connell, thank you very much for that. that wraps it up from miami, also from here in new york. bulls & bears gets ready to kick off right now. >> happening right now, president trump on route to japan for the highly anticipated g 20 summit meeting with china's president. the stakes are high as the president threatens to impose a possible second phase of new u.s. tariffs on chinese goods if no deal is reached. this is bulls and bears. i'm susan lee in for david asman. joining me is the panel today. but let's get straight to japan and edward lawrence has all the latest developments. >> i appreciate that, susan. president donald trump arrives here in osaka later on tonight, japan time. he has a very busy g 20 summit,

this critical summit for him. the president will be talking to nine of the 20 leaders. that will start tonight japan time. president trump will be talking trade with japan and china. on japan, the u.s. trade representative robert lighthizer believes he could have a deal, a trade deal in place within weeks, on china and in exclusive phone interview with our maria bartiromo, president trump says the next round of tariffs on chinese imports may not be 25%. >> i haven't done phase two yet. now, phase two doesn't have to be 25%. it could be 10% which people can absolutely handle. but our people aren't going to pay for that either. >> and the president argues that chinese government is actually paying for these tariffs and the way he says that is the chinese government subsidizes their companies to keep the export costs low on to these tariffs. that's the way he says china is paying for this.

this week will go a long way to see if we can have a trade deal in the near term or long-term with china. a source familiar with the trade talks says the two delegations will be talking on friday, japan time. that is one day ahead of the two world leaders which will be speaking together. back to you, susan. >> edward, you will be busy. thank you very much. president trump says deal or no deal, he's happy with more tariffs on china. we're not going to pay for it. here's what he told maria earlier on this morning. >> right now we're getting 25% on 250 billion dollars worth of goods. nobody ever heard of such a thing. it's massive amounts of money. don't play -- don't let anyone tell you that we're paying. we're not paying. china is paying for it. so we are taking billions and billions of dollars. we never took in 10 cents. now you have another 325 billion dollars that i haven't taxed yet. it's ripe for taxing, for

putting tariffs on. so when you say are we going to make a deal? it's possible we're going to make a deal, but i'm also very happy where we are now. we're taking in a fortune, and frankly, not a good thing for china, but it's a very good thing for us. >> do you agree with the president? even with no deal, these tariffs are good for us because it fills the government coffers? >> susan, what's really interesting about what the president said today is that it somewhat contradicts what secretary mnuchin said earlier, which is we're making great progress. we're 90% of the way there. so it's almost like a good cop bad cop relationship. you know, i think that trump is trying to keep the chinese off balance. i'm hoping mnuchin had it right and we're 90% towards getting an agreement. i think it would be great for the u.s. economy. >> at the risk of belaboring the obvious, saying that china is paying is at best an untruth. and i mean, it's great to say

it. there will be people who believe it. but just very plainly, the chinese government is not paying for import tariffs on chinese goods that are collected by u.s. officials at the port of long beach or wherever else they are coming in. >> there's no doubt they are paying some of it. i mean, some of the burden has definitely been borne by the chinese. it's not all borne by the american consumer. if they can pass it on to the consumer, they would just raise their prices all along. >> guys -- >> sorry -- >> there's a lot -- >> the chinese government will continue to have to subsidize if chinese companies suffer. we know that's what they do. that's how they gain their control. >> exactly. >> you talk to any company guys as i have in the last several weeks that's importing goods from china relying on production or any kind of supply chain from china, they are feeling impacts of this. maybe trump is right in saying yes maybe our consumers aren't

paying for it yet but the companies are absorbing the costs. >> i think there's a lot to unpack here. i think it is great that the president is going after china. i think it is something that needs to be done. i have never agreed with this tactic. i felt like we should have gone down the ip route. this is the tactic we have chosen, he's going to stick with that, i think it's fine. but i don't think you can say this is not a tax on the american consumer. that's what tariffs are. they are basically a tax. it is a good thing we're doing it, but at the same time to try and pass it off as something that's good for the u.s., that's i don't think a full truth -- >> i still think it is hurting china a lot more than it is the united states. the tariffs are killing china. they have warehouses and factories full of goods they can't sell. >> steve, there's no way you can say china is paying 25% on 200 billion dollars of imports. that is born by -- >> i'm not saying that. i'm saying some of the costs is being borne by the chinese. >> none of that 25% on 200 billion dollars of goods -- >> why are they so concerned

about the tariffs then? >> that 25% annualized would represent, that 100% of it is borne by american companies or consumers >> that's false. that's bad economics. >> how, steve? >> because the chinese are subsidizing their -- >> that doesn't change the fact that the american companies that import it pay that tariff. >> look, guys, this is not good for either party. it is not good for china. it is not good for the u.s. the challenge -- >> right, that's true >> -- we don't have a long game to play. we have an election coming up. china has sort of an infinite time line. it is not good for they are party -- for either party. the best thing for both parties would be an agreement to be reached. >> i thought it was a great interview this morning with maria. i was parsing through the detailing. if you listen to president trump, he says vietnam is worse than china. the eu is worse than china.

