Debunking Randy Shipley's anti-Trump Argument of August 2019 an introduction

Hopefully, Randy Shipley's "nose and mouth mask" gives him luck with protection from viruses. He most certainly didn't have that luck during the debate. (Randy Shipley/Facebook)

I debated Randy Shipley on Facebook back in August 2019. A mutual friend generated a post addressed to a Congressman. In one semi thread, Randy Shipley and Joe Jagunich interacted with each other. Both were against President Trump. Both peddled the leftist anti-Trump propaganda.

I jumped in and argued against both of them. Randy Shipley attempted to debate me by rattling leftist talking points. He took both numbers and information out of context, then tried to play with words. For example, ignoring the fact that we had job growth as of the time this debate took place. He played the "growth rate" card.

During the course of the debate, I asked Randy Shipley simple, straight forward, yes/no questions. He wasn't allowed to provide amplifying explanations for his reply. He refused to answer these questions. He couldn't answer these questions, with the correct answer, without proving his argument wrong.

During another point in the debate, he hid behind a website. By "hide", the tone of his writing changed and matched that of someone else. I see a possibility that he copied and pasted the linked article's author as his reply. I flagged those responses with the suspected author, in parenthesis, right next to "Randy Shipley".

Randy Shipley is searchable on the internet. He has a history of either starting businesses, or staying with them for a few years. He's currently involved in three "job positions". His Linkedin is deficient with regards to results. How did his employment, or effort, save money, make money, reduce cost, improve operations, etc?

He has a video interview, on YouTube. It doesn't show the interviewer, the questions he's answering, or a substantive speech on how Randy Shipley helped his clients achieve their business missions. His "promotion efforts" were mainly about his personal accomplishments. Not much about what he had done to improve client bottom line, reduce their costs, etc.

The judgment that he exercised, in the debate recorded below, suggests that he didn't always exercise proper judgment during many areas of his life.

Who would you retain to help you purchase a home? Someone that's "dabbling in real estate", or someone that's activity helping people buy or sell homes? If you don't want to spend time with someone that's "dabling" in real estate, you'll probably overlook Randy Shipley's number.

I left Randy Shipley's comments, in the posts below, as he typed them. 

Debunking Randy Shipley's anti-Trump Argument of August 2019 Part 1

Randy Shipley: Joe Jagunich So if a priest is a sexual predator, it is ok to support him and his office at church every Sunday? 

First, you provided a couple of fallacies: the strawman and the red herring. In your scenario, the priest is a sexual predator. However, what people accuse President Trump of doing, or of being, is false. I've yet to see the left prove their arguments with fact, reason, and logic. They've advanced nothing but emotion-based opinion. They also have done nothing but linked to extremely biased information sources.

So, there's a clear difference between a sexual predator priest (guilty per your scenario) from what President Trump is erroneously accused of.

Second, "the office of the priest" is not exactly the same concept as "the Office of the President". Where we have the "office" that matches the priest's duties, there's also the "liturgical office" consisting of a set of prayers, readings, and specific practices.

The "liturgical office" is always respected, regardless of what the priest does. That's separate from the priest. Of course, I wouldn't attend mass at a specific church if I knew that the priest conducting it was a sexual predator. I'd attend another church/cathedral.

Randy Shipley: And if Trump asked you to jump off a cliff you would because he is President?

Again, this is an inductive fallacy. You're making the assumption that your argument is "correct" and that whatever President Trump is, in your mind, is "reality". This further implies that those supporting him are doing it for "blind" purposes, or out of "lack of knowledge", rather than from Trump supporters coming to their own conclusions. Your assumption is false.

Joe Jagunich: Randy Shipley Hi, Randy. Good to hear from you after so many years! No to both questions. If a Priest is accused of being a predator, he is removed. I'd like to see the same thing happen to Trump.

Based on what? Your side of the argument has colossally failed to prove its anti-Trump arguments to be "true". The cold hard reality is that President Trump is not guilty of what you guys claim him to be guilty of. So, President Trump is perfectly fine where he is. Hopefully, he gets a second term and serves until January 2025.

