Fact Checking the Debates

[pinstripers]

any of those

[Rlh04d]

In a way, you just stated my point. I am less concerned with what the candidates currently know about the international situation, and more concerned with what they will do with intelligence once they actually have access to it.

So a candidate espoused some faulty intel, they all currently have faulty intel. They are now all in "Who knows the most names of foreign leaders" mode. Who cares? I really want to know what they will do when presented with a real crisis. I want to know what each candidate will do when the CIA informs them, as president, that there is a coup attempt going to take place in Burma. I'm less concerned that a candidate, with little to no classified intel, mistakenly understands China's presence in Africa as economic or military. In reality, it's probably a little of both.

A coup attempt in Myanmar is a pretty black and white situation. The majority of the time, our intelligence is often much more vague and requires a nuanced understanding of geo-politics. An incoming President who believes that the Chinese military is a threat to world stability can reject intelligence to the contrary, despite the fact that a refusal to engage in foreign military conflicts is a cornerstone of Chinese foreign policy. Similar to the way the Bush administration directed the US intel community to focus on Iraq instead of Al Qaeda upon taking office.

Sure, in practice the President will likely just rely on strong advisers to guide him in the right direction in foreign policy, but when you take that to the next level, the only part of a President that actually matters is his wisdom in hiring the right advisers, and taking their advice.

[MoValley John]

A coup attempt in Myanmar is a pretty black and white situation. The majority of the time, our intelligence is often much more vague and requires a nuanced understanding of geo-politics. An incoming President who believes that the Chinese military is a threat to world stability can reject intelligence to the contrary, despite the fact that a refusal to engage in foreign military conflicts is a cornerstone of Chinese foreign policy. Similar to the way the Bush administration directed the US intel community to focus on Iraq instead of Al Qaeda upon taking office.

Sure, in practice the President will likely just rely on strong advisers to guide him in the right direction in foreign policy, but when you take that to the next level, the only part of a President that actually matters is his wisdom in hiring the right advisers, and taking their advice.

He is somewhat correct on the Chinese, they are there. The reason for the Chinese being there might be off a bit. If you look at any of the candidates, even Hillary, whom, by the way, was once secretary of defense, all of them have some details out of whack.

I'm impressed he even knew the Chinese were operating in Africa, that puts him well above the curve. It's up to Intel wonks to straighten him out on the "what fors."

People like me will worry about renaming snakes.
Myanmar anaconda.
Herculean Myanmar badass.

[Rlh04d]

He is somewhat correct on the Chinese, they are there. The reason for the Chinese being there might be off a bit. If you look at any of the candidates, even Hillary, whom, by the way, was once secretary of defense, all of them have some details out of whack.

Even you :) Secretary of State.

[MoValley John]

Even you :) Secretary of State.

Yup. It's that easy to mis-speak, and thus, I've been disqualified from POTUS consideration. I hang my head in shame.

[tropicalshox]

Tonight's Republican debate

http://www.politifact.com/

[tropicalshox]

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/12/factchecking-the-fifth-gop-debate/

[jdshock]

Tonight's Republican debate

http://www.politifact.com/

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/12/fac...th-gop-debate/

I need a fact-checker for the fact-checkers! It's hilarious that right off the bat, the two sites disagree with the "not our fight" comment.

[tropicalshox]

I appreciated factcheck's lengthy discussion on that. I concluded Bush was at least overstating.

[tropicalshox]

I have one unless I've really been asleep on world affairs. I must admit I'm stumped why Cruz saying Iran has declared war on us hasn't been mentioned. I'm really hoping a presidential candidate doesn't get his info from a satirical website.

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/UnNews:Iran_declares_war_on_United_States;_UN_poised

I'm actually hoping somebody can convince me that I'm off base.

[WuDrWu]

Pretty much don't need a fact checker to tell me that Debbie Wasserman Schulz is a pathological liar. If her lips are moving she's either lying or disparaging her target of the day.

An awful representative of humans, much less Americans. Her fellow Floridian Allen Grayson is equally despicable.

[shockmonster]

Pretty much don't need a fact checker to tell me that Debbie Wasserman Schulz is a pathological liar. If her lips are moving she's either lying or disparaging her target of the day.

An awful representative of humans, much less Americans. Her fellow Floridian Allen Grayson is equally despicable.

Trump is just about as bad and he is hitting other Republicans instead of Hillary. He Gives few facts but lots of insults.

[tropicalshox]

The 3rd Democratic debate:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/fact-checking-the-third-democratic-presidential-debate/

http://www.politifact.com/

[JJClamdip]

"President Hillary" has a certain ring to it, I am afraid that is what we are facing.

[shock]

"President Hillary" has a certain ring to it, I am afraid that is what we are facing.

Shut your whore mouth