it sounds like he's setting the stage, correct me if i'm wrong guys, but i feel like he's setting the stage for some sort of agreement and trying to give china face ahead of the face-to-face with xi jinping. >> he can try that, susan. that's something he might feel he has to do to get say the relationship back with president xi. look, let's face it, he called him a great friend. they were having that -- they had some dinner together and stayed a little extra time, buenos aires, six months or so ago, things kind of fell apart. things have cooled. if there needs to be some rhetoric to be thrown out by trump to make china feel better about doing a deal with us, i say all for it. the thing about vietnam, a lot of companies are looking at vietnam and taiwan as possible replacements for china production. those are areas too that trump should be relatively up on when it comes to how companies are going to deal with some of the pain he's going to inflict on china, if he does. >> yeah, look, based on the fact there was an expectation that there was going to be a deal six weeks ago and that didn't

happen, i think all of us would probably be foolish to expect something conclusive or that you could predict what's going to go on the weekend. until this really actually hurts the american economy in an a way that's notable -- >> meaningful. >> -- it is certainly true trump has the wind at its tails for this policy, a policy that i disagree with, it is a policy that's sustainable as long as it's not biting domestically, and it is not yet. >> most businesses are implementing a china plus one strategy meaning they are trying to find another source of supply. they might need a china plus two strategy, they might need two back ups not just the one. >> yeah. reuters is reporting that united airlines has just announced that it will be pulling the boeing 737 max and the flights it looks like -- we are going to have those suspended for a lot longer until september the 3rd. united says this decision will lead to nearly 1300 flight

cancellations in the month of july and 1900 in august. and that is the busy summer travel season. shares of boeing down slightly in the afterhours on this news. now silicon valley smackdown, why the president says that google, twitter and others should be sued. we will be hearing more from the president after this. everyone's got to listen to mom.

when it comes to reducing the sugar in your family's diet,

>> the first issue which i think is very salient in many nations is that the governments are thinking about regulating social media. the united states has a firm tradition of freedom of speech and it is not exactly usually, i did empirical research, courtesy of on-line research strategies and it is not usual i can confirm to find the heads of companies calling for regulation of their own companies. but you have done exactly that, called for government regulations. can you say a little bit about what inspired that and what areas you would like to see regulation in? >> sure, you know, i've spent most of the last few years focused on trying to address some of the biggest social

issues facing the internet, that our company in particular is at the center of, the four big ones that we've focused on are election, security, and preventing election interference. free expression and while removing harmful content, privacy, and making sure that we get those issues right, and one that's gotten a little bit less attention but i think is as important is portability and interoperability and being able to move between services to increase innovation and competition and enable research. so through working through these issues, we've made a lot of progress on each of them. we've built up our systems internally, in election, which i'm sure we will get into a bit. there have been many elections around the world over the last couple of years. the results have been a lot cleaner on-line, due to a lot of the work that we and others have done in partnership. but one of the things that i've kind of come to, after a few

years of really spending most of my time working on these issues is that in order to solve these issues, you get down to fundamental trade offs and values that i don't think people would want private companies to be making by themselves. so questions like how do you balance what the line is between free expression on the one hand and safety from content on the other hand and privacy about what people are allowed to say, human dignity and decency, you know, those are really hard questions to answer, and, you know, as a company, we try to do the best we can, but i think that if as a society we were rewriting the rules of the internet from scratch today, it is not at all clear to me that what we would want to do is have private companies make so many of these decisions by themselves. and in a loft these areas -- in a lot of these areas around for example what constitutes political speech and what should be acceptable advertising around an election, i really don't

