Tonya Zylka Johnson Loses Debate... Blocks Victor -- Intro

Tonya Zylka initiated a thread making false claims against President Trump and against his supporters. She argued that the supporters did not care about his "racism". They "did not care" about his other faults... Faults that Tonya felt were serious enough that the president should not have even received support.

She went as far as to claim that we were like a cult of personality... Blindly following the leader while ignoring "blatantly obvious facts".

As a Trump supporter, I saw her claims as blatantly false. They were provably false. I jumped in and addressed her arguments point by point. Naturally, she did not like that. She was already unhinged on the thread. She became more unhinged when I responded to her.

It got to the point where she told people to simply "keep scrolling" if they see a post that they did not agree with. The implication was that if they saw her posts, they should just scroll on. Tonya Zylka wanted to be able to openly post, on her wall, her opinions about the president... Without the "inconvenience" of an opposing argument.

Given the nature of these opinions, it was only natural that she was going to get into debates. This, despite the fact that she wanted to be able to voice her opinions without opposition.

During the course of our exchange, she insinuated that I "didn't" have the facts on my side. Then, she resorted to making false claims about me. Even calling me "racist", "arrogant", and "having plenty of time on my hands".

Eventually, she came up with the baloney speech about "growing". Apparently, one of her friends advised her not to "water rocks". Tonya decided that she was going to "grow". The implication was that she was not going to water rocks.

If she were serious about this effort, she would simply not have replied to me. She would have received my rebuttals. She would not have tried to argue beyond that. She would have bowed out and not waste her time arguing with me.

Instead, she chose to block me. When someone claims or hints that "they will not argue anymore", then blocks the person that they are arguing against, something else is going on. It is not done for "growing up" or for "not wanting to argue with somebody".

It's just them wanting to regain control. What are they really saying when they claim that "they are done arguing" and then block the person they are arguing against? What they are really saying is that they are tired of the opposition not letting them have the last word. So, they would take action to "force" the other side to quit arguing.

She took me off block not long after this. I saw her, in another thread, behaving exactly as she did on the thread we debated on. One of the conservatives on that thread noted that she blocked him. This proved my suspicions that she did not grow. Her statement about "growing" was just a cover for a demonstration of narcissism issues, control issues, and anger issues.

Tonya Zylka Johnson Loses Debate... Blocks Victor -- 1

 Tonya Zylka: Could say the same thing about you then! Trump is connected to Epstein 

False. They attempted to connect President Trump to Epstein with regards to the underaged girls. They failed. What they did; however, was prove that Donald Trump partied with hot adult women. 

Tonya Zylka: and you know it to be true also. 

Don't assume what I know to be true. What you're claiming that "I know to be true" is something that I disagree with... That disagreement is based on the facts. The facts indicate that President Trump had no sexual interaction with underaged girls.  

Tonya Zylka: There is no arguing with me anymore I am done with 45 supporters accepting his BS. 

Are you claiming that I'm stupid? Incapable of logical thought? Incapable of gathering the facts? Incapable of detecting a pattern in the facts? 

My support for President Trump has everything to do with what the facts indicate. It has nothing to do with what you claim it to be. You're erroneously assuming that we Trump supporters think like leftists. We don't. 

Neither you, nor those on your side of the argument, proved your anti-Trump claims true. They've been false. I've debunked arguments like yours on my wall, and elsewhere on the internet. 

Tonya Zylka: He has said nothing about his buddy Putin putting bounties on our soldiers lives. 

Commander, Central Command, dismissed that information. He received that information and found that it fell short of the standard required for information to be deemed valid and credible. The civilian involved with briefing President Trump on this matter came to this same conclusion.

I know this. I've dealt with tactical information gathering during my time in the military. That information, claiming that the Russians put bounties on our Soldiers, was nothing but static... Uncollaborated information that didn't reach the standard required to be taken seriously. 

Tonya Zylka: SO STFU!

I've debated against the left for almost 17 years. Not a single one of you based your arguments on the facts. Instead, you guys based your arguments on propaganda and on emotions. Neither qualifies as valid proof. 

As long as false information is put out against President Trump, and against my side of the argument, I will respond with the facts.

Tonya Zylka Johnson Loses Debate... Blocks Victor -- 2

 Tonya Zylka: Just so you know 45 spews hate and lies everyday. 

I've read his tweets, and I have gone through the applicable Trump speech transcripts. Nowhere has the President spewed hate or spread lies. There's no basis in your argument other than your hatred of the man. 

Tonya Zylka: You support him you support his hate. 

The only hate that I'm seeing is what I'm reading from your comments. You've failed to prove that the President is full of hate. My observations of the President, including reading his statements, do not show him as being full of hate. It doesn't show him being hateful. 

I support him because I see him as having the right policies. He is doing the things that he needs to do. 

Tonya Zylka: get off my page I will not tolerated 45 lovers anymore in my life as I cannot tolerate the rights hypocrisy anymore. Bye [Redacted]

Again, you haven't proven your claims. You've only provided your opinion and repeated anti-Trump propaganda. I'm seeing the hatred coming from you. That's the impression I have of your posts... You hate President Trump. You're not the only one that hates President Trump. 

My stance isn't hypocrisy. Just as you haven't proven your claims against President Trump... All you've done was advance accusations that I've debunked elsewhere before... You haven't proven that my side of the argument is hypocritical based on the context you're using it in.

Tonya Zylka: [Redacted] forwards facts from his news. It is so obvious that we have separate news

I forward facts that I obtain based on extensive research. Not just any facts, but facts that fall within a predictable pattern.

Tonya Zylka: Everything having facts about 45's wrong doing have been blocked by his handlers. Taxes, court cases...etc. Just like Hitler

You can't assume that he committed wrong based on documents that you haven't seen. Out of the cases that are available, regarding lawsuits taken against President Trump? I haven't found evidence that President Trump committed wrong. I argued a couple of those on a couple of different threads.

Every time a document became available, regarding President Trump, I saw no incriminating information. I've even gone through the Mueller Report more than once. I didn't see the accusations, levied against President Trump, substantiated.

Tonya Zylka Johnson Loses Debate... Blocks Victor -- 3

 Tonya Zylka: Oh he will have a rebuttle 

That's a given. 

Tonya Zylka: because his side cannot be wrong on anything.

False. Again, I will not engage in a debate against the opposition unless two conditions are simultaneously met:

1. I've done extensive research/study/first-hand experience in the topic and...

2. Those that I rebut have little to no knowledge of the topic that they're arguing.

None of you guys have presented the facts to me as they relate to the argument. Not a single one of you guys was "right" about what you guys were arguing. Every single one of you has been wrong. Every one of you demonstrated little to no knowledge of the topic area that you're arguing against me.

This wasn't just factual on this thread. It had been the case throughout the almost 17 years I've been debating online. Not a single debate opponent, during this time, presented relevant facts to support their argument. Not a single one of them knew what they were talking about. 

I would not be dismantling the opposition's posts with a point by point rebuttal if the opposition's argument was correct. 

Tonya Zylka: So [redacted] I ask you this... the Obama administration had a Pandemic plan, a whole playbook. 

Have you seen that playbook? I have. The meat and potatoes are a fraction of the total number of pages. There are a bunch of rubrics, general history, and common-sense steps. For example, this is from the "playbook":

The U.S. Government will use all powers at its disposal to prevent, slow, or mitigate the spread of emerging infectious disease threat by:

1) Limiting spread of disease:

2) Mitigating the impact of illness, suffering, and death; and

3) Sustaining critical infrastructure and key resources in the United States

President Trump took action in January, getting this set up at the federal level. When he halted travel from China, the Democrats criticized him. 

The book has plenty of rubrics and generalities. I could see why it was put aside. 

Tonya Zylka: What did 45 do...he got rid of the Pandemic team. 

That's a false statement. He made a budget proposal suggesting to gut the number of teams they had. He did this as a negotiating tool. It was a budget proposal. Congress didn't accept that proposal, those teams didn't get gutted. 

There also was a reorganization that transferred their duties to another organization. Meaning, they, or their jobs, were moved, not eliminated. Additionally, Doctor Fauci is the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. 

He has been in that office since 1984. Meaning, he has addressed infectious disease issues since AIDS was the big story among infectious diseases. 

Tonya Zylka: Now 3 million americans have been infected including [redacted] (awaiting [redacted] results). 

