thing that affects the votes; it's things like the release of damaging news at a specific time designed to hurt one political rival at the other rival's benefit. To be honest, though, I'd say Comey did more to sway the election in 2016 than anyone else did, with his self-reversal about the investigation into Hillary's email..which was not that consequential in the end, except that it probably did sway a lot of voters in the middle.

Which has been going on for multiple election cycles. Nearly every election since 1972 has had at least an accusations of some type of timed leaking of damaging or supporting information designed to enhance or diminish the chances of one candidate or another:

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

Although I don't like the idea of foreign governments intervening in our process and support reasonable measures to contain or eliminate it, it's not like they've completely changed the paradigm of our elections. It just adds another player in an already corrupt system.

[NorthHawk]

But in the past the foreign actors had very little ability to influence voters on a mass scale like today.
Russia is the worst problem by far in elections as they have meddled in the UK and Brexit arena as well
as in German elections supporting the far right parties and candidates as well as in France where they
openly financed the party led by Marine Le Pen who fronts a right wing party.

The Russians are a lot more active than the Chinese/N. Koreans/Iranians, etc. in that they wish to
influence the immediate elections whereas the Chinese are taking the long road like they usually do.
The Chinese work in more subtle ways by gaining influence with lower level politicians and gain their
favor as those politicians move up the ladder. With enough influence, they can get control from
the ground up, but the Russians are going after the top players and wish to create havoc in liberal
democracies.

[RiverDog]

But in the past the foreign actors had very little ability to influence voters on a mass scale like today.
Russia is the worst problem by far in elections as they have meddled in the UK and Brexit arena as well
as in German elections supporting the far right parties and candidates as well as in France where they
openly financed the party led by Marine Le Pen who fronts a right wing party.

The Russians are a lot more active than the Chinese/N. Koreans/Iranians, etc. in that they wish to
influence the immediate elections whereas the Chinese are taking the long road like they usually do.
The Chinese work in more subtle ways by gaining influence with lower level politicians and gain their
favor as those politicians move up the ladder. With enough influence, they can get control from
the ground up, but the Russians are going after the top players and wish to create havoc in liberal
democracies.

So what's the solution?

We live in a free society, meaning that we're a lot more subject to certain kinds of activities than those that live in a controlled society. When someone complains to me about our crime rate being higher than that of Russia's or China's, my response is that's one of the prices we have to pay for living in a free country. That doesn't mean that I'm dismissive of the threat, at least no more so than I'd dismiss a high crime rate as being nothing that we can do anything about.

The other thing that factors into this equation is the stupidity and gullibility of the American public. We're a country of stooges, and that makes us a lot more susceptible to fraud. Like PT Barnum once said, there's a sucker born every minute.

[Aseahawkfan]

But in the past the foreign actors had very little ability to influence voters on a mass scale like today.
Russia is the worst problem by far in elections as they have meddled in the UK and Brexit arena as well
as in German elections supporting the far right parties and candidates as well as in France where they
openly financed the party led by Marine Le Pen who fronts a right wing party.

The Russians are a lot more active than the Chinese/N. Koreans/Iranians, etc. in that they wish to
influence the immediate elections whereas the Chinese are taking the long road like they usually do.
The Chinese work in more subtle ways by gaining influence with lower level politicians and gain their
favor as those politicians move up the ladder. With enough influence, they can get control from
the ground up, but the Russians are going after the top players and wish to create havoc in liberal
democracies.

Our media and national actors still exert more power than the Russians or any foreign actor. The stupid inside the nation is what any foreign actors use to push the population. The stupid has to be here first for that tactic to work. How do you get rid of the idiots who believe Qanon? Who want to buy into Marxist philosophy? Who think the earth is flat or want to fight against perceived threats against their gun rights, race, and the like?

I'm still not sure how the Russians became a boogie man again. I still don't get how that fading nation with Putin is threat again. Let's just say I'm not buying it. I think it is more a matter of intelligence agencies and politicians wanting to skewer political opponents and prop up military spending bills manufacturing an enemy to justify the moves. I think the American people are getting snookered by their own politicians into believing in the Russian boogeyman. I'm betting this whole Russian angle goes away when Trump leaves office. If it does, then we'll know for sure we been snookered. I know many Americans won't admit they've been snookered, but I'll know it. As will most intelligent people who can see past this media and politically driven BS. But therein lies the problem as it is: how many people accept what the media reports based on their bias than on whether it is a real threat or a real problem. Same as Trump is manufacturing this mail in ballot problem that doesn't really exist.

[RiverDog]

The stupid inside the nation is what any foreign actors use to push the population. The stupid has to be here first for that tactic to work. How do you get rid of the idiots who believe Qanon? Who want to buy into Marxist philosophy? Who think the earth is flat or want to fight against perceived threats against their gun rights, race, and the like?

Which is what I've been saying all along. That's the root cause of the election tampering issue, the stupidity and gullibility of large sectors of the American public. It's how Trump got himself elected. If Trump tells them something that happens to align with their beliefs, like the fallacy that immigrants are crime ridden, and it's reinforced by Fox News that runs a big story on a college student being murdered by an illegal alien, then it resonates with them and they buy into his idea of a border wall even though the vast majority of illegals come here legally through ports of entry.

I'm a lot more concerned with the American public's susceptibility to manipulation than I am the Russians or Chinese. There's other special interest groups that can take advantage of our gullibility besides foreign governments. Besides, they can only tip an election in favor of a candidate that's already very popular. They cannot advance some sort of Manchurian candidate.