think that as a society we want private companies to be the final word on making these decisions. so where i have come out is look in the absence of regulation, on some of these things, we're going to do the best that we can and build up very sophisticated systems to be able to handle these issues. but at the end of the day, i don't think that that is necessarily the ideal state that we all want to be in. i think we would be better off if we had a more robust democratic process, setting the rules on how we wanted to arbitrate and draw some of the trade offs between a lot of these values we hold dear. >> okay. let's talk about the integrity of the electoral process and foreign interference with elections. a lot of people in the united states are of course concerned about that. can you say a little bit about what you have done specifically since 2016 to reduce the risk and what you'd like to see, say, senator mcconnell and senator schumer agree on in the next few years on the regulatory front. >> yes, so i think getting

election integrity, right, is probably the highest priority of these issues. you know, there's no single silver bullet. but there are a number of different strategies that we have taken as a company to prevent state actors like what we've seen russia do and tried to do in the 2016 elections, from being able to do that again in elections around the world, including the 2018 u.s. midterms and up coming the 2020 elections. so the things that have made the biggest difference are one is building up really sophisticated technical ai systems and hiring a whole lot of people. we have 30,000 people at facebook who work on content and safety. -- and safety review. to be able to find these networks of bad actors, to be able to take them off the systems before they have the opportunity to spread propaganda or misinformation or whatever

they are spreading. we have gotten much more sophisticated at that. it is an arms race. russia and other folks have also gotten more sophisticated in their tack tibs. -- tactics. every election we see new tactics. we've been able to stay ahead and keep the progress going on that. we have also upgraded the policies, so now anyone who wants to run political ads or issue ads or run a page that gets a lot of distribution needs to verify their identity with us with a valid government id. we've rolled this out in the u.s. we have rolled it out across the world. it is quite a large operation to be able to do that because we have 7 million advertisers, overall, not all of whom who are trying to engage in political issue ads, but that's a big deal. that would prevent people from other countries from being able to advertise in elections where the law might prevent them from doing that. we have also instituted a bunch of transparency requirements, where now anyone who runs

political ads, those ads are going to go in an archive that is going to be visible for, you know, seven years, so that way seven or eight years, so that way anyone who wants as a journalist or academic is going to be able to study what every political advertiser did, who they targeted, how much they paid, what else they said to different audiences, and that's really important i think for keeping people honest; right? to make it so that not only bad actors but common actors in the political system can't say different things to different people without getting called out on it. there are a number of other things in partnership with working with intelligence agencies and election commissions around the world. again, this isn't an american only issue. i mean, we just had the big elections in the eu, for example, and there's a big election in india, and, you know, the eu parliament president came out -- i did -- i went and testified in the eu, similar thing to what i did here

in congress in the u.s., and in the eu, parliamentary president, after the eu elections came out and said that, you know, facebook basically, that we were able to deliver on what we said we were going to leading up to the elections, and that he thought that it was a relatively clean election because of that. so there are reasons for optimism, but we can't rest on our laurels because this is certainly an area where the adversaries are sophisticated and they have a lot of resources and will just keep on trying to get better and better, from a regulatory perspective, what would i want to see? one, you know, there's an honest ads act which i think is a good floor for what should be passed. we actually are doing all of the things that are in it already. a lot of it is the verifying political advertisers. it's transparency, around who is advertising. but you know, i wouldn't just want those policies to be enforced on facebook. i think you want them enforced across the whole internet. having a bill like that passed as the floor i think would be

positive. there are other types of laws around the world that i think would be positive as well. you know, for example, you know, we had an issue in -- this is not an american example, but we had an issue in ireland. in the last year there was a referendum on abortion. during that election, leading up to that referendum, a bunch of pro-life american groups advertised leading up to this irish election to try to influence public opinion there. and we went to the irish and asked folks there, well, how do you want us to handle this? you have no laws on the books that are relevant for whether we should be allowing this kind of speech in your election, and really this doesn't feel like the kind of thing that a private company should be making a decision on, and their response at the time was, you know, we don't currently have a law, so you need to make whatever decision you want to make. we ended up not allowing the ads. but at the end of the day, that feels like the kind of thing around the world in different

democracies -- >> facebook founder ceo zuckerberg on stage at the aspen ideas festival talking about regulation, also answering a lot of questions in a wide-ranging conversation on stage, talking about election integrity, protecting against foreign interference. of course talking about the sophistication of foreign actors and privacy protection misinformation and political ads. so a lot to answer for. of course something we will keep track on here on fox business. let's bring back in the panel here on bulls & bears and talk about regulation, especially on big tech, social media. we had president trump talking about facebook as well today, saying that he might sue them, them being facebook, twitter and the like. your thoughts, guys? >> i think he's hilarious. the fact that he's talking about that he wants the government to be involved here, of course these big companies want regulation because it's anti-competitive. it makes it harder for start-ups and small businesses to compete with them.

