Biden v. Trump Election Mega Thread

[Silvanus]

There's only one presidential candidate who has accepted money from foreign sources:

There’s only one presidential candidate who we know accepts money from foreign sources

It’s Donald Trump.

www.vox.com

The key term there is "we know". We don't have any real or direct evidence of foreign influence, and the tax returns show no (direct) foreign donations etc. There's nothing really meaningful in Hunter's job role. But I'd be surprised if there was genuinely no foreign money influence (either through campaign team members, or through connections).

Of course, on the other hand, with Trump we have enormous and known foreign money in his campaign, extensive foreign business interests (and a refusal to divest his political life from his corporate life), Russian involvement in his favour in the 2016 election, and a refusal to even show his tax returns in the first place.

"Hey, doesn't that cow look sexy? Look at dat ass!"

No, I'm pretty sure an ass is another name for a donkey.

 

[lil devils x]

The key term there is "we know". We don't have any real or direct evidence of foreign influence, and the tax returns show no (direct) foreign donations etc. There's nothing really meaningful in Hunter's job role. But I'd be surprised if there was genuinely no foreign money influence (either through campaign team members, or through connections).

Of course, on the other hand, with Trump we have enormous and known foreign money in his campaign, extensive foreign business interests (and a refusal to divest his political life from his corporate life), Russian involvement in his favour in the 2016 election, and a refusal to even show his tax returns in the first place.



No, I'm pretty sure an ass is another name for a donkey.

I seriously doubt if there was anything involved with Biden's campaign, staff, or members Biden is even aware of it. It certainly isn't the blatant and abundant violations of the emoluments clause that Trump has personally been responsible for but not held accountable for. He should not have even been allowed to take office in the first place with that many conflicts of interest. TBH, they shouldn't allow someone to be on the primary ballot unless they have been properly vetted to ensure this cannot happen in the first place.

 

[Shadyside]

What is 'mms'?


You underestimate the demographic appeal of 'no you!' in the idiot states of america.

Oh crap, I meant to type MSM- main stream media.

 

[tstorm823]

I just listened to 3 focus groups who all pretty much said what I just said.

I meant on this forum. Of course there's a thousand groups running interference for Biden right now claiming he was perfect and never tells a lie. They're campaigning for him. Kinda like you.

 

[Shadyside]

I was surprised by some of the questions the moderator asked. I didn't think she was going to ask about Bidens son and Ukraine.

 

[tstorm823]

Fact-checking Donald Trump and Joe Biden's final debate

The final presidential debate between former Vice President Joe Biden and President Donald Trump may have had fewer inte

www.politifact.com

This is impressive work. You took a fact check that was already dishonest a bunch of times (ltart with point number 1, because claiming there wasn't a model that 2.2 million would die of covid is gaslighting of the highest order; end with the last point, they absolutely spied on his campaign), you decided to cut all the context they provide AND cut out all the Joe Biden lies from it.

Like, look at this crap.
Biden: "I have never said that I oppose fracking."
This one is messy.

No, it isn't messy. If he said he had not intention of banning fracking, it'd be true. If he said he doesn't oppose fracking, it'd be messy. But he said "I have never said that I oppose fracking" which is language that is specifically verifiable lie. "Well, we he said that he'd ban new fracking it was a misstatement, and he's only opposed to it in these specific ways." Well, politifact, that means he does oppose fracking sometimes, and he 100% said that he did, even if just a misstatement. It'd be messy if he clarified his opinions and explained the inconsistency. Denying he said that is a lie.

And like, they do that repeatedly. They take Trump's statements of questionable accuracy and frame them all as dirty, dirty lies. They often take Biden's statements of equally questionable inaccuracy and frame them as messy or needing context. If they even question a Biden statement, you know it's not true.