Randy Shipley: Joe Jagunich good to hear from you as well! I have zero respect for Trump as a person or a leader 

Considering that your side of the argument has failed to prove your anti-Trump comments with a fact-based, reasoned, logical argument, this speaks volumes about you. President Trump has done a lot to earn respect as both a person and as a leader. He is exactly what we need.

Anybody that claims that he doesn't deserve respect is doing it for two main reasons. They're doing it for emotional reasons or based on a lack of knowledge of what is going on. Their actions are not based on facts.

Debunking Randy Shipley's anti-Trump Argument of August 2019 Part 2

Randy Shipley: [Name redacted] Some facts for you (I have a ton if you really want to debate facts)

If your past and current arguments are indications, I could confidently say that you don't have a ton of facts. What you do have; however, is a ton of cherry-picked data and a ton of propaganda. I will demonstrate that in my reply to your current response.

Randy Shipley:  - Job growth down under Trump - in his first 29 months as president 800,000 less jobs were created than in the 29 months immediately before he became president. 

This statement is misleading. The job growth rate has been steady since it dipped in 2009/2010. This means that even if there were fewer jobs created now than before, the fact of the matter is that more jobs are being created, and more people are employed now than when Obama was in the White House. Unemployment rates have gone down at record levels. Worker participation in the market has gone up at levels not seen over the past few decades.

Bottom line, more people are working now than the number of people working when the last president was in office. 

Note: This has changed effective the negative impact of COVID-19, but were applicable in the summer of 2019. These series of posts represent replies made in 2019. 

Randy Shipley: Debt skyrocketing under Trump 

Debt has skyrocketed under each president. Or, did you forget that debt jumped to record levels under the last President? I have copies of financial letters talking about how Clinton was ballooning the debt compared to his predecessors. You advanced a nonargument.

Randy Shipley: - Obama reduced deficit from 2009 (set by previous admin) by almost $800 B a year by the time he set his last budget. 

You're wrong on two counts.

First, you're confusing debt with the deficit. Deficits and surpluses involve government expenditures. If the government spends more than what it takes in, we have deficits. If it spends less than what it takes in, we have surpluses.

Even if we have a surplus, we still have the debt. The surpluses that we had in the 1990s didn't change the fact that we still had the national debt.

Second, the deficit declined from 2004 to 2007, even with both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars taking place. It wasn't until 2007 that the deficit climbed again.

Keep in mind that it's Congress, not the President, who is in charge of the budget. Congress, and not the President, takes action that determines whether we end up with surpluses or deficits.

The Democrats won in 2006 and took both houses of Congress starting in 2007. Notice that it was this year that the deficit started to shoot up.

Randy Shipley: Trump Tariffs are costing U.S. consumers BILLIONS (no, China does not pay the tariffs, U.S. companies do that import). 

Not quite on the part of the consumers. President Trump placed tariffs on products imported from China. As you mentioned, those tariffs are paid by the companies that are importing those goods.

Now, they could raise the price on the consumer to make up for the tariff... But they'd be shooting themselves on the foot. Why? Other companies importing from countries not subject to the tariff would be able to economically run circles around the company paying tariffs.

The onus is on those corporations and companies, that run operations in China, to move their operations out of China and to another country... This is one of the intentions of the tariffs. This, in turn, would pressure China to negotiate a better trading arrangement than the one that we have now.

With things as they were before President Trump became president, both jobs and money were being siphoned out of the U.S. It made economic sense to make products in China and to sell them over here. But that came with China engaging in practices aimed at putting us at a disadvantage.

We stood to lose billions either way. The difference is that President Trump's actions are frustrating China's efforts to knock the U.S. out of the economic, and ultimately political and military driver's seat.

Randy Shipley: Socialism? I guess it is ok for Trump to prop up farmers with BILLIONS so he can fight his trade war? 

You don't understand what socialism is if you assume that money provided to the farmers, or to corporations is "socialism". That's not socialism. Others on your side of the argument also advance this erroneous argument.