I'm sorry, but the existence of the pandemic team alone isn't going to impact whether someone comes down with the virus or not. The pandemic team didn't exist during the Spanish Flu, or during any of the previous pandemics that occurred before that time. 

Movement of people, their habits, etc., is going to impact that. 

Tonya Zylka: I am an essential worker and have followed Fauci's instructions and now because I am forced to go into work because I answer for a COVID hotline and put doctors together 

Following instructions improves your odds, it doesn't make you 100% secure. This is like the military. We could run battle drills until we're doing them in our dreams. That's not going to make us exempt from getting shot or blown up. It improves our survivability odds. 

Tonya Zylka: who are fighting his "HOAX" I may be infected.

President Trump didn't identify the pandemic as a hoax. What he identified as a hoax was what the Democrats were trying to make of this. Don't believe me? Even Snopes disagrees with the claims that President Trump identified the pandemic itself as a "hoax". 

Do you see why I'm rebutting you now? I'm rebutting you with the facts. 

Tonya Zylka: Yet I still only make my hourly wage..No bonus, No extra pay and I lose out on my pay 

We had been gone for nearly 24 hours on a mission. It so happened that on our way to COB Speicher, I had to take a piss. Bad. It was one of those clear pisses, judging by how my bladder was about to explode. 

Then the convoy stopped. Word got passed via radio to the MRAP crew. Then they passed it to us. 

Improvised Explosive Device ahead. We had to wait for EOD to come in to diffuse. Convoy stopped. I had to piss like a motherf*r. But couldn't do anything about it. Nothing to piss in, not even an empty Rip It can or Gatorade bottle. 

But, IED. Many IED's happened to be laced with WMD, which was not supposed to exist. Sarin, mustard, blister agents... Chemical agents... WMD... They could do a serious number on the body. Outside and inside. 

It could've been worse. The gunners could've failed to spot it. The IED could've been a lot more powerful and could have blown up. My seat was on the side that would've gotten blown up had my vehicle been the target. These MRAPS had good survivability. But they were not invincible. The terrorists were looking for ways to defeat every armor/steel that we had. 

I could either be frustrated with a full bladder... Or I could've gone home in a wooden flag-draped coffin. Without me bridging the communication gap between my late wife and her doctors, she could've passed sooner than she actually did. 

For some odd reason, I dealt with the bladder issue and managed not to piss all over myself. 

This came and went... But not my service-connected disability. This kind of disability gets worse. Unlike that mission, or someone's being diagnosed with the coronavirus, this is permanent. It gets gradually worse. I see a lot of pain in the future... For the rest of my life. 

This will not stop me from looking at the facts or overruling emotion and opinion with the facts. It will not stop me from, as God requires, from doing a diligent search of the facts before rendering judgment.

Tonya Zylka Johnson Loses Debate... Blocks Victor -- 4

 Tonya Zylka: Tell me what this administration has done for me? $1200....Well Dale is still waiting for his. 

Economically, he set the conditions in place that allowed the economy to roar on all engines. These same policies made it possible for our economy to survive the hit from the pandemic. These same policies are making it possible for the economy to roar back again. 

Why is this important? Had Hillary won the election, Obama's policies would've remained in place. This scenario would have put us in a worse condition. We'd be in an economic depression, one that would've made the last one look like a cakewalk, a mere recession, in comparison. This would just be a start. The unemployment rate at the beginning of the Great Depression reached 10%. It jumped over 20% as we headed deeper into the Great Depression. They were projecting that for this economy, but it didn't happen. It could've happened, but didn't. 

It doesn't stop there.

Although China dropped the ball with regards to this pandemic, they were quick to leverage it. They would've gotten away with it had the world entered a second great depression. 

China has been involved with altercations with neighboring countries, including India. There was a border clash between those two countries that resulted in death this year. 

The Chinese criticized the Russians for celebrating the anniversary of the founding of one of their cities. Not so fast the Chinese argued, that area used to belong to China. That's ours (China's). Then we have the altercations in the South China sea. 

They perceive the United States and the West as weakened by the pandemic. How much bolder would've they been had the United States descended into an economic depression?

The ramification of the world entering a second great depression involves a global war. This cycle repeats itself throughout history when those gunning for global supremacy see an opportunity. 

Japan and Germany attempted that in the wake of the Great Depression. Great Britain lost her crown of supremacy during World War II. Luckily, it was the United States that emerged as the leading power. Not Germany, not Japan, not even the Soviet Union. 

So yes, you could have a lot more to worry about had President Trump not won the election. Especially if you have family and friends, eligible for military service, and who are liable to be drafted into the military. 

Tonya Zylka: So [Redacted] keep picking apart what I feel for

You started your post by claiming that I was "wrong". You further claimed that this was the reason to why I would have a rebuttal. The fact, as I've stated and demonstrated, is that it's those that I'm rebutting who are wrong... And who can't accept being wrong. 

Tonya Zylka: and say if that helps you justify your racist pick to run this country. 

President Trump isn't racist. I mean, for a "racist" he sure as hell is gaining in support from among the minorities. What percentage of support from African Americans does President Trump have compared to what Romney, McCain, and Bush, had? Those numbers have gone up. The percentage of support among other minority groups have also gone up for President Trump. 

African Americans proudly wearing Trump hats? President Trump is the worst "racist" ever. 

I have not seen any evidence to back your side's claim that President Trump is "racist". Not from the transcripts of President Trump's speech, from his tweeter wall, or even from that investigation that people reference to back their "racist president" claim. None, nothing, nada, with regards to "proof" of racism. 

He isn't racist. It's that simple. What do I find hypocritical, though? People who condemn the Confederate flag due to its racist past, but who support the Democratic Party despite its racist past. (Nope, the parties didn't switch either.)

Tonya Zylka: I will share and state what I know!

You could upgrade what you know by going straight to "first tiered" information. By that, I mean, "the raw data". I look at President Trump's speech transcripts, for example, to counter you guys claim of what he said. Yet, you guys claim that he said one thing, or that he's a racist, when "raw data" (transcripts in this case) indicates otherwise.

Tonya Zylka Johnson Loses Debate... Blocks Victor - 5

 Tonya Zylka: Yep you are deranged for supporting the worst POTUS ever.

How, exactly, are you going to convince him to steer clear away from President Trump... From voting for President Trump... By calling him deranged, and by calling President Trump the "worst " POTUS ever?

The reality is that the worst president, in modern times, was President Obama. His policies resulted in the United States rapidly declining from eminence... Declining politically, militarily, economically, etc.

On top of that, his indecisiveness, and "lead from behind" mentality, actually sowed the seeds for major global war. President Trump reversed that.

Tonya Zylka Johnson Loses Debate... Blocks Victor - 6

 Tonya Zylka: Larry Ferm in my opinion anyone who allows themself to follow

You are erroneously assuming that we think like leftists. We don't. As for our support for President Trump, it's largely because of the facts. He made an argument, during the election campaign of 2016, of what he would do. He has set out to do that. He has accomplished more, in less than four years, then what the last president accomplished in his entire two terms.

President Trump was doing the things that we, conservatives, have complained prior conservatives refused to do... They did not have the backbone. If we are to "abandon President Trump", who would we then support? One of the spineless RINOS? No thanks. Sleepy Creepy Joe? F(BEEP) no. 

I'm looking at what the left is doing in response to our support for President Trump. Does the left honest to God think that by attacking President Trump... And by attacking us... That we are going to have a "change of heart" and to do what these attacking leftists want us to do?

How frequently have you abandoned what you desired to do, something you had the right to do? Because somebody attacked you and insulted you for doing it? In many instances, you more than likely stood your ground with what you decided to do.

Tonya Zylka:  the most unethical, 

No proof, on your part, nor that on other leftists' part, "proving" that the president is "unethical". Let's take a look at the impeachment fiasco. President Trump was falsely accused of withholding funds from Ukraine pending an investigation into the Bidens.

A reading of the call transcripts showed that this was not the case. However, the same people that wanted to impeach President Trump had no issues with a Biden getting paid by a Ukrainian company. Additionally, the same people had no issues with Joe Biden doing what President Trump was falsely accused of doing... threatening the withholding of funds if Ukraine's lead prosecutor is not removed from a case that could result in the son's indictment.

Joe Biden did exactly what President Trump was accused of doing. Yet, the Democrats wanted to impeach President Trump. On the other hand, the Democrats are in position to nominate him as their candidate for president.