Biden says Trump doesn't support money for schools to reopen: they say "this needs context". The context is that Trump supports money for schools to reopen.
Biden says Giuliani is a Russian pawn feeding Trump lies. They say that's disputed. Biden's claim is disputed, largely because the "Russian lies" aren't disputed.
Biden says nothing unethical was done in Ukraine, not a single solitary thing. They claim that oversimplifies. If you desimplify it, turns out is just lying.
Biden says Trump caused the trade deficit to go up with China. Politifact correctly identifies the falsehood. lil devils skipped that one.
Oh, by the way, Biden said nobody lost their insurance from Obamacare, which they rated "lie of the year, 2013". lil devils skipped that one.
Biden says if Trump end the payroll tax then social security will be dead in 3 years. Politifact (again good job) says basically "well yeah, but that's not a plan being discussed."
Biden says 38,000 prisoners were released under Obama. They determine that is innacurate. lil devils ignored this one too.

What compels you to inject such a lopsided narrative into the discussion here? How can a reasonable person claim Joe Biden was better and Trump was the liar the whole debate, then post a factcheck while pasting only the parts you agree with?

They both told some lies. You can't possibly imagine anyone is going to fall for "Oh Joe Biden, he's so honest we should all love him."

 

[Shadyside]

Who built the cages, Joe?

 

[tstorm823]

Who built the cages, Joe?

It really makes you wonder, why did he even run for president?

 

[Silvanus]

This is impressive work. You took a fact check that was already dishonest a bunch of times (ltart with point number 1, because claiming there wasn't a model that 2.2 million would die of covid is gaslighting of the highest order [...]

No, bollocks. There was a model intended to show what would happen with zero intervention and no behavioural changes for hypothetical purposes. It was never a prediction, never considered a realistic possibility. "2.2 million people were expected to die" is an outright lie.

Biden says Trump doesn't support money for schools to reopen: they say "this needs context". The context is that Trump supports money for schools to reopen.

You're doing much of what you're accusing PolitiFact of doing: misrepresenting the statement, cutting it down or what-have-you, in order to present a packaged version more to your tastes.

The Biden claim includes the term, "at least until now". Which is true: Trump instructed Representatives to stop negotiating the stimulus package, and then later changed his position.

That's context.

The debate performance was a goddamn mire of falsehood, and PolitiFact is doing its job in pointing that out. Its role is not to package a sanitised version that lets the President off the hook.

 

[Agema]

This is impressive work. You took a fact check that was already dishonest a bunch of times (ltart with point number 1, because claiming there wasn't a model that 2.2 million would die of covid is gaslighting of the highest order;

??
The fact-checker does accept that there was a model predicting 2.2 million deaths. It points out that the model predicted that many deaths if the USA and its people did nothing at all against covid-19. The objection is that this is a completely unrealistic scenario that cannot accurately be described as "expected". The other issue is whether Trump really can even take credit anyway, given that he left so much to the states. One might query the specific rating "mostly false", but it's definitely misleading at best.

What compels you to inject such a lopsided narrative into the discussion here?

And your assessment of the fact-checker is a laser-sharp, perfectly neutral analysis?

 

[tstorm823]

And your assessment of the fact-checker is a laser-sharp, perfectly neutral analysis?

Certainly not. It's a rebalance against an existing imbalance of representation. There's no gain in me hashing out Trump lies when devils has that covererd with extra to spare. I am responding to someone portraying the debate as Biden sticking the the topics and giving real plans and honest statements and Trump spouting lies and nonsense the whole time.

No, bollocks. There was a model intended to show what would happen with zero intervention and no behavioural changes for hypothetical purposes. It was never a prediction, never considered a realistic possibility. "2.2 million people were expected to die" is an outright lie.

Do you not see the issue?

Model: 2.2 million will die if we do nothing!
Critics of Trump: Trump caused all the deaths by doing nothing!
Trump: They said 2.2 million would die, and they didn't.
Critics of Trump: Well, that was only if we had done nothing!