Socialism, as practiced in other countries, requires a command economy, with the government dictating how the economy should run. It also relies on paying people according to their needs rather than according to their skills, availability, etc.

Debunking Randy Shipley's anti-Trump Argument of August 2019 Part 3

Randy Shipley: While farm bankruptcies hit record highs?

Those farm bankruptcies have more to do with falling prices than they do with the tariffs. Tariffs do play a role. However, even without the tariffs, farm bankruptcies would've still gone up due to the price that comes with current supply and demand.

When supply exceeds demand, and prices drop, there are people who are going to incur more costs than earnings. If this happens too long, bankruptcies may occur. This was going to happen even without the "trade war".

Randy Shipley: You have presented no fact based arguments on what makes Trump a great president or leader,  

False. I provided a fact-based, reasoned, logical argument as to why President Trump is not what you guys describe him as... As well as to why he makes a great president and leader.

You, on the other hand, have colossally failed to present a fact-based, reasoned, argument. Instead, you've presented cherry-picked data to support a strawman argument. You've even attempted to argue as if "deficit" was interchangeable with debt. Your response failed to address any of the arguments that I advanced.

Randy Shipley: you simply regurgitate conservative rhetoric.

Again false. I don't enter an argument unless two criteria are met.

1. I have extensive first hand/studied experience in the topic being debated.

2. The opposition clearly does not know what they're talking about.

Both of these conditions have been met on this thread with my dismantling your argument. These conditions have also been met when I dismantled the arguments of the others on the left.

You, and the others that I've rebutted here, have repeated the same arguments I have debated against in previous arguments. It's like you guys are arguing from the same playbook.

Randy Shipley: Trump is corrupt, and has surrounded himself with corruption 

First, neither you nor the others that I've debated against since President Trump became president, have proven that President Trump is "corrupt". The facts indicate that he isn't corrupt. Want to see corruption? Look at politicians who have more net worth than what their annual congressional salary could explain. That's just one criterion.

President Trump is "so corrupt" that he's giving away his salary for donation to nonprofit causes. That makes him terrible at being corrupt.

Randy Shipley: (another little fact for you - no President has ever had the indictments against their team that Trump has - not even close)

Yet, you ignore the fact that there was a political witch-hunt against the president. This witch hunt, looking for Russian collusion, investigated people. These people were indicted for, you guessed it, something not having anything to do with Russian collusion.

This is like sending all of your friends to beat someone up. After that person gets beaten up, you walk to that person and make fun of him because people "want" to beat him up. Your point here has no validity, just like the rest of your argument.

However, the folks that were involved with getting this witch hunt underway, and the folks who were derelict in their duties, will be held accountable.

Note: Recently released transcript of the House investigation on "Russian Collusion" proved no concrete evidence of Russian Collusion. The conflicting stories told to the public leaves the potential for certain people to be held accountable.

Debunking Randy Shipley's anti-Trump Argument of August 2019 Part 4

Randy Shipley: [Name redacted] A lot of conservative interpretation and theories by you - no facts. 

False. Not only have I provided you with the facts, but an argument based on real-world observations. This is based on a historic trend of what happens when similar things happened in the past. My argument is also based on current events and on other observations that could fit the "if 'X' then 'Y'" formula.

Don't dismiss cold hard facts, or things based on observation, as "theory" simply because you don't like the facts being presented.

You, on the other hand, insist on advancing a strawman argument. You're also slowly drifting away from the argument and towards my actions.

That's not something you would do if you had the facts on your side. That's equivalent to "shooting and retreating" and "transitioning to insurgency mode" from a "conventional mode." That's not the action of someone who has the upper hand. Your actions indicate that you have neither fact nor a valid argument.

Randy Shipley: Job growth down, 

Just as you attempted to mix "deficit" and "debt" in your previous reply, you're attempting to mix "growth rate" and "actual growth".

According to an August 2, 2019, New York Times report, the growth rate slowed but remained solid... With 164,000 jobs added in July. Get that? "Added". Job growth is still job growth. When the liberal New York Times calls it "stable", it works against your attempt to downplay it.