this is not a very difficult thing. if you believe in the principle of free speech, you follow that. you basically say unless you are doing something illegal or you have a direct call for violence, then more speech is better speech, and you give people tools to block what they don't want to see. of course private companies should be making that decision. but at the end of the day, the principle of free speech is the best principle out there. >> steven? >> i was going to say i think the internet should remain the wild west of regulation and tax-free content, and that's what's made the internet the powerhouse that it is. look, it's not just about facebook. i mean, there are -- this is sort of arrogant of him because there are millions of websites that people can go to for information. and, you know, if the russians, they could penetrate some, you know, website other than facebook. and are we going to have the regulators looking at every website in america? i just think it is a terrible idea. >> steve, i think you are right. the other thing too is like why are we regulating these

companies? are we regulating because the politicians don't feel like they are being treated nice enough on twitter or in google searches or on facebook comments because that's really what seems like we're getting here, little bit of sour grapes saying i don't like what they are saying about me or us and therefore we need to regulate them. to carol's point is right, those folks who know what they are looking for, know what they want to read and want to find truth or maybe don't, they will find those things somewhere else if it is not on facebook or google. >> look, there's a broad swath of reasons that people are increasing the regulatory pressure on these companies from concerns about data privacy, how much you are selling against it, and i think the reality is if these companies don't regulate themselves, which i think zuckerberg is completely wrong about his stance, they are going to be regulated by people who don't understand their businesses, who have much more black and white axes to grind and are going to be completely deleterious not just to business models but to the experience of free expression on these platforms. i think zuckerberg is wrong

about how he's going about this. these companies ought to be thinking about what do we do to assure our customers and our consumers about data privacy, about whether or not they are seeing fake ads, etc., and he's sort of punting on this, in this very golly gee way that is disingenuous at best. [talking over each other] >> they can figure out these ads. >> what's the difference between an ad and a post? that's at the end of the day, if i go out and i say something and in favor of something, is that an ad? is it my own opinion? does it matter who i'm affili e affiliated with? it becomes a slippery slope. put it out there. tell people they need to pay more attention to what they are reading. >> amen. >> steve, let me ask you this, since we're on facebook, we're looking at mark zuckerberg right now. if we can't trust them with our pictures and our posts, why would we trust them with our

money in the future with this crypto currency? [laughter] >> nobody forces somebody to have a facebook account. i don't have a facebook account. i'm happy to have facebook do whatever they want. seriously, oh they are not treating us well. don't have the facebook account. consumers have all the power here. look, i think facebook certainly has every right to do what they are doing with this crypto currency. you asked the question should we trust them with their money? there again, that's up to the money who want to use the crypto currency, not to you or me or the regulators. >> to that point too, and facebook, and i have to disagree a little bit with zach here, every second five new profiles are created on facebook and every minute you've got hundreds of thousands of comments being posted, hundreds of thousands of photos. you have facebook live going off. i mean, there's a lot of things here that they have to cover themselves, to your point, zach, about, you know, some self-regulates that is frankly i

agree with zuckerberg is it's tough. it's a tough job. i'm not sure anybody regulating these companies if it is the government could figure out how to fight that race as he said because that's a massive amount of data for anybody to have to collect and monitor. >> there's a regulatory pressure. no industry in the united states, and steve, whether you like this or not, it's simply a historical fact, no industry has gotten large and powerful in any democratic society without there being pushback from government. you may think that's wrong, but it does tend to happen. >> that's true. >> i'm suggesting one way to offset stupid regulation is for those companies themselves to recognize that it is unlikely to prevent this, all the lobbying in the world, they are not going to prevent this sort of trend unless they do something themselves. >> let's go back to aspen. guys, we have mark zuckerberg. he's touching on something interesting right now. let's listen in quickly. >> -- altered video that portrays someone as drunk or

crazed or thinking something abhorrent. so my question for you is, and this is obviously connected with speaker of the house nancy pelosi's altered video, why the policy as of say tomorrow be that if reasonable observers could not know that it's fake, that it will be taken down and disclosure isn't enough. [applause] >> that's the first time i have ever gotten applauded. thank you. [laughter] >> so okay, the area around deep fakes in particular is something where we're currently evaluating what the policy needs to be. we have a number of different policies for how we treat content. if something's spam, we take t down. if it's misinformation, what we do is we say okay, we don't think that it should be against the rules to say something that happens to be false to your friends. right? but we don't want it to spread