If you take that model as it is (not that I do, but in the hypothetical where you ever thought that was a meaningful number), it suggests collective action has prevented 2 million deaths from covid in the US.

 

[ObsidianJones]

It's amazing how many of these news sites are giving partial information.

This is what is dangerous in the sound clip era. People must repeat themselves perfectly like they are Data on Star Trek, or they will be called a liar.

VERIFY: Did Joe Biden say he would ban fracking?

Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, took center stage during the Vice Presidential debate. Where does Joe Biden stand on fracking?

www.wusa9.com

Since this is the Sound Bite that people keep going to, I'll focus on it.

On March 15, during the eleventh and final democratic debate, Joe Biden said "no more subsidies for [the] fossil fuel industry. No more drilling on federal lands. No more drilling, including offshore. No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period."

Later Bernie Sanders said, "I'm talking about stopping fracking, as soon as we possibly can. I’m talking about telling the fossil fuel industry that they are going to stop destroying this planet. No ifs, buts and maybes about it...."
Joe Biden responded: "So am I."
Bernie shot back with, "Well, I'm not sure your proposal does that..."
To which Biden responded, "My plan takes on the fossil fuel industry and it unites the world." A few minutes later he said, "No more, no new fracking."
Our Verify researchers contacted the Joe Biden campaign, about this specific comment, too. While they did not address it specifically, a spokesperson referred the Verify team to a press release which clarifies the matter.
"Biden’s climate change plan only calls for banning new oil and gas permitting on public lands and waters," the Biden campaign wrote in a press release. "That allows for existing fracking permits to continue on federal lands and does nothing to prohibit fracking on private land. Given that most fracking occurs on private or state-owned land, Biden’s policy is hardly a ban on fracking."

Moderator Chris Wallace summarized Biden's stance during the first presidential debate saying "Vice President Biden....you talk about new limits, not abolishing, but new limits on fracking..."

To be clear. I fucking hate Fracking. It should go. But unless my reading comprehension is shot, he said no new drilling. I don't see where he was quoted on closing up existing Fracking Sites. He said No Subsidies, No new drilling, no new offshore drilling.

That's not saying to Ban Fracking. That's saying he's not continuing in that vein.

Did he say he's outright banning it? No. He's just starving it financially until it can't perform its functions. No ability for growth, no ability to expand. Because the people who have jobs now there still need those jobs, and it would give them more time to look for new places to work instead of say "Sorry, you're banned, thanks for your service"

This is different than say, fighting crime. You don't go to the gangs and say "Hey, I understand you have families, so I'm going to limit you to the crime you're currently doing. But I want you to be done by 2030". You cut that stuff out because it isn't a legal enterprise.

Fracking unfortunately is. And there needs to be a transition to get these people new work for their families. Banning, while it sates my need, puts Americans out of Work. Even limiting drilling puts Americans out of work. But the start has to go some where. Part of an industry that has to go looking for more work is better than the entire industry doing it at the same time.

Or, have we decided it is fine to overlook how devastating that's been this year due to Covid because we can stick it to the political opponent we do not like?

 

[Shadyside]

 

[Silvanus]

Do you not see the issue?

Model: 2.2 million will die if we do nothing!
Critics of Trump: Trump caused all the deaths by doing nothing!
Trump: They said 2.2 million would die, and they didn't.
Critics of Trump: Well, that was only if we had done nothing!

That wasn't the conversation that actually happened, though: you've taken his statement, rewritten it to be more ambiguous, and then recast it as a response to something nobody said. Nobody-- no critics or anyone else of any note-- claimed that 2.2 million would die except in a purely hypothetical, non-predictive model.

Trump's statement-- "2.2 million people were expected to die"-- is categorically false. That was never an expectation.

If you take that model as it is (not that I do, but in the hypothetical where you ever thought that was a meaningful number), it suggests collective action has prevented 2 million deaths from covid in the US.