These numbers will fluctuate on a by month basis, just as they've done under Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc. The fact that you'd zero in on "job growth down" speaks volumes of your animosity against President Trump. Your anti-Trump animosity drives your responses on this thread and elsewhere.

Randy Shipley: deficits and debt up (both), 

Which is something they did in previous administrations. Had it not been for a Republican Congress back in the 1990s, we wouldn't have had the budget surpluses of the 1990s. The left likes to credit Clinton. If he had his way, spending would've skyrocketed and we wouldn't have had our surpluses.

Remember, Congress, not the President, is responsible for deficits and surpluses. They have the power of the purse. Congress makes the budget, Congress authorizes spending, Congress engages in spending, etc.

Randy Shipley: an investigation that indicted many (if it is a witch hunt, they caught the warlocks). 

Did any of these indictments involve knowingly colluding with Russian agents? YES [   ] NO [   ]

Copy and paste this question, and its yes/no options to your reply. Put an "X" in the box that represents your answer. Spare me any additional thoughts you'd want to add to this question. Your failure to answer this question will result in my asking it again in my next reply to you. 

Note: Randy Shipley repeatedly avoided questions like this.

None of the people indicted were indicted for anything having to do with Russian Collusion. None. That was the driving force behind the investigation. Meaning, the Russian Collusion investigation indicted members of the Trump Campaign, or Administration, for things not having to do with Russian Collusion.

I've read the indictment against the Russians. Guess what? Nothing in the indictment argued that anybody in the Trump Campaign willingly or knowingly colluded with Russians.

Randy Shipley: The investigation clearly showed Russian interference - just not evidene there was cooperation (there is no law against collusion).

I downloaded the Mueller Report and went through it. I still have it on my laptop. Mention of "cooperation" centered mainly on cooperation with the investigation. There was also mention of joint economic cooperation in correspondence leading up to a 2017 phone call between President Trump and President Putin.

However, when it comes to collusion, the report indicated that there was no knowing cooperation between anybody in the Trump campaign and the Russians. If any interaction and potential joint political operation were being talked about, the American side thought that they were dealing with politically allied Americans.

This is key, as the leftist/propagandist media made it sound like the Trump Campaign "knowingly and willingly" colluded with the Russians.

The purpose of the investigation centered on whether or not there was "knowing collusion" between members of the Trump Campaign and Russian agents. The mainstream media ran on this narrative. They also ran on the obstruction narrative. The report actually argued that there was no obstruction.

When asked if he was hindered in any way during his investigation, Mueller said, "No." Meaning, the two main narratives of the media fell flat on their faces. After going through the Mueller Report, I knew that his eventual testimony in Congress was going to end up as egg on the faces of the Democrats. 

As I mentioned, this was a witch hunt and no, they didn't catch warlocks. They indicted the cabbage man, the cobbler, the tailor, the butcher, etc., for charges unrelated to witchcraft, and they found no evidence of witchcraft. No witches or warlocks found because there weren't any.

Debunking Randy Shipley's anti-Trump Argument of August 2019 Part 5

Randy Shipley: - no facts, all fiction and conspiracy theories.

#zerofactsrandy #conspiracyshipley #questiondodgingrandy #noargumentshipley -- fails to answer a simple yes/no question with a "yes" or "no" answer. Randy Shipley didn't answer the question because he knows that the correct answer destroys his argument.

As I mentioned in my last post to you, your failure to answer my question in your reply will result in my asking it again. So here goes:

Did any of these indictments involve knowingly colluding with Russian agents? YES [   ] NO [   ]

Copy and paste this question, and its yes/no options to your reply. Put an "X" in the box that represents your answer. Spare me any additional thoughts you'd want to add to this question. Your failure to answer this question will result in my asking it again in my next reply to you. 

And another one:

Did any of those indictments involve obstruction to justice? YES [  ] NO [   ]

The same instructions apply.