Let that sink in. They wanted to remove President Trump based on a false accusation of doing exactly what Joe Biden did. Yet, they expect the American population to vote for Joe Biden as president. This is hypocrisy. That, to me, is unethical. 

Tonya Zylka: racist, 

How many racists, do you know of, would hire minorities? President Trump had minorities in his organization, and he had them in his administration. You have a growing number of minorities banding together to support President Trump. His support, percentage-wise, is going up among the different minority groups over what previous Republicans had.

Worst racist ever! 

However, there were claims of him being a discriminator. I looked at the investigative right up on that incident. It turned out that President Trump was not what they claimed he was. Racism or discrimination did not even show up directly, or indirectly, writers' opinions. Of course, those referencing this incident ignore the fact that President Trump was not in charge. His father was. Simply put, no evidence that President Trump is a racist. Neither was his father nor anybody else working in the organization.

Worst racist ever! 

Tonya Zylka: lying fool 

As with the claims that President Trump is "unethical", or "racist", claims that President Trump is a "liar" are also false. The people trying to claim him of being a liar cherry-pick his statements. However, when you go to his statements and look at them in context, it becomes plainly obvious that President Trump was not lying.

Tonya Zylka: must either be blind to it or a racist themself. 

This statement erroneously assumes that you hold the correct outlook on this. You don't. What you're doing here is attacking the people who support him for refusing to abandon that support.

You are advancing inductive fallacy. You erroneously assume that your opinion of his being "racist" is "fact". You further assume that those who do not agree with you in this matter are also "racist" or "blind".

Tonya Zylka: I am a person who will not tolerate racism anymore. 

So, you tolerated racism before this point?

I never tolerated it. Had I seen valid evidence of President Trump being a racist, I would not be supporting him. The caveat? Valid evidence means fact. I've done my best, based on specific charges of racism on this thread, to do an Internet search to see exactly what they were arguing... Knowing full well what I would find. 

Not once have I come across valid information supporting the assumption that President Trump is racist. None.

Tonya Zylka: I will speak up from now on! My right...

This is what I said before embarking on nearly 17 years of debating with the left online. I was determined to fight back against the left's attempt to gaslight people. Yes, you have the right to speak up about your opinions on things. Nobody was saying otherwise.

From experience... Speaking up about your position on things is going to put you in a position to engage in debates. People will reply to you speaking up. This activity is a double edge sword. Expressing your views in public, in a forum, risks your views blowing up into a full-blown debate. 

Tonya Zylka: you don't like it keep scrolling.

You don't like what I'm saying, yet you don't keep scrolling over what I said. Why should the person that you're speaking to do the same with you? If you could reply to me, based on your disagreement, why can't others reply to you based on their disagreement with you?

You have a right to speak up about your opinions. Others have a right to speak up about theirs. Even if their opinion disagrees with yours. 

Just look at the responses to my argument. Obviously, they don't like what I argue. Do they keep scrolling? Nope. They respond, and you liked the response. This indicates that similar courtesies should be extended to those who respond to you as expect for your side of the argument.

Tonya Zylka Johnson Loses Debate... Blocks Victor -- 7

 Tonya Zylka: TDS was a term given to the sheep following 45. Get it right Larry.

Wrong. Trump Derangement Syndrome described the mindless drones bitching, whining, moaning, and groaning about President Trump being president. The term was actually in use before President Trump... Bush Derangement Syndrome was used to describe the people who bitched, whined, moaned, and groaned about a Bush Presidency. 

Trump Derangement Syndrome is a nicer term to what I actually use... Useful Idiot. 

Tonya Zylka Johnson Loses Debate... Blocks Victor -- 8

 Tonya Zylka: Yesterday he tweeted that the only black NASCAR driver needs to apologize because the noose what a hoax.

What President Trump actually said:

Has @BubbaWallace apologized to all of those great NASCAR drivers & officials who came to his aid, stood by his side, & were willing to sacrifice everything for him, only to find out that the whole thing was just another HOAX? That & Flag decision has caused lowest ratings EVER" -- President Donald Trump

Why even mention, "the only black NASCAR" driver in your post? The President didn't mention race, he mentioned action... Like what Dr. Martin Luther King wanted us to do. Yet, you brought race into this, as if race is supposed to be a get-out-being-held-accountable card... Against what Dr. Martin Luther King wanted us to do?

The fact of the matter is that this was a hoax. The "noose" in question had always been there and it was a door handle. All the doors had similar door handles. It did not matter what skin color the driver was. Everyone had a door handle that could easily be mistaken as "a noose".

So yes, the apology is needed. 

Tonya Zylka:  If something would have happened to a white driver NOTHING would have been said by him. 

Based on what? Remember, we had a story of a minority driver in a predominantly white sport. He had the nation's approval and appreciation for making inroads based on skill set and personality. He was an example that we could use when people try to blame their skin color for their lack of success.

However, he decided to make a big deal out of something that was not even remotely close to a racial attack against him. He garnered sympathy and support. Then, it turned out that he was full of baloney.

CNN upped the notch with regards to the propaganda pedaling. President Trump requested an apology from them. They are predominately white. So no, race has no bearing on what President Trump does. Actions do.

Tonya Zylka: He stood infront of Mt Rushmore and talked about how the protesters are thugs who want to ruin this country. No sir they are good black people who have had enough. 

What he actually said: 

"1776 represented the culmination of thousands of years of Western civilization and the triumph of not only spirit, but of wisdom, philosophy, and reason. And yet, as we meet here tonight, there is a growing danger that threatens every blessing our ancestors fought so hard for, struggled, they bled to secure. Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values, and indoctrinate our children. Angry mobs are trying to tear down statues of our founders, deface our most sacred memorials, and unleash a wave of violent crime in our cities. Many of these people have no idea why they're doing this, but some know what they are doing. They think the American people are weak and soft and submissive, but no, the American people are strong and proud and they will not allow our country and all of its values, history, and culture to be taken from them." -- President Trump

This is dead center mass. Anybody who is a fanatic in history would understand precisely what this is saying. Notice that President Trump mentions "angry mobs". He doesn't talk about "Blacks" or "all protesters". He simply says, "angry mobs".

Were there angry mobs among the protestors? YES [   ] NO [   ]

Copy and paste this question, along with the yes/no options for your reply. Place an "X" in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional answers to this specific question. 

Are you going to tell me that these "angry mobs" are all Black? These angry mobs are predominantly leftists who span all demographics. They've even toppled statues in my metropolitan area. But, one of the statues didn't go down "without a fight". I sometimes chuckle when I think of the statute that "fought" back. It fell right on top of one of those working with those who were toppling the statute.

He didn't want to get injured by the statute? He should not have been there in the first place. His wife did not go to this event when she had the opportunity. She simply knew that something like this would happen. 

Were we not raised with the concept that people who do stupid things win stupid prizes? Apparently, the guy who had to be rushed to the hospital was married to a woman who knew this concept. Otherwise, she would have been out there. Additionally, those individuals were breaking the law.

Considering that there is a disconnect between what President Trump said, and what you are claiming he said in front of Mount Rushmore... You can get an appreciation as to why folks like me, and those on my side of the argument, reject leftists' arguments... And continue to stand by our arguments. 

What is it called when someone says that someone else said something... But the actual transcripts of what was said does not match what was claimed? The answer... What you claimed President Trump is doing.

Tonya Zylka: Now Get off my page and suck it up....

Understand that if you make a political stance on your wall, you're going to get rebuttals. You are going to have people that agree with you, and you will have people that will debate you.

This is the nature of the beast. I've been doing this for almost 17 years. I expect any political statement I make on my wall, or anywhere else on the Internet, to potentially result in a full-blown argument.

You declared that you were going to speak up and that you would not remain silent. That is commendable. However, such action increases the debates that you will find yourself in. I know this from experience. If you are going to speak up about your position, politically, expect that people will debate you.

Yes, this is your page. Everybody else is going to see what you post on your page. Hence, it is going to show up on their pages. One of the things that I am getting, from reading this statement, is that you're telling them that you're going to speak up about your political views. However, you're not expecting them to bring the debate to you if they disagree with you. 

Their disagreement with you is not them trying to tell you to be quiet. It is not them hating you either. It's them speaking up and refusing to be silent. Having made that declaration yourself, you should be supportive of them acting on doing the same thing.