and go viral. people get things wrong; right? i don't think people would want us to be censoring that and say it is against the rules on this service to write something that is fact kuhly inaccurate -- factually inaccurate. we prevent it. we work with fact checkers if they mark something as false, we prevent it from getting any amount of distribution once we get the rating. we also market as false within the service. anyone who sees the content sees that the content is marked as false and we show related content that is more accurate. that way people can get pointed towards something that would educate them. and i think that's important because otherwise if you are just hiding things that are rumors, then how are people going to refute them? i think it would be an overreach to say hey, you shouldn't be able to say something that is not correct to your friends. there's a question, though, about whether misinformation -- whether these deep fakes are

actually just a completely different category from normal kind of false statements overall, and i know there's a very good case that they are which is what you are saying. when we put this into place, when we think through or policies -- our policies, we need to be careful because across our services there are about -- you know, more than 100 billion pieces of content a day, flowing through the system. and we want to make sure that we can define things in a way that is precise enough that we can actually go have the 30,000 people i mentioned a second ago apply the rules in a consistent way across all of this content. so, you know, i think that saying deep fakes are different from misinformation i think is a reasonable perspective. i think we need to make sure in doing this that we define what a deep fake is very clearly. is it ai manipulated media -- or manipulated media using ai that

makes one say something they didn't say? i think that's probably a pretty reasonable definition, but if it is any video that is cut in a way that someone thinks is misleading then, well, you know, i know a lot of people who have done tv interviews, different interviews that have been cut in ways that they didn't like, that they think changed the definition or meaning or what they were trying to say. you want to make sure you are scoping this carefully enough that you are not giving people grounds or precedent to argue that things that they don't like, that change the meaning somewhat of what they said when they were doing an interview get taken down. i'm kind of giving -- this is a little bit of the sausage making here because we're going through the policy process of thinking through with the deep fake policy should be. we don't do this in isolation. we're currently going through the process of talking to a lot of different experts as we do for setting all of our poll poll sis -- all of our poll --

all of our policies. i think this is sensible to treat this differently than how we treat normal false information on the internet. >> wouldn't it make sense to go a little broader than that so things like the nancy pelosi video which aren't like showing the beatles singing a taylor swift song which would be interesting and obviously not true so please leave that up. but if it's showing a political actor in a way that would be credibly taken by observers to be real, and it wouldn't be ai, it would be just whatever they did there, take it down. [applause] >> i just think you want to be very careful about what you're defining as misinformation because a lot of people -- i mean this is a topic that can be very easily politicized. people who don't like the way that something was cut often will kind of argue that that --

it did not reflect the true intent or was misinformation, but we exist in a society where people -- where we value and cherish free expression and the ability to say things and including satire and telling stories with using anecdotes and stories that resonate, but are -- and are often grounded in truth, and i just think that we need to be very careful. i think in our policies if something is wrong and fact checkers say it is false, we don't want it to go viral or get a lot of distribution. one of the issues in the example of the pelosi video that you mentioned, which was an execution mistake on our side, was it took a while for our systems to flag that and for fact checkers to rate it as false. once the fact checkers saw it and they were able to rate it within an hour, but it took more than a day for our systems to flag it. during that time it got more distribution than our policy should have allowed. so that was an execution

mistake. i think that what we want to be doing is improving execution, but i don't think we want to go toward -- so far towards saying that a private company prevents you from saying that it thinks is factually incorrect to another person. that to me just feels like it is too far and goes away from the tradition of free expression and being able to say what your experience is, through satire and other means, much more than at least it feels right, given where things are today. but the policies continue to evolve as technology develops, we continue to think through them. i definitely think there's a good case that deep fakes are different from traditional misinformation just like spam is different from traditional misinformation and should be treated differently, but i think you want to approach this with caution and by consulting with a lot of experts and not just acting hastily and unilaterally. [applause]

>> okay. can we talk a little bit about two issues that are kind of mirror images, that is, privacy and data portability. my suggestion for you that i would like you to react to is with respect to privacy and data portability, there should be one governing principle, which is user control. we can even call it user sovereignty. and that would mean that how your data is used is up to you, and that would mean that you would be an active agent with respect to specific choices, for everything, and with respect to data portability, exactly the same as so. so individuals would make a trade-off, if there is one, and maybe you can explain that, if there is one, between privacy and data portability, and it would be an individual sovereignty rather than a complexity or a default rule driven system. >> uh-huh. well, you know, i don't think that the controversial part of this is choice.