That's one way to spin it, though the model also envisaged no behavioural changes, quite aside from collective action.

This isn't really relevant, though: it's not PolitiFact's job to find alternative ways of looking at the stats to make them look rosier. It's their job to look at the statement that was actually made and evaluate its truth. "2.2 million people were expected to die" is categorically, inarguably wrong.

 

[SilentPony]

He literally lost every argument. When you look at his actual plans and policies and answers, Trump really had none. Biden did. That is the biggest factor. I have no idea why people think Trump making shit up, talking about Clinton and Obama rather than Biden and not answering the questions some how makes it a toss up. Just look at the transcripts.

At one point he said Biden had taken 3 million from the Chinese government, and while I give Fox news a wide berth I had never heard anything about that. Is that just some QAnon conspiracy or was Trump just making shit up in real time, hoping Fox will run with it?

 

[SupahEwok]

In the thread a few pages back: this is why we didn't bring up China around the Chinese and Taiwanese kids in high school. And especially why we didn't bring up the question of Taiwanese independence.

 

[Dalisclock]

At one point he said Biden had taken 3 million from the Chinese government, and while I give Fox news a wide berth I had never heard anything about that. Is that just some QAnon conspiracy or was Trump just making shit up in real time, hoping Fox will run with it?

QAnon, Trump and FOX are one big feedback loop at this point so honestly, does it really matter?

 

[Silvanus]

At one point he said Biden had taken 3 million from the Chinese government, and while I give Fox news a wide berth I had never heard anything about that. Is that just some QAnon conspiracy or was Trump just making shit up in real time, hoping Fox will run with it?

It's hard to nail down exactly what claims he's making, because he (and Giuliani) often just rattle off numbers and soundbites without providing any actual details, dates, or evidence. I suppose that's par for the course in a Presidential debate and both candidates kinda did it yesterday. I think you might be mixing up two separate accusations Trump & Giuliani have made: the first is that Biden received 1.5 billion from China, and the second is that he received 3.5 million from Russia.

Both of the claims are focused on money received by an investment group called Rosemont Seneca Thornton (I hate investment company names). RST was formed of two investment firms, 'Rosemont Seneca' and 'Thornton'; Hunter Biden was a co-founder of 'Rosemont Seneca'.

In the case of the 3.5 million from Russia, that's based on a "consultancy fee" of 3.5 million dug up by Senate Republicans which was supposedly paid by a Russian businesswoman (and the ex-Mayor of Moscow's widow) to RST. The report the Senators compiled didn't provide any detail beyond that it happened.

The 1.5 billion is a bit sillier. In 2013, RST combined with a Chinese "equity fund", Bohai Capital, and formed BHR. Hunter Biden (as co-founder of one of the three firms that make up BHR) was named to its Board of Directors. The 1.5 billion comes from a fundraising target they posted; it's not actually money given to Hunter, or Joe, or anyone else.

I hope you appreciate this, I gave myself a minor headache trying to untangle this finance-world nonsense.

 

[Agema]

Hunter Biden was a co-founder of 'Rosemont Seneca'.

I wonder what "co-founder" really means in terms of his input.

I wonder about Hunter Biden generally - this might be unfair as he has qualifications and achievements - but I can't help but feel he's an unspectacular individual who like many of his status is able to leverage his name, contacts and so on into opportunities that his talent doesn't warrant. But of course in that he would be no different from Donald Trump's own brood of parasites, living off the family name without any real material accomplishments beyond it.

And arguably even then he has achieved rather more than all Trumpspawn put together. Eric and Don Jr have literally nothing worth writing home about from their adulthoods, merely overseeing divisions of their dad's failing portfolio, and Ivanka had a vanity project fashion company that stole a load of its designs and folded in a few years anyway.

 

[Iron]

Trump should resign because he killed 200,000 americans due to Covid.
Merkel should also resign because that's about the same number of deaths in Europe. Together with every other European head-of-state.