Tonya Zylka: the POTUS you love is a cancer to everything american.!

No, he is not a cancer to everything American. The "progressive" mindset, and what they want for America, is cancer to things American. What the Democrats want to force down our throat is a cancer. The implementation of Democrat policies amounts to "poison" that slowly kills a nation.

The reality is that President Trump, and his policy, is a "cancer" to what the Democrats want. The America that the Democrats envision is not the America that the founding fathers set into motion. It's not the America that those, who understand the American concept, want.

Tonya Zylka Johnson Loses Debate... Blocks Victor -- 9

 

Tonya Zylka: [Redacted] blah blah blah [GTFO meme]

Whenever I get opposition, on any one of the threads on my wall, I engage them in a debate. On those threads, just like on this thread, the facts are on my side. This simple fact is all the motivation I needed to keep destroying the oppositions' responses. I do so with a fact-based, reasoned, logical argument.

If you're demanding that I leave the thread, that speaks volumes about your lack of confidence in your argument.

Tonya Zylka Johnson Loses Debate... Blocks Victor -- 10

Tonya Zylka posted the original meme, without red wording. I modified the meme, without changing the content, in order to add my own comments debunking her meme. My comments are in red. Even some of the teen contestants doubted that this happened. 

The claims that President Trump, then owner of the beauty pageant franchise, walked into a teen locker is BS.

However, what is true is that Donald Trump did walk into the locker room with adult women contestants. They were naked. President Trump bragged about it in 2005. Former models stepped forward in October 2016, or shortly before that, to talk about the event.

So, what does Buzzfeed do? Set up a Facebook account only for the 1997 team pageant contestants. Result? False claims that President Trump did the same thing with the teenage contestants.

What was going on in October 2016? Presidential campaigns maybe? Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, the propagandist media were trying to set up an October surprise against the Trump campaign?

It is a common tactic, on the Democrat playbook, to roll out frivolous charges against Republicans... A favorite charge involves rape or unwanted sexual advances. These claims all of a sudden "disappear" or "go away" after the election.

The claim that Donald Trump walked through a teen locker has less validity than the flat earth conspiracy theory. Even one of the fact-checker sites did not want to assign it a "true" or "false" designation.

According to the BuzzFeed article story on this alleged incident, Donald Trump did not make any sexual remarks and he did not "make contact" with any of the contestants. This story came up in October 2016, after the 2005 tape surfaced. 

Additional information could be found on Politifact, The Daily Wire, and Buzzfeed.

Tonya Zylka Johnson Loses Debate... Blocks Victor -- 11

 

Tonya Zylka: The solution [redacted] is to just keep scrolling and not comment at all. 

Well then, what were you waiting for? You had every opportunity to scroll past my comments and not comment at all. Dale had the ability to do the same thing. I see your solution as an abomination. 

I will not scroll past a rebuttal to my post without providing a counter rebuttal. You want me to scroll by, but I want to respond. Which one of us am I going to listen to? 

To simplify this, let "X" by the response to me, and let "Y" be my counter-response. What has been happening is this: "If 'X', then 'Y'". This is something you even acknowledged when you told Dale that I would have a rebuttal, 

Your side of the argument advances "X". Guess what? I counter with "Y". You can't demand that "Y" not be forwarded while forwarding "X". 

You have to look at what you have control over and at what you don't have control over. You don't have control over what I do. However, you definitely have control over what you do. Using what you have control over, removing "X" would prevent "Y". 

Advancing "X", but demanding that "Y" not counter "X" indicates serious control, anger, and narcissism issues. You would be doing the same thing I'm doing had the facts been on your side. You wouldn't demand that I simply "scroll" on without replying. You'd gladly debate the argument.

Tonya Zylka: Who in this world made you the know it all of everything? 

Who in this world assigned you control over me? 

Where, in any of my posts, did I claim to be a know it all? Again, I don't engage in debates unless it's clear that I have extensive knowledge of what is being debated... Compared to those that I'm arguing against. 

Tonya Zylka: You are just arrogant and full of yourself. [SELF-PROJECTION]

"Arrogant" and "full of yourself" is demonstrated with this statement: "I will speak up from now on! My right... you don't like it keep scrolling. " -- Tonya Zylka

Arrogance is expecting to be able to post your argument without receiving rebuttals. It becomes narcissism when you demand that people scroll past your comment or a comment that you support, without providing a rebuttal. You demonstrate being full of yourself when you dismiss disagreement as "racism"... Or provide some other label instead of acknowledging where you have been proven wrong. 

Here's the reality. In every instance when the opposition accused me of being "arrogant", the one accusing me of such was arrogant. In fact, in every instance when the opposition assigned a negative label to me, they were projecting their own traits onto me. 

Do you want to see who you are? Just read what you are saying about me and about others on my side of the argument. That is what I am seeing in you.

During this exchange, both Dale and you exposed your apparent psychological profiles to me. This occurred in every instance I've debated against someone. During the nearly 17 years I've been debating against the left? I've discovered that the opposition fits nicely within a specific profile. 

Your actions indicate someone with narcissism, with anger issues, with stress issues, as well as with control issues. You tell me, and others, to "just scroll past comments". You don't have control over what we do. Yet, you're demanding that we do something that would result in our not replying to you. You expect to express your views yet refuse to accept what that action brings about... Debate. 

The fact that I see a similar apparent psychological profile in Dale does not bode well for either one of you in the long run.

Tonya Zylka Johnson Loses Debate... Blocks Victor -- 12

 Tonya Zylka: [Redacted] just stop, your long "rebuttles" 

First, the lengths of my rebuttals hinge heavily on the length of the posts that I am rebutting. The longer the posts that I am rebutting, the longer my rebuttal. The shorter the posts that I am rebutting, the shorter my rebuttals. The more BS there is, in the post that I am rebutting, the longer my rebuttals. See BS asymmetry.

There is a clear cut "cause and effect" going on here. Do you want me to reduce my post length? Then it behooves your side of the argument to reduce your post lengths. By extension, your side of the argument needs to reduce or eliminate the BS in their responses. The less BS in their argument, the less I would need to say as I would not have as much to debunk.

Second, you have problems with my "long" rebuttals, but don't have issues with Dale's long rebuttals? None of the rebuttals that I have provided in this thread compare to how long a rebuttal I posted in the past. The longest rebuttals were over 75 MS Word pages long. The posts that I made here do not compare.

Tonya Zylka: like you are some sort of law student are just making you look foolish. 

This statement shows that you are flirting with cognitive dissonance.

No, my style and my post do not make me look foolish. They make you, and the others that I've debunked, look foolish. I'm taking that by saying, "law student", you are addressing what others describe as a fact-based, reasoned, logical argument. This includes the yes/no questions that I ask.

Those questions encapsulate much of what we are arguing. You know, Dale knows, and I know that the simple, straightforward, common-sense answer to those questions obliterates the argument that you and Dale advance. You guys cannot answer those questions, with just a yes or no, without destroying your own arguments.

The fact that you guys avoid answering them, per the parameters that I set, speaks volumes. It demonstrates that you guys don't have confidence in your own arguments. All of a sudden, you guys look foolish. That's what is going on.

Tonya Zylka: STOP 

I would if the opposition does not give me anything to debunk. However, as long as they give me something to debunk, I will continue to dismantle their arguments. I enjoy doing this. 

Tonya Zylka: I will be blocking you in the future 

You see, this is the difference between you and me. If you had the facts on your side, you would not be threatening me with blocking. Why? You would gladly advance a fact-based argument. I don't resort to demanding the opposition to stop responding on my threads as my sole response.

In fact, when I had individuals argue with me on a thread on my wall, I engaged them in a debate. I don't make demands on them to leave my wall simply because they are arguing with me. 

I have the facts on my side. I take pleasure in destroying their arguments on my wall. No need to threaten them with blocking or unfriending.

The fact that you are threatening me, for continuing to argue, indicates that you have a weak argument. It is something that the losing side in the argument would do. It is a way for them to regain control in a situation they feel they have lost control of. They would not feel that way if they were winning.

Tonya Zylka: you are NOT as smart as your copy and paste "facts"

You're flirting with cognitive dissonance again.

Your intellect is telling you that I have a valid argument. It is also telling you that fact, reason, and logic are on my side. And, the yes/no questions that I've asked you guys on this thread... To copy and paste with just a yes/no response... Definitely make you guys see the validity in my arguments.