i think the harder part to define is your information, right, so i think that, you know, taking the context of a social system, you know, one of the things that facebook does is it shows you your friends' birthdays so it can remind you of that. okay. we try to enable a developer ecosystem so that way people can bring their information out to other developers. i don't think anyone -- i would be very surprised if anyone in this room disagreed with the notion that you should be able to take your information from a service to another service; right? i mean, that's noncontroversial. the question is, all right, i have my friends on facebook. you know, you're my friend. you share with me your birthday. facebook reminds me of that. am i allowed to take that birthday and put it in my calendar app and should facebook allow me to do so that my other calendar i use can remind me of my friends' birthdays? is your birthday my information or yours? who gets to decide that? if i want to export my friend's birth day to a calendar, do i

need to ask them for their permission? if i do, that app is probably not going to be built because that's a lot of friction. let's talk about another example. news feed, right, one of things that people have talked about for a while is hey wouldn't it be nice if i could bring my news feed, the content that i see from my friends to another app, either so there cob competing news feeds -- so there can be competing news feeds so another company can innovate on top of that or academics do research on top of it. a lot of people want to have people come in for studies and say can i see what's in your feed and can i pull that data and then do a study on the content that's there, you know, including for reasons like the election issues. there are a lot of academics who want to study this stuff. same issue, the content you see in your feed, it is photos and links that your friends have shared, is that your information or theirs? if it's theirs, and you give them a choice over whether you are allowed to pull it out. let's say we're successful and

say that 90% of people opt in and say i'm willing to let my friends share that information. then you know, are the studies that are done on that going to be valid? are you really going to be able to build a competitive news feed if 10% of your friends most interesting information is not there and the only way to get the full experience is through facebook? these are really hard questions, i think. right? it's very -- i actually come out more on the side of where you are, that this should be left to individual choice, but i don't want to leave the impression that these are obvious choices that don't have competing equities that we all value greatly. if your paramount concern is around innovation and competition and research and data portability, then it is not clear that you want to give every individual the right to say i don't want my information to be able to be taken to another service. so i think that this is very connected to the set of privacy debates and things that we're having as well.

there's no question in my mind that people need to have the right to be able to say who has access to their information. but i do think that as a society, there is -- we need to decide where we want to be on the spectrum between asking companies to fully lock down people's information and on the other hand making it portable because right now, i think this might be a reasonable balance for us to be at, all of the discussion that we're having is around privacy which is i think is good and very important and needs to -- we need to emphasize privacy more, but without an appropriate emphasis also on data portability, i worry that all the incentives that we give to the industry that are locked down information and not make it so people can bring it between services easily. >> i hear you. >> mark zuckerberg facebook founder ceo answering some tough questions there at the aspen's ideas festival. how do you police, regulate and protect the content of 2.7

billion users on multiple platforms? let's bring back in the panel. guys, let's get back to the deep fakes answer because he says it was an execution problem, when it comes to the viral spread of the nancy pelosi doctors video of her slurring her words. it was up on facebook for way too long. even the house speaker herself basically criticized facebook for not taking it down sooner. but what did you think of his answers? >> look, the deep fake thing is today like at the end of the 19th century where at the early stages of something that is going to be massively weaponized in the future. there's no way that facebook or any of us are fully prepared for this. i know they are trying to figure this out. this is going to rass a whole series of -- this is going to raise a whole series of other issues because you could use your best judgment about this piece of news and it turns out that it is completely false in a way that you actually can't judge. >> it is very difficult to figure out what's satire,

nuance, rumor and gossip and what you think isn't a fact today that turns out to be a fact in the future. it is going to be very very difficult. i think we as a society are going to have to get smarter and are going to have to understand that not everything that we see is going to be true or maybe true over a long periods of time. i think that's just reality. >> i thought it very interesting that he said deep fakes is different from traditional misinformation. it's very hard to police because you don't want to censor your users but you don't want the viral spread of fake content either. we're taking a quick commercial break here on bulls & bears. we will continue to monitor what zuckerberg is saying in aspen. meantime, we have a way fair walk-out. employee at the on-line retailer skipping work at their boston headquarters today to protest the company's furniture sales to migrant detention facilities. a live report from boston after this. what?!