Note: Randy Shipley failed to answer either of these questions per the parameters that I set.

Debunking Randy Shipley's anti-Trump Argument of August 2019 Part 6

Randy Shipley: [Name Redacted] Try reading that report you downloaded again -- 

I've gone through the report multiple times. You're not the first one who fell for and argued the Russian conspiracy theory. My stance remains the same. The link that you provided was not the Mueller Report. It was a link to a website that talked about the Mueller Report.

The link, that you pulled your response from, has a tendency to cherry-pick data. They appear to stop searching when they get enough information to support their argument. However, I've gone further and found more information that proved their narrative wrong.

That's not the same thing as going through the actual report. It's painfully obvious that you haven't gone through the Mueller Report. You're relying on a "fact-checker" site instead of actually going through the Mueller Report.

However, I've read the linked websites, and guess what? I still stand by my argument... Just as I know for a fact that you, and others that I argue against, won't change your stances. It works both ways. I've never changed my position based on what the opposition has said to me in a debate.

I engage in these debates to perpetually dismantle the opposition. I enjoy the non-ending back and forth.

Randy Shipley (or fact check dot org?): Special counsel Robert Mueller's report on Donald Trump and Russia establishes a damning series of facts about the Trump campaign's connections to the Kremlin. 

No, the report makes no such connection. If you actually read the report, you'd find that when there was interaction between the two sides, members of the Trump campaign thought that they were interacting with Americans. The Russians portrayed themselves as Americans.

From the Mueller Report:

"The investigation did not establish any agreement among Campaign officials-or between such officials and Russia-linked individuals- to interfere with or obstruct a lawful function of a government agency during the campaign or transition period. And, as discussed in Volume I, Section V.A, supra, the investigation did not identify evidence that any Campaign official or associate knowingly and intentionally participated in the conspiracy to defraud that the Office charged, namely, the active-measures conspiracy described in Volume I, Section II, supra. Accordingly, the Office did not charge any Campaign associate or other U.S. person with conspiracy to defraud the United States based on the Russia-related contacts described in Section IV above." -- Mueller Report

Randy Shipley (or factcheck dot org?): We learned that two Trump campaign officials, campaign manager Paul Manafort and Manafort's deputy Rick Gates, were regularly providing polling information to a Russian national whom Gates believed to be a "spy."

What the Mueller Report said:

"Separately, on August 2, 2016, Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort met in New York City with his long-time business associate Konstantin Kilimnik, who the FBI assesses to have ties to Russian intelligence. Kilimnik requested the meeting to deliver in person a peace plan for Ukraine that Manafort acknowledged to the Special Counsel's office was a "backdoor" way for Russia to control part of eastern Ukraine; both men believed the plan would require candidate Trump's assent to succeed (were he to be elected President). They also discussed the status of the Trump Campaign and Manafort's strategy for winning Democratic votes in Midwestern states. Months before that meeting, Manafort had caused internal polling data to be shared with Kilimnik, and the sharing continued for some period of time after their August meeting." -- Mueller Report

Keywords: separately, assesses, longtime business associate

Manafort was acting on his own, without Donald Trump's authority. This meeting and interaction took place as a result of a rapport they developed for each other. This predates Manafort's taking part in the Trump Campaign. No indication, in this statement, that the Russians were helping the Trump campaign. 

"Assesses" is present tense... As opposed to "assessed" which would've been applicable to the period the meeting took place.

Also from the Mueller Report:

"Gates also reported that Manafort instructed him in April 2016 or early May 2016 to send Kilimnik Campaign internal polling data and other updates so that kilimnik, in turn, could share it with Ukrainian oligarchs. Gates understood that the information would also be shared with Deripaska, [Redacted]. Gates reported to teh Office that he did not know why Manafort wanted him to send polling information, but Gates thought it was a way to showcase Manfort's work, and Manafort wanted to open doors to jobs after the Trump Campaign ended." -- Mueller Report 

None of these guys were working under orders from Donald Trump. Manafort was doing this for his own interests related to Ukraine.