However, your ego overrules your intellect. The issues with control and anger combine to drive you guys to continue to engage in debate.

You guys think that by not answering my questions per the parameters that I set, that you somehow have a valid reason to continue the argument. A simple "yes" or "no" response would be you guys destroying the respective arguments that you guys are making. 

However, not answering my questions per the parameters that I set speaks volumes. Guaranteed, if the answer to those questions helped your arguments, you guys would be on it like a hungry man on food at a buffet. But, you guys... As with other leftists when faced with similar questions... Avoided those questions. 

That tells me that intellectually, you guys know that your arguments are invalid. However, you guys' egos override your intellect. It causes you guys to generate the responses that I'm now addressing. 

If I were "not as smart" as the copy and paste facts, you would have no need to threaten to block me. You would continue to argue with me to make a point about my side of the argument.

Tonya Zylka Johnson Loses Debate... Blocks Victor -- 13

 

Tonya Zilka: [redacted] you picking apart my posts and comments with your cherry picking reality shows you have way to much time on your hands. [SELF TRAIT PROJECTION]

Wrong on two counts. 

First, I'm not cherry-picking reality. I addressed you with a near point by point rebuttal. The points that I made were relevant to what you said. You're the one that is cherry-picking reality. You accuse President Trump of "lying", or of being "racist". You're doing so based on cherry-picked data. 

People make false claims about President Trump's "lying". They make false claims about him being a "racist". In both instances, I find that the raw data doesn't support those conclusions. 

For example, someone says, "President Trump called the Coronavirus a hoax". A check of what he actually said tells a completely different story. One would have to cherry-pick reality in order to claim that the President dismissed the coronavirus as a hoax. The raw data indicates that President Trump referred to the Democrats' actions related to the coronavirus as a hoax. The raw data indicates that President Trump didn't dismiss the coronavirus as a hoax. 

The documents, that your side of the argument referenced when they initially accused him of being racist, don't support that opinion. Again, one would have to cherry-pick the circumstances surrounding that document in order to claim that President Trump is a "racist". 

As a minority, a person's racist stance would have an impact on my views on them. I don't take this lightly. I see no valid evidence supporting the false claims that President Trump is "racist". He isn't.

Second, no, I don't have plenty of time on my hands. I access the Internet via PC or laptop. (I don't carry my cellphone with me either). I generate these replies on Microsoft Word before posting them. Additionally, I use Dragon NaturallySpeaking speech to text software to dictate my responses. My keyboarding abilities are such that people have jokingly told me that "there is a speed limit on keyboards." If you heard me while I was keyboarding, it'd sound like popcorn popping super rapidly. 

It doesn't take long for me to generate my responses. 

Third, I've been debating against the arguments you and others have advanced here for years. Both the research and responses are quick to come by. Quick... As the opposition, over the past 16+ years, have argued some of the exact same points. Replace Trump with Bush, and you see the exact same mentality and argument from the opposition. 

Before there was "Trump Derangement Syndrome", there was "Bush Derangement Syndrome." I've turned these debates into an art and a science. One benefit to this is that responses come quick. 

Fourth, unlike most here, I'm not a constant presence on Facebook. In fact, Dale sent me a PM mentioning that I had "been quiet". If I had plenty of time on my hands, I wouldn't be gone from Facebook for weeks at a time. 

On a side note, I don't think that he sees me as being quiet now. 

Raw data... The timestamps of each of my posts across days, weeks, and months would show that I don't have plenty of time on my hands. 

Don't mistake my efficiency, and effectiveness, with conducting these debates as my "cherry-picking" reality... Or as my "having plenty of time on my hands". To do so is akin to bearing false witness against me... Just like how many here are bearing false witness against the President.

Tonya Zylka Johnson Loses Debate... Blocks Victor -- 14

 Tonya Zylka: [redacted] and we are not fooled by your rightist media's narrative,which you are so in awe of.

I go straight to the information source to get my information. You, going by leftist propaganda, make false claims about what President Trump said. My response? I went directly to the information source... The text of the speech where he allegedly said the things that you said he said.

Result? It turned out that he did not say what you, and the leftist media, implied he said. The propagandist media take President Trump out of context. They cherry-pick information related to the president and push a leftist narrative.

Conservative new sources, like One American Network, exercise journalistic integrity... They do what journalists used to be required to do. They present the facts and they let the audience decide for themselves what to make of the facts. Fox News was big on this before. Unfortunately, they are starting to drift away from that.

It's no accident that conservative new sources dominate their peers in the same category. The same with talk shows or talk radio. The leftist/propagandist media is shoving too many whoppers down people's throats. Result? The news audience is hungry for the facts. This works in conservative media's favor.

What I am at awe of is the actual fact. The left in this country may drool over the Paris Climate Accord... Thinking that maybe it would resolve or help resolve "runaway global warming". I, on the other hand, went straight to the text of the treaty. I went through it.

My perspective on that treaty is based on what I read from that very treaty. The left's perspective on it is based on what the propagandist media said about it. By saying that you are "not fooled" by my information sources... Which includes reading the actual documents and actual speech transcripts... You're declaring that you would much rather believe what you want to believe vice believing in reality.

Tonya Zylka Johnson Loses Debate... Blocks Victor -- 15

 

The meme that supposedly made me a "racist".

Tonya Zylka: This meme really shows just how racist you are. 

There is nothing racist in that meme. In fact, as somebody that pushes for people to wear facemasks, you should actually be happy for that meme. If I had a facemask that said, "Still Voting Trump", I'd make bloody sure I had it before leaving the door. 

Tonya Zylka:  YOU SIR are a first class ASS! 

ROTFLMFAO! I'm actually chuckling and laughing when reading your replies. This is an impact indicator showing that you know, deep down inside, that I am destroying your argument. You are pulling straws and finding excuses to label something I say as "racist". It is a way for you to "regain control". You wouldn't be doing that if you subconsciously saw yourself as winning.

I'm still voting for President Trump and against every Democrat on the ballot this November. As far left that the Democratic Party has gone, I simply see "Democratic" as a code word for "socialist/communist".

Tonya Zylka: [redacted] blah blah balh blah.......

Yes, utilize the kindergarten recess playground tactic that the losing kid utilizes when he/she can't engage in argument. I could envision it now. You're doing the equivalent of putting your hands to your ears and saying, "AAAAAAAAH, I can't hear you, AAAAAAAAAAHHHHH". 

Tonya Zylka Johnson Loses Debate... Blocks Victor -- 16

Tonya Zylka: [redacted] you picking apart my posts and comments with your cherry picking reality shows you have way to much time on your hands. [REPEAT POINT]

False. Again, what I said the last time you accused me of having "plenty of time on my hands": 

"Fourth, unlike most here, I'm not a constant presence on Facebook. In fact, Dale sent me a PM mentioning that I had "been quiet". If I had plenty of time on my hands, I wouldn't be gone from Facebook for weeks at a time. 

"On a side note, I don't think that he sees me as being quiet now. 

"Raw data... The timestamps of each of my posts across days, weeks, and months would show that I don't have plenty of time on my hands. 

"Don't mistake my efficiency, and effectiveness, with conducting these debates as my 'cherry-picking' reality or as my 'having plenty of time on my hands'. To do so is akin to bearing false witness against me... Just like how many here are bearing false witness against the President." -- [Redacted]

I'm using Dragon NaturallySpeaking version 15 to generate my replies. I speak, and words show up on Microsoft Word. I get much more done, writing-wise, via dictation than I do via keyboarding.

Tonya Zylka Johnson Loses Debate... Blocks Victor -- 17

 

Tonya Zylka: [redacted] I continue to allow you to post to prove to the rest of the world that you took all day picking apart every part of this conversation to spin it to your point of view.. GET A LIFE YOU HAVE WAY TO MUCH TIME ON YOUR HANDS.

First, I posted on your thread from July 8, 2020, through July 10, 2020. How, pray tell, could I have done all of that on the 10th? Prior to you saying that I had already posted for three days. 

Second, no, it did not take me all day to generate my posts. It only took me a small fraction of the day. As I told Dale Johnson, I use Dragon NaturallySpeaking, speech to text dictation software, to generate my posts.

I get volumes done, "writing-wise", over what I would do via rapid keyboarding. I do this in a quicker amount of time.