i'm here to steal your car because, well, that's my job. what? what?? what?! (laughing) what?? what?! what?! [crash] what?! haha, it happens. and if you've got cut-rate car insurance, paying for this could feel like getting robbed twice. so get allstate... and be better protected from mayhem... like me. ♪

but super poligrip gives him a tight seal. snacking can mean that pieces get stuck under mike's denture. to help block out food particles. so he can enjoy the game. super poligrip.

wayfair employees walking

out of their boston headquarters after their ceo rejected the request to cancel sales to migrant detention facilities. the company executives in a statement indicating their transaction is not part of a political agenda. alexandria ocasio cortez is one congresswoman supporting these employees yesterday by tweeting wayfair workers couldn't stomach that they were making beds to cage children. they asked the company to stop. the ceo said no. tomorrow they're walking out. and this is what solidarity looks like. a reminder that every day people have real power as long as we're brave enough to use it. fox news joins us live from boston. what's the latest there, molly? >> susan, hundreds of people did pour out today. both supporters and employees of wayfair, they packed here into boston's square, a notable place where protests are often held. essentially to protest the selling of these beds to a government contractor that runs a migrant shelter in texas.

now, just a small taste of what we saw today, a lot of signs, some of the words, no profit from prison camps, chanting, participants told us that some 500 plus wayfair employees signed on to a letter to company leaders expressing quote concern and anger about the atrocities being committed at our southern boarders -- boarders citing mistreatment of migrants seeking asylum. here's what one employee told us. >> it is our job to make it as hard as possible to make them operate these camps and we're attempting to throw a wrench into what they are attempting to do. >> the offending order in question was for $200,000 was for bedroom furniture for a facility that could detain thousands of migrant children. the contractor bcfs that put in the order responded quote we believe youth should sleep in beds with mattresses. the twitter handle posted a response from way fair executives who explained as a retailer it is standard to

practice to fulfill orders from all customers. the employee also called in the company to donate the money they have made thus far from sales specifically to a charity that helps migrants with legal services. now, the wayfair has made a donation but to the red cross for $100,000. employees were telling me today that that is not exactly what they had in mind when they were calling for this donation. susan? >> molly, thank you very much what do you make of this white-collar protest as it's being called? >> i don't make anything of it. i think this is insane. they are going to protest the conditions in these facilities by refusing to make beds that would improve the conditions in the facilities. this is how insane our social discourse has become. if they really want to do something, pressure congress to get immigration reform done so that we can solve the crisis at the border. we can solve the humanitarian cries is -- crisis, but this sutter insanity. >> -- but this utter insanity. >> i have the agree with carol.

preventing people from having beds that you demand they had is not solving the problem of them having beds. it is not going to go all away tomorrow. they need the beds. the donation i think was perfectly fine. the company seems to be on board. this is one of these really kind of head scratching exactly what is being accomplished other than the fact it is a beautiful day and people like protesting when the weather is good. >> by the way, what's wrong with the red cross? i mean, they don't like the red cross? who doesn't like the red cross? they are one of the great charity organizations in our country. >> it is too legitimate, steve. it was too legitimate. it would be money that would go somewhere that would help things instead of going in this black hole where you couldn't track it >> very good point. we're going to break. let's talk about running from the law. oregon republican state senators fled the state to avoid voting on a climate bill. it looks like the tactic may have worked. up next we will speak to one of the senators still out of the state. republican tim knox joins us after this. all money managers might seem the same,

but some give their clients cookie cutter portfolios. fisher investments tailors portfolios to your goals and needs. some only call when they have something to sell. fisher calls regularly so you stay informed. and while some advisors are happy to earn commissions whether you do well or not. fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management.

the latest inisn't just a store.ty it's a save more with a new kind of wireless network store. it's a look what your wifi can do now store. a get your questions answered by awesome experts store. it's a now there's one store that connects your life like never before store. the xfinity store is here. and it's simple, easy, awesome.

making a run for the border, 11 republican state senators fled oregon for neighboring states last week in order to avoid voting on a cap and trade bill to combat climate change. now the senate president is saying that that bill is dead, indicating this tactic may have actually delivered the republicans the win. republican state senator is one of the 11 who fled, and he joins us live from spokane, washington, today. great to have you on, senator. because of your absence, over 100 bills are reportedly in danger of failing. is this how government should work, though? >> well, i can tell you this, is that we're going to represent our constituents to the best of our ability, and when our