Randy Shipley (or factcheck dot org?):  We learned that, after Trump publicly called on Russia to find Hillary Clinton's emails, he privately ordered future National Security Adviser Michael Flynn to find them. 

What the Mueller Report stated:

"After candidate Trump stated on July 27, 2016, that he hoped Russia would 'find the 30,000 emails that are missing' Trump asked individuals affiliated with his Campaign to find the deleted Clinton emails. Michael Flynn-who would later serve as National Security Advisor in the Trump Administration - recalled that Trump made this request repeatedly, and Flynn subsequently contacted multiple people in an effort to obtain the emails." -- Mueller Report

He "hoped" that Russia would find those emails. He didn't call on them to find those emails. His efforts involved getting his staff members to find ways to obtain those emails.

Debunking Randy Shipley's anti-Trump Argument of August 2019 Part 7

Randy Shipley (or factcheck dot org?): Flynn reached out to a man named Peter Smith who (apparently falsely) told a number of people that he was in contact with Russian agents. 

From the Mueller Report:

"Just weeks after Trump's July 2016 request to find the Clinton emails, however , Smith tried to locate and obtain the emails himself. He created a company, raised tens of thousands of dollars, and recruited security experts and business associates. Smith made claims to others involved in the effort (and those from whom he sought funding) that he was in contact with hackers with "ties and affiliations to Russia" who had access to the emails , and that his efforts were coordinated with the Trump Campaign." -- Mueller Report 

Keywords: himself, created company, recruited security experts and business associates...

He was working on his own. He was also telling those that he hired that he had access to others that could help in his endeavors. He wasn't acting in a capacity as a member of the Trump Campaign.

Yes, those were false claims, which is the only thing that you got right.

Also from the Mueller Report:

"The investigation did not find evidence that the Trump Campaign recovered any such Clinton emails, or that these contacts were part of a coordinated effort between Russia and the Trump Campaign." -- Mueller Report 

Randy Shipley (or fact check dot org?): We learned that Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos attempted to arrange meetings between Trump and Putin, and that Trump personally approved Papadopoulos's work on this front. 

From the Mueller Report:

George Papadopoulos was a foreign policy advisor to the Trump Campaign from March 2016 to early October 2016. In late April 2016, Papadopoulos was told by London-based professor "Joseph Mifsud, immediately after Mifsud's return from a trip to Moscow, that the Russian government had obtained "dirt" on candidate Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. One week later, on May 6, 2016, Papadopoulos suggested to a representative of a foreign government that the Trump Campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to candidate Clinton.

"Papadopoulos shared information about Russian "dirt" with people outside of the Campaign, and the Office investigated whether he also provided it to a Campaign official. Papadopoulos and the Campaign officials with who he interacted told the Office that they did not recall that Papadopoulos passed them the information. Throughout the relevant period of time and for several months thereafter, Papadopoulos worked with Mifsud and two Russian nationals to arrange a metting between the Campaign and the Russian government. That meeting never came "to pass." -- Mueller Report

The Mueller Report identified Joseph Mifsud as a Maltese national. Additionally from the Mueller Repot:

"According to Papadopoulos, Mifsud at first seemed uninterested in Papadopoulos when they met in Rome. After Papadopoulos informed Mifsud about his role in the Trump Campaign, however, Mifsud appeared to take greater interest in Papadopoulos. The two discussed Mifsud's European and Russian contacts and had a general discussion about Russia; Mifsud also offered to introduce Papadopoulos to European leaders and others with contacts to the Russian government. Papadopoulos told the Office that Mifsud's claim of substantial connections with Russian government officials interested Papadopoulos, who thought that such connections could increase his importance as a policy advisor to the Trump Campaign." -- Mueller Report

Papadopoulos traveled to Europe, after signing onto the Trump Campaign, not because of the campaign. He traveled there as a result of his employment requirement for his employer... Or while doing work on behalf of his client. What should've been his conducting business related to his employer ended up with him trying to grease the wheels for a position he was gunning for in the Trump campaign.