All I have to do is speak and the words show up on Microsoft Word. Unfortunately, I would be in pain, in the hand area, if I attempted to type continuously for an hour. I would not even make it to an hour. Keyboarding/typing would end up no longer being the option for the rest of the day if I tried to type an hour.

My hands would be on "pain fire" for a good chunk of the day if I tried keyboarding for even an hour. As usual, you are advancing an erroneous assumption.

Third, this is not spin. I am taking your arguments, as well as that of those on your side of the argument. Then, I provide you guys with a point by point rebuttal. A common trend, throughout my rebuttals, is that "first tiered" information does not support you guys' arguments.

It's not spin when I point out, for example, the contradictions between what you claim President Trump said and what the transcripts of his speech actually say. 

Fourth, you're also wrong with regard to how much time I have on my hands. I don't. See the second statement regarding using speech to text software to generate my posts. A part of that reason is that I have limited time.

If you disagree with what I just said, with regards to what applies to me, understand that I have a first-hand observation of what I am doing. You don't. Unless you, or Dale, are in my vicinity, watching me in action, neither of you guys are qualified to tell me whether I have plenty of time on my hands or not.

The conclusion, that I have "plenty of time on my hands", to explain away the fact that you guys are getting destroyed on this thread? It's something that I would expect to experience in high school from high school students. Not from individuals who are in their late 40s.

Again, I've been debating your points, as well as Dale's points, repeatedly over the past few years. Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, responding would be quick? After all, I provided the same counter rebuttals to others who advanced the same or similar arguments as you. 

And, I'm doing this using speech to text dictation software. Not through keyboarding. Even if I did use keyboarding, I would still generate my replies faster than most people would via keyboarding.

The reality is that I don't have plenty of time on my hands. If I did, the timestamps of my posts on Facebook, hour by hour, day by day, week by week, month by month, etc., would show more frequent posts. They don't.

If you were to plot out my posting times on Facebook over the past few years, you would find that I post less than most people do. My posting memes have actually inflated the number of times I posted on Facebook.

Tonya Zylka: [redacted] Callie is right why spend my time watering rocks. I choose to grow!

If you choose to grow, the first thing that you would do is to simply let go. Let go of the things that you have no control over. For example, you cannot control what I do. You cannot control what others, who are on my side of the argument, do.

You would not request that people simply scroll right by posts that they do not agree with. You would not be expecting people to simply just read your posts and not rebut you... Or see your posts and scroll past if they disagree with it.

We are going to do what we intend to do. We control what we do. You control what you do. The best way to affect our actions is by controlling your actions. I explained that above with the rebuttal bringing about the counter rebuttal. You can't provide a rebuttal and not expect a counter rebuttal. Don't want the counter rebuttal (what you have no control over)? Don't provide the rebuttal (what you have control over). 

The second thing that you would have to do, to prove that you choose to grow? Don't make baseless assumptions about others simply because you disagree with them or simply because you want to believe what you are saying about them.

Claiming that I am a racist, an "ass", have plenty of time on my hands, etc., is you making baseless assumptions about me. Claiming that the President lies when the transcripts of his speeches contradict that claim is a baseless assumption on him. Assumptions of that nature are something that I'd expect to be the recipient of in high school. Not in the adult world. 

There are other things that you could do, to prove that you choose to grow. However, the above two pointers are a starter. 

The fact that you chose to block me does not indicate that you choose to grow. In fact, you missed the point. What is the point of watering something? The implication is that you are watering specific plants, and the grass, to get something that you want in the long run.

Watering rocks is a waste of time. Someone insinuating to you that you should not be "watering rocks" is akin to you telling people to just "scroll on" instead of replying. Shutting people out, blocking them, because they disagree with you is not growth. It's juvenile.

It shows that you know, deep down inside, that I destroyed you in the debate. It brought you to the point to where you saw yourself as losing control. In order to regain that control, you put me on block. This is a clear indication that I won. Your so-called "choosing to grow" is nothing but control, narcissism, anger, stress issues, disguised as "declared self-improvement".

However, you denied yourself growth by removing dissent. Now, you're not going to learn how to deal with people disagreeing with you. You're not going to learn how to "let go". You're not taking the other steps that you need to take to grow.  All you did was "regain control" of the situation that you lost control in.

Keddrick Corday Thompson Requests IRR Memorandum Draft -- Intro

IRR Shoulder Sleeve Insignia/IRR Unit Patch for OCP uniform.  (shopmyexchange.com)

Keddrick Corday Thompson contacted me. He wanted me to provide him with a draft of an IRR memorandum. At issue?

His unit was set to activate, mobilize, and then deploy to Texas. He felt that such a deployment was going to upset his "work-life" balance. This disruption was going to negatively impact his responsibilities to his family, service to his community, income from his employment/contracts, etc.

So, he wanted to transfer to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR). He felt that such a transfer would de-conflict things in his favor.

So, I asked him a series of questions to get more details. The following posts illustrate a key repeating theme when Soldiers request to go into the IRR. Although the Soldiers making this request believe that they have a powerful case to make, the Army may think otherwise.

Keddrick Corday Thompson needed to provide the Army with a compelling reason to approve his IRR request. Based on my questioning, and on his response, I saw that he was not going to have a strong case. I presented to him what the Army would think and consider. Thompson found an explanation as to why the Army's solutions "would not work". However, his explanations were weak and I informed him of what his approval chances were.

The following exchange is something that Soldiers, considering an IRR packet, should seriously consider. The advice that I gave Keddrick Thompson, regarding what his pocket would need to be stronger, is advice that soldiers should consider when submitting a packet.

Keddrick Corday Thompson's comments are as he wrote them. The interaction is listed in order.

Individual Ready Reserve Distinctive Unit Insignia. (militaryclothing.com)

Keddrick Corday Thompson Requests IRR Memorandum Draft -- Part 1

Originally posted by Keddrick Corday Thompson:
Need your writing services for a request to IRR and a fundraising pitch 

Could you give me details on why you want to transfer to the IRR? Thanks.

Originally posted by Keddrick Corday Thompson:
Yes. My unit is mobilizing to [redacted] and I am a single Father with strict obligations to my Son and his well-being and movement. In addition, I have contract obligations with a steady work/life balance that affords me to be able to take care of my Son, my family and maintain upkeep of progress.
This mobilization will damper my Salary and put me in a tense financial situation and position physically with my Son. 

How long is this deployment for? Have you brought this up with your unit, and what have they done to try to help your situation? Have you brought this up with those you contracted with? You'll need their statements as attachments to your IRR transfer request memorandum.

In order to get an IRR transfer, you'll have to prove, through valid statements, that mobilization would aggravate your situation. This includes statements by professionals and by personnel in your unit privy to your situation.

Your unit will ask you some questions. What arrangements have you made for your son in order for you to attend drill, annual training, etc.? They're expecting you to have those arrangements in place when your unit deploys for Fort Hood. If you've managed to attend drill and annual training, they're going to expect you to go with them to Fort Hood.

Contractual obligations? You need to bring this up to your chain of command. Let them decide if you don't warrant mobilization orders. Depending on what your unit knows about your circumstances, they could assign you to rear detachment. They could make other arrangements, depending on your unit's policy.

Also, you may have to notify those, that you have contractual obligations with, of your pending deployment.

In order to convince the chain, via memo and IRR packet, to transfer you to the IRR, you have to provide supporting documentation. The Army is going to say, "Well, you could do this" or "Well, you could do that". You have to validly prove that these other options are not on the table. You also have to prove that losing these contracts would prove irrevocably damaging.

More importantly, you have to prove that you went to your unit. You have to prove that your unit was unable to help you with your situation. Statements from Soldiers in your chain, in a position to help you, would be needed.

I recommend reviewing AR 140-10, Paragraph 4-9. Look at the options that apply to you. You'll find details on what you need to support your transfer request.