constituents' voices are ignored and disrespected, we're going to do everything we can to make sure that they have some influence into this process, and this action was a last resort for us. and we worked for months to try to get the kind of concerns addressed that our constituents have. they were not, and so we took this action, and, you know, i just think it is part of government. >> senator, it seems like you are saying that if you are going to lose, that that means it is disrespectful. what about the people -- democracy and votes mean that usually there's somebody on the other side of the vote who does not get their way. that's not disrespectful. that's not disregarding. that means you lost the vote. and your response to that seems to be we will just flee the territory. >> well, i can tell you this, that the oregon republicans want to make sure that we're following our constitutional obligation to represent our

constituents, and in this particular case, the constitution says you have to have 20 senators to do business. that means even though you have won a majority or a super majority, you still need to pay attention to those minority voices. you can't just roll over them. we're not going to stand there and be a quorum so they can pass their progressive liberal agenda. that's not what our constituents want. >> so you refuse to lose basically? >> no, we lose every day when we're in the legislature, and in fact i can tell you that the democrats on some issues have bipartisan and accommodated us and worked with us, on this particular one they didn't. we think it is important enough to bring attention to it. that's what we're doing right now. >> senator, you have to hold firm. this is something the whole country is watching, not just people in oregon. the kind of contempt that the democrats have shown for whole areas of the state, you know, i was looking at some of the data. i mean, the areas that got killed by this insane carbon tax are the rural areas. the farmers of oregon, and yet

the big city of portland is going to impose these obnoxious rules that can put a lot of farmers out of business. isn't that true? >> and it's not just farmers and agriculture, timber. there's a plant represented by a democratic senator, and in fact, there's 2,000 union jobs, blue-collar jobs, family wage jobs that are in jeopardy because of this particular bill. we said we're going to stand and fight with these workers and make sure that they get represented. so we took this action because we believe so strongly that they need to be defended. >> all right. senator, thank you very much. sorry. we're out of time, sorry. scott, apparently we do have time for your question, go ahead >> there you go. if i interrupt enough, i will get a chance. senator, you mentioned real quick this is the last resort, but you guys pulled the same nonsense in may against a democratic bill that was kind of a little bit maybe viewed something zach hinted on maybe antibusiness maybe antirepublican why did you pull this again with respect to this

climate bill? >> well, i didn't participate in the first one, but they did walk out -- >> the republicans did >> -- gross receipts tax. the republicans did walk out on a gross receipts tax. these two big issues working together that will ultimately crush the business community and we want to make sure that at least some of those problems are mitigated through amendments to this legislation. >> all right. ask and you shall receive. scott you got your question in. senator, thank you very much for your time. great to see you >> thank you. >> we are hours away from debate tonight, 2020 candidates making their final preparations ahead of the first democratic debate. will they actually defend the massive price tag for their campaign promises? did you know with vanishing deductible, you can earn $100 off your deductible for every year of safe driving? sing that. ♪ vanishing deductible, you can... ♪ ♪ earn $100... ♪ earn $100 off... ♪ off your deductible. ♪ deductible.

♪ for every year of safe driving. ♪ ♪ for every-- for every-- ♪ ♪ for every year of safe driving. ♪ what are you-- what key are you in? "e." no, no, go to "g." "g" will be too high. not for me. ♪ vanishing deductible. oh, gosh. sweet, sweet. ..

reporter: debate night is here.

the 2020 democratic candidates are taking the debate stage. elizabeth warren is leading the polls among the 10. i guess she has a lot to definite, guys. what do you do if you are elizabeth washen? >> she has a lot to defend but she has a lot to lose. john delaney is one i'm watching closely that could start to emerge from maybe that group of the others who are not biden, sanders and warren. the other candidates can show the american people what they stand on and what they believe in and get the necessary exposure. >> i was thinking about delaney,

too. he's the one democrat i could vote for on that stage because he's fiscally sane. you put elizabeth warren and aoc as the bernie sanders, you talk about a hundred trillion of new spend thing the next 20 years. i want somebody tonight to say that's crazy. that will bankrupt our country. the one who says that is the one i'll support. >> do you defend your lead or do you go out and attack? >> i think she'll be excited and you get free healthcare, you get a car, you get a pony. everybody gets something. that's all that's going to happen. it will be a big pandered

giveawayfest. >> beerks and others, i suppose you have to go in and maybe make a name for yourself. susan: guys, thank you so much. "bulls and bears." liz: democrats ready to rumble in just a few hours. we break down the democrats' push to knock out joe biden on women's issues from flip-flopping to being 1% joe, that middle class joe. the president says he won't live tweet about it, he'll be on a plane. he says the democrats are a boring not exciting group of people. we are going to show you why obama failed as the job training