Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: marcher who wrote (163935)	10/19/2020 3:05:26 PM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 218430

Am not for or against either candidate, but it is laughable to drop “foreign policy” from a leadership debate when the job is in large-enough portion all about foreign policy Should the Trump win, doubtful he would be allowed to rule in peace as kibitzers might prove too-many OTOH, should Biden win, Trump would be tweeting for the next 4 years. Going to be interesting. zerohedge.com Trump Adviser Says Debate Commission May 'Shut Mic Off' As Foreign Policy Suddenly Dropped From Topics The Commission on Presidential Debates is meeting Monday afternoon to discuss potential rule changes for Thursday's debate between President Trump and Joe Biden, according to CNN. "We are going to consider what changes we are going to make with regards to the debate on Thursday night," said one commission member, who added that there is also a chance that no changes will be made. The Commission announced in late September that it would explore changes 'to ensure a more orderly discussion' following a heated first debate between Trump and Biden. According to Trump campaign adviser Jason Miller, the commission may allow producers to "turn off the president's microphone whenever they want to, which again would be a gross violation of what we agreed to initially." Trump campaign adviser Jason Miller on a call with reporters says he's hearing the debate commission may allow producers to "turn off the president's microphone whenever they want to, which again would be a gross violation of what we agreed to initially." t.co — Geoff Bennett (@GeoffRBennett) October 19, 2020 Meanwhile, *in the wake of the Hunter Biden laptop revelations - and in what we're sure* is a coincidence, the Debate Commission has decided to ditch foreign policy as a topic for Thursday's face-off. According to Miller, the Debate Commission "*changed focus of final debate away from foreign policy so Joe Biden wouldn’t have to answer to being compromised by the Chinese Communist Party, supporting endless wars and sending pallets of cash to Iran." Good morning to everyone except Presidential Debate Commission members who changed focus of final debate away from foreign policy so Joe Biden wouldn’t have to answer to being compromised by the Chinese Communist Party, supporting endless wars and sending pallets of cash to Iran. — Jason Miller (@JasonMillerinDC) October 19, 2020 More via The National Pulse: The National Pulse understands that while “national security” has been included in the list of topics by moderator Kristen Welker, the campaigns had long been discussing the subject being the majority of the debate, rather than regurgitating on issues such as COVID, climate change, and race. Those topics were both covered in the first debate, and in the substantive Vice Presidential debate which saw VP Mike Pence emerge unquestionably victorious over a hectoring Kamala Harris. The Hunter Biden laptop and e-mails were initially reported by the New York Post last week, triggering a cavalcade of censorship by Big Tech firms, as well as a failure by reputable media outlets to ask Joe Biden about the distressing revelations contained within, such as Hunter’s ties to Ukraine, to Moscow, and to the Chinese Communist Party. Speaking to Maria Bartiromo on Fox News on Monday morning, Jason Miller added: “If the moderator doesn’t bring [Hunter Biden’s e-mails] up, I think you’re safe to assume that the President will.* Again, these are real simple questions that Joe Biden needs to answer to the American public. And keep in mind this is supposed to be a debate on foreign policy. I know the Debate Commission is trying to move the goal posts yet again and work in a bunch of other issues. We’re going to talk about Biden’s support for endless wars, talk about the piles of cash loaded up with billions of dollars and sent to Iran, and we’re going to talk about all the foreign corruption, the foreign money that’s been coming into the Biden family. If Joe Biden can’t answer these real simple questions, you know he’s running from something.” * * * Meanwhile, the moderator for the third debate, Kristen Welker, has been added to the list of 'anti-Trump' debate moderators - with President Trump calling her "terrible and unfair" on Saturday in response to a New York Post article accusing her of having "deep Democrat ties." On Monday, Fox News host Brian Kilmeade called Welker "often the most abrasive, most dismissive, most disrespectful reporter" in White House press briefings. Brian Kilmeade is mad that NBC's Kristen Welker is going to moderate Thursday's debate, because her parents donated to Democrats and "she was a registered Democrat before," even though Kilmeade's colleague/first debate moderator Chris Wallace is currently a registered Democrat. pic.twitter.com/L59N2jZ7rl — Bobby Lewis (@revrrlewis) October 19, 2020 Others have noted that she accidentally tipped off Hillary Clinton's Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri in 2016 about at least one question she was about to ask. In March 2016 Welker was busted on live television tipping off Hillary Clinton’s Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri about at least one question she planned to ask her during a post-debate interview in Michigan.https://t.co/5YD5TOADB9 pic.twitter.com/c3qTtwIG00 — Jon Levine (@LevineJonathan) October 17, 2020 Sent from my iPad

To: marcher who wrote (163935)	10/19/2020 3:53:00 PM
From: sense	2 Recommendations Recommended By marcher pak73 Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218430

Note, first, in writing to you here, I didn't purport to be an unbiased scientist who was publishing the results of an unbiased scientific study ? I did, however, expose the author of that bit you addressed... as a fraud. You asked about "the science"... I answered, in good faith... and none of what I wrote about "the science" was wrong. Truth-telling... in the professions... depends on good faith... to preserve trust ? You don't expect your doctor to lie to you about your health... or your lawyer to lie to you about the law... but require they act in good faith ? Don't set out to lie to people... and then you don't need to concoct increasingly complex lies in schemes to try to get past their natural filters... to make people believe something that you know to not be true ? My response to you... includes my awareness, up front, that what you had posted originally appeared it referenced a political screed... and not science ? It was easy to see. Your original post was dripping with the authors bias. It was obvious. But, before your post... I had NO IDEA who the author of that total crap was. But, the snippet you posted, was itself dripping with so much bias... that it made it a natural thing to ask "who is this guy" ? Worth asking that... before agreeing to trust him ? Answering that, by itself, answered a lot... leading to my initial comment: "Obama appointee bad mouthing Trump"... which remains a fully valid observation... and far more relevant in the analysis, given the initial concern is validated by the revelation of the bias in the purpose and design of the "study" being reported. So, yeah... it looked like crap straight up front... and poking at it a bit more proved it to be crap. I notice your reply... doesn't address ANY of the substance in my criticism of that guys work ? Why is that ? What was the scientific purpose in asking the question the author asked ? What does the work contribute ? I do have political opinions, too... and I'm not shy about sharing them... and do that while never pretending (ie, lying to you) in claiming that "my opinions" are the proper product of "science"... which justifies them ? Much of what is passed off as "science" today... is the same thing as a Nigerian Prince letter... They do it because it works... on people without the skills to parse it properly... not because they value your trust ? But, I am a scientist... I know how to design and conduct an experiment... how to ask the right questions... and have never, once, found it useful to do "science" as a part of justifying ANY political opinions ? That gets muddled, perhaps... when other people do ? I do science to answer questions when I don't know the answers... and think answering the question will prove useful... in chemistry, biology, or physics... or in engineering things that can be improved by a better understanding how things work ? I know well enough that it is true, and HOW it is, that the politicization of science... is destroying science... Politics is inherently anti-scientific... as it demands ideological conformity as a first loyalty... the opposite of free inquiry. Why is it happening ? Because, the politicians figured out no one trusted them... but people did trust "science"... so the politicians are working at putting on white lab coats to re-frame their politics as science... to fool people. In result... science now has a lot of Nigerian Princes posing as "financial advisors"... and for the same reason... its all about the $$$, power, and control. It's the same thing, and is now following the same trajectory that's already been followed with the media... destroying journalism... which, once upon a time, followed similar standards to eliminate bias in reporting ? Scientific facts don't have team affinities? Legitimate scientists don't design studies to support the team? Identity politics destroying science?