Keddrick Corday Thompson Requests IRR Memorandum Draft -- Part 2

Originally posted by Keddrick Corday Thompson:
Yes. I have went to the BC, the CSM, Company Commander, 1SG, my NCOIC, My OIC,
I wrote a detailed description and memo to the command team details of what I can do to provide great rear detachment. But they are not having a rear d. I have pushed this since February 2020. A lot of other NCOs have submitted transfers as well most approved. However, I promoted in and not trying to lose my rank. So,
On weekends I have drill his Mom has him but she is not able to frontload all responsibilities for a year and it will be extremely difficult juggling my son school, new grade, sports, day to day life. She only makes but so much but also need grave assistance with parenting as we continue parent very well and have a great balance
My contract lead can detail a letter of how urgent I am needed and my essential work and akillset to accommodate our customers and contrac. Along with my government lead and coworkers
My NCOIC can write a letter as well along with some unit counterparts
I have tried to push a rear d and how beneficial it would be and I volunteered to lead it. This would still allow me to maintain my salary and take care of important details of life with my Son, my family and the communities I serve 

Are these transfers to another TPU unit, or to the IRR? By IRR, I'm talking about non 6 x 2 Soldiers.

The part of your transferring in and not losing rank. This is one of the things that the Army is going to look at. When this gets to your brigade, they're going to look at all the options that you could take to remain in a TPU status vice going IRR. The brigade career counselors are going to look at it, and so is brigade legal.

Is it crucial that you keep your contracts, work-life balance, and ability to provide for your son and family? Then the Army is going to see that a transfer to another TPU is the applicable solution. You'll have an easier time to request a transfer to another TPU unit.

The Army is going to see this as an effort to avoid losing rank... If not losing your rank was an option, you would transfer to another TPU unit. This is based on what you told me.

The Army is going to see that you're looking for the convenient (to you) option rather than the practical option... Transferring to another TPU, losing rank, and still maintaining your family and nonmilitary obligation while completing your military contract.

Before I transferred to the Retired Reserve, TPU to TPU transfers had priority. Transfers to the IRR, unless they were requested as a result of a 6 x 2 obligation, took a long time to process. Many IRR packets faced disapproval. This may still be the case now.

You would receive mobilization orders if the Army has not decided on your transfer by the time your unit receives its orders. You would subsequently mobilize. Likewise, until you receive your orders to the IRR, you still have to drill with your unit until the IRR transfer date on your orders.

Your argument trying to stand up a rear detachment? This implies that you're willing to be on active orders but on a rear detachment capacity. This would work against your argument about being needed by your contract lead if you're going to be gone for a full workday.

I'm hoping that my commentary is not causing you inconvenience. As retention NCO, I was a part of a team. This team submitted portions of a packet in a way that increased the packet's chances of approval.

If most of the transfer requests being approved are TPU to TPU, and this is an option available to you, this would be your best bet.

Keddrick Corday Thompson Requests IRR Memorandum Draft -- Part 3

Originally posted by Keddrick Corday Thompson:
Yes. Im aware
Not a full day to day but in a stanbdby capacity for rear
However uou think would be best
But I azked about TPU and I would more than likely lose my rank which I worked to hard to attain and lose
So IRR it is. However, I am willing and told them I could move to a unit within the Brigade that's not mobilizing 

With regards to not losing rank, and with your request to go into the IRR instead of TPU? That's going to work against your IRR request.

Originally posted by Keddrick Corday Thompson:
That I'd still be under the overall command and could transfer back in when return
Ok. So take it out 

You have to submit a packet to transfer from one unit to another, and then another packet to transfer back. The commanding officers are going to have to be willing to agree to the "short stay" on your part.

Originally posted by Keddrick Corday Thompson:
Yes aware 

The quickest way for you to get your transfer is to transfer to another TPU. Then, the arguments that you advanced would be applicable and would not work against you.

Originally posted by Keddrick Corday Thompson:
I just need it written up in great detail and assistance with the packet in full completion. The letters, documents I can handle
But I just don't want to transfer to another TPU and I lose my rank 

Based on what you've said above, I don't have the ammunition needed to generate a memo requesting a transfer into the IRR. One of the themes that would need to be addressed is why the IRR would be better than the TPU. Not wanting a rank reduction is not a cogent personal reason for transferring to the IRR. What I mentioned above will work against such approval.

NOTE: Later on, he mentions an obligation to remain at his unit for 12 months. This changed the parameters. He would've lost rank had he transferred into the IRR, Standby Reserve, or another TPU. His keeping his rank was predicated on his remaining with his unit at least 12 months. This period ends in February 2021. 

Keddrick Corday Thompson Requests IRR Memorandum Draft -- Part 4

Originally posted by Keddrick Corday Thompson: 
Ok
So what else. Its a hardship transfer
Financial and contract management hardship
That should work right...
This mob will not cover my expenses or the welfare of my Son and family
Plus. The separation at this time-frame will be damaging to his personality, well-being and mindset
The IRR would allow me to have flexibility with my new urgent contract obligations and better my work life balance with my Son and family
Also, give time to recover my health and increase rest and balance 

If you want to transfer to another TPU unit, you should be able to get approved based on what you told me above. The difference between your current rank and your last one would be a small price to pay. You'd maintain your civilian pay and work-life balance. 

Additionally, when you're in the IRR, you want those years to count towards retirement. You won't be able to do correspondence courses to get points. You still need to accrue at least 50 retirement points each year.

The availability of a TPU to TPU transfer will work against your request to go into the IRR. You'd be able to complete your TPU contract. You'd still meet your work-life balance and continue earning your civilian pay.

The fact that you kept drilling with your current unit supports the practicality of transferring to another TPU. Not to the IRR.

I'm going to run some errands, I'll be back.

NOTE: Keddrick Thompson's argument did not lend to a TPU to IRR transfer. I recommended a TPU to TPU transfer in order for his work-life balance to not be interrupted. My addressing him after this focused on this solution... Or the one where he bears and grins it with activation, mobilization, and deployment. 

Originally posted by Keddrick Corday Thompson:
Thanks 

Back for a few. So here are your options. Bear with me and read to the end.

1. Deploy with your unit. While you're on active duty, your dependents will receive active duty-related benefits like TRICARE Prime. Additionally, your dependents will have access to resources available to active duty personnel and their family members. Your unit will be receiving information related to this as part of their pre-mobilization briefing.

You keep your rank and accrue one retirement point for every day you're mobilized. Those that you work with, on the civilian side of the house, will understand your military obligations.

2. Put in for a TPU to TPU transfer. Even if you lose rank, the difference in pay may not be significant. You'd be able to continue with your contracts. You'd still be able to do other activities outside of the military.

Based on what you told me, the chances of getting an IRR transfer approved are low. You're also gambling with this option. If they disapprove of your request, then the time you have to forward a TPU to TPU transfer is crunched. Or it would be too late. You'll be deploying with your unit.

Your description above appears to be a disruption and inconvenience to your family and you... This is something faced by families of deployed Soldiers. Your situation wouldn't be unique. Others, in your situation, are either on active duty or have deployed.

Another option that you could consider, based on your employer's need for you, is the Standby Reserve. Chapter 8 of AR 140-10 covers the Standby Reserve. I'd recommend that you discuss this option with your servicing career counselor. If this is a viable option, all you'd need to argue for transfer is Paragraph 8-2a, "Key employee".

NOTE: The Standby Reserve, critical employee justification, was a better argument for his situation. He would've still lost rank, but his insinuated civilian pay was high enough to make this a non-issue. 

Keddrick Corday Thompson Requests IRR Memorandum Draft -- Part 5

Originally posted by Keddrick Corday Thompson: 
Ok. We could go with key employee
Coupled with necessity parent

NOTE: I saw this as Keddrick Thompson not having confidence in his "key employee" argument. He was trying to stack the argument. He didn't have a strong argument for the dependency case. He's also protected by law when it comes to employment and reserve mobilization. This was also a control issue. He wanted to make sure that he got what he wanted.


The Standby Reserve, like the IRR, is a gambit with no guarantee for success. The Army considers "IRR" and "TPU" as "ready reserve". Many people mistake the "I" in "IRR" as "inactive", but it isn't. There's no "Inactive Ready Reserve" as this is a contradiction in terms. But, it's under the ready reserve umbrella. You're still liable for being involuntarily mobilized from the IRR.

You could be involuntarily transferred from the IRR to a TPU unit. Then, involuntarily mobilized with that unit.

The Standby Reserve is a different animal. It's lower than the IRR when it comes to readiness for recall. Your chances of getting into the standby reserve would be "better" than getting into the IRR. However, it's still a "gambit" with a big chance of being disapproved. 

The parent justification is going to be hard to argue. This is based on what you provided. You definitely don't have a strong argument for using this to get into the IRR. For either the IRR or Standby Reserve, the Army is going to see that both you guys have families. These extended families may be in a position to back the mother and provide her assistance in your absence.

Adding the parent argument may delay your packet. The risk, as with the IRR packet, is that it would get disapproved. Should that happen, you may not have time to turn around and request a TPU to TPU transfer.

You'll end up going on that deployment. 

If you chose the Standby Reserve route, the memorandum would be short. The first paragraph referencing the applicable AR paragraph. The second paragraph provides a short explanation. This explanation would mention references (employer statement regarding your need for his/her operation).

Your employer needs to prove that he/she would not be able to replace you in time. Your absence would adversely impact the employers' profits, operations, etc.

Talk with your servicing career counselor first. You'll have to see if this is a viable option. Also, run the other information that I'm providing you with your career counselor. He/she has the latest information.

Out of curiosity, which unit are you with, and what outpost are you out of? 

Also, if you're 37 years old or older, and have at least 8 years of active federal service, there's another Army Reserve control group that you could request transfer to.

NOTE: AR 140-10, under transfer to retired reserve, shows how Soldiers could transfer to the Retired Reserve without the 20-year letter. If he was 37 years old and had at least 8 years of active duty, he technically may have been able to request a transfer into the Retired Reserve instead of the IRR. 

Keddrick Corday Thompson Requests IRR Memorandum Draft -- Part 6

Originally posted by Keddrick Corday Thompson:
I'm 34. I'm with [redacted] under [redacted] and [redacted] 
I can go either. Don't matter
They would rather that than a disgruntled soldier [bolded by author]
I can have my employer and many coworkers write statements as needed
Same for my NCOIC and other soldiers
essential employee and critical parent. His mom is up here by herself. Same as me. My nearest family is in SC so that part is not true.
It would be just her and my son with all the burden and movement and appointments and transportation and monies which will burden her situation and break my family down
Not having that period 

The active-duty side of the military has dealt with individuals in this situation. Family Readiness Group (FRG) is one of their solutions. Once you guys go on active duty, FRG becomes a serious activity. So, even if you don't have family nearby, your fellow Soldiers' families may be in a position to help. They could also assist your family.

Is your family near a military base? Major military bases have family resources that your family would be able to leverage. You and your family will get this information prior to your unit deploying.

This common fact would work against you. When they look at your packet, Big Army would not transfer you from TPU to the IRR or to the Standby Reserve.  However, with the Standby Reserve, if you just argue the critical employee aspect, you might have a chance... Although not sufficient enough for this kind of request keeping you from deploying.

Again, there's a good chance that your IRR/Standby Reserve request gets shot down. You'd have no other choice but to deploy with your unit.

The biggest thing, with either family or critical employee, is hard evidence to support your justifications. Based on what you've told me, your "family" based argument would not be strong enough to persuade them to transfer you to the IRR.

As usual, a TPU to TPU transfer is your strongest bet. Your need to keep your contracts, and an overburdened mother, argues for a TPU to TPU transfer. Your justifications above give you a good argument for a TPU to TPU. Your pay cut would be a small price to pay in order to continue to meet family and contractual obligations.

NOTE: "They would rather that than a disgruntled soldier". Keddrick Thompson is hinting that if he does not transfer to the IRR, he would be disgruntled. This implies that he would be a headache to his unit if he goes with them to Texas. Worse, he could stop drilling and be a non-participant, or "NONPAR". Later, when he appears to want to close this interaction, I ask him another question... I reminded him of what I said and then asked for his intention. 

Keddrick Corday Thompson Requests IRR Memorandum Draft -- Part 7

Originally posted by Keddrick Corday Thompson:
Its not about the army pay. Obviously as a civilian I make well. Its the principle of me earning my rank that was long overdue. The family argument not being strong enough...Im not seeing how it is not. I don't trust strangers like that with my child. Too many kids have been bruised and molested in FRG care and even Child Care on military installations... ie fort Bragg. So, that is ridiculous to even bring to the equation IMO.
TPU to TPU would be fine if I am able to keep my rank in which I suggested that within the Brigade so I would still be close and a part of the overall command. Certain higher didnt really even consider it.
However it can be pushed to remain rear detachment or move to a temporary space until the unit return is good enough for me. I am just not able to mobilize at this time period. I responded with that as well 

Your responses are a part of the reason why your argument, related to your family, is weak. They're weak regarding the IRR and Standby Reserve, but good for a TPU to TPU. It's as if you're trying to find an argument against any solution that the Army already has to address situations like yours.

What I'm reading is this:

"I don't want to deploy, they need to transfer me to another TPU in the brigade while letting me keep my rank. If not, they need to stand up a rear detachment for me to man. They have to set things up so that the solution fits my requirements 100%".

This is not a realistic expectation.

If I were your unit commander, I would be seeing that you're trying to have everything go a certain way... You keep your rank while you avoid deployment. Neither helps your unit nor its mission. It appears that you're not willing to make practical sacrifices that you need to make in order to be able to stay with your family and not deploy.

You're dealing with a lot of "whataboutisms". What about running a rear detachment? What about assigning me somewhere within the brigade? What about assigning me to another unit within the brigade? What about...

I'm seeing that you're refusing to see this from the unit's perspective. Your unit commander has to run the "rear detachment" idea to his/her commander. Once that's agreed to, then the manpower shortfall created by those who remain in rear detachment has to be filled from elsewhere in the battalion or brigade. They have to move bodies around and spend a lot of money doing so.

Your unit commander has his/her hands full doing what's needed to get the unit ready to deploy. Your recommendations would be optional for him/her... Especially if those recommendations are beyond what the unit commander needs to do to prepare the unit for deployment.

Your unit is looking at your situation and seeing that you're trying to get out of activation. Is your family situation going to be dire if you go to Texas? You'd gladly take a rank reduction and transfer to another TPU. If you refuse a transfer that results in rank reduction, then your departure for a year is not as dire as you make it. This is how the Army will see it.

You're not willing to make that commitment, to transfer to another TPU and take a pay cut. If I were your commander, I would see your argument as being null and void. I would expect you to go deploy with the unit. This is seeing things from your commander's, the battalion commander's, and brigade commander's perspectives.

The same thing would apply with regards to a request to go into the IRR (work + family excuse) or Standby Reserve (work excuse). Those that review your packet would be looking at resources available to help in your absence. They would also look at your option to transfer to another TPU to resolve your issues.

If you're not putting in an IRR packet as a result of reaching your 6th year of a 6 x 2 contract, they're going to be finding an excuse to not approve your packet. They'll take action to keep you as a TPU Soldier. What you said to me provides justification for the deciders to disapprove of your IRR request.

You have to explore what you really want.

Do you want to be with your family and civilian job without break? Transferring to another TPU with rank reduction is in the cards for you. Yes, working hard to get the rank that you have on makes it hard for you to give that rank up. But, based on what you said, if I were in your situation, I would make the necessary sacrifice needed to transfer to another TPU.

You would remain with your family and civilian commitments. You could always work to regain your rank from within your new TPU. Your arguments support a TPU to TPU transfer request.

Want to go to another TPU within your battalion/brigade? Then you'd have to put in a TPU to TPU transfer. They can't just assign you at the unit level. You have to actually put in a TPU to TPU transfer request. This entails a loss of rank.

Again, your argument that you presented to me would be justification for a TPU to TPU transfer. This same argument would not be sufficient for a transfer to the IRR. You'd have a good argument for transferring to the Standby Reserve with the critical employee argument. Your family situation; however, would not be a good argument for going into the Standby Reserve.

From a practical standpoint, you have to do a TPU to TPU transfer or deploy with your unit. This is what I'm seeing from your replies.

From an NCO standpoint? Your argument of what should be done would not be seen as something an NCO would argue. It'd be something that a Specialist or a Private would come up with. This is how your unit will see you thinking as.

The longer you resist the practical courses of action, the more your chain of command is going to ponder your decision-making process.

NOTE: I checked Keddrick Thompson's rank and found him to be an NCO. However, I did not notify him that I did this check. Prior to my verifying his rank, I assumed that he was either a Specialist or a Private First Class. I made this assumption based on his statements and demeanor above. 

As an NCO, he would've agreed with my arguments. He would've made arrangements for his family, then deploy with his unit. If he wanted to transfer, he would've taken a pay cut to go to another TPU. This is how an NCO would've gone forward. However, he did not have the tone or demeanor of an NCO throughout the duration of our exchange.