Papadopoulos was acting independently of the campaign. He was doing this on his private employer's/client's dime. Further down, you will read the following:

"When interviewed, Papadopoulos and the Campaign officials who interacted with him told the Office that they could not recall Papadopoulos's sharing the information that Russia had obtained "dirt" on candidate Clinton in the form of emails or that Russia could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information about Clinton. Papadopoulos stated that he could not clearly recall having told anyone on the Campaign and wavered about whether he accurately remembered an incident in which Clovis had been upset after hearing Papadopoulos tell Clovis that Papadopoulos thought "they have her emails." The Campaign officials who interacted or corresponded with Papadopoulos have similarly stated, with varying degrees of certainty, that he did not tell them." -Mueller Report

And...

"No documentary evidence, and nothing in the emails accounts or other communications facilities reviewed by the Office, shows that Papadopoulos shared this information with the Campaign." -- Mueller Report

The trend that you get from reading the report was that Papadopoulos was acting on his own behalf. He did so on the dime of his employer/client. He was building his connections to bolster his position post-presidential election. Or, setting things up to return to should he be released from the Trump campaign or administration.

Debunking Randy Shipley's anti-Trump Argument of August 2019 Part 8

Randy Shipley (or factcheck dot org?):  The report is very clear that Mueller's investigation did not establish that the Trump campaign criminally conspired on illegal Russian election interference, or that it coordinated with Russia through either an active or tacit agreement.

This is the only thing that matters. Case closed with regards to collusion.

Randy Shipley (or factcheck?):  But the report, combined with other publicly known facts -- that Donald Trump Jr. arranged a meeting with the express purpose of obtaining Russian 'dirt' on Clinton,

The meeting was to obtain documentary evidence for claims that Hillary may have violated campaign/election laws. The person that they talked to was not able to provide that information. She may have been making things up just to get a shoe in the door.

From the Mueller Report:

"Trump Jr. invited campaign chairman Paul Manafort and senior advisor Jared Kushner to attend the meeting, and both attended. Members of the Campaign discussed the meeting before it occurred, and Michael Cohen recalled that Trump Jr. may have told candidate Trump about an upcoming meeting to receive adverse information about Clinton , without linking the meeting to Russia. According to written answers submitted by President Trump, he has no recollection of learning of the meeting at the time, and the Office found no documentary evidence showing that he was made aware of the meeting--or its Russian connection-before it occurred." -- Mueller Report 

Note, the investigation was to check for conspiracy/collusion. Obtaining documentary evidence that the opposition may have violated U.S. Election Law doesn't fall under that umbrella.

Randy Shipley (or factcheck dot org?): ...and that Papadopoulos was offered similar dirt from a Russian agent, among others -- paints a damning picture of the campaign."

The statement is misleading.

From the Mueller Report:

"In late April 2016, Papadopoulos was told by London-based professor Joseph Mifsud, immediately after Mifsud ' s return from a trip to Moscow, that the Russian government had obtained "dirt" on candidate Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. One week later, on May 6, 2016, Papadopoulos suggested to a representative of a foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to candidate Clinton. 

"Papadopoulos shared information about Russian 'dirt' with people outside of the Campaign, and the Office investigated whether he also provided it to a Campaign official. Papadopoulos and the Campaign officials with whom he interacted told the Office that they did not recall that Papadopoulos passed them the information. Throughout the relevant period of time and for several months thereafter, Papadopoulos worked with Mifsud and two Russian nationals to arrange a meeting between the Campaign and the Russian government. That meeting 'never came to pass'." -- Mueller Report

He received information from a London based professor. A Maltese national. Papadopoulos was acting on his own capacity.

Debunking Randy Shipley's anti-Trump Argument of August 2019 Part 9

Randy Shipley: It was both actively seeking to cultivate a relationship with the Russian government and willing to work with it to acquire damaging information about its political opponents. That willingness included explicitly sharing information with or soliciting information from Russian operatives. So many meetings... So many lies (like the letters from Trump on the Tower meetings) -

Again, my going through the Mueller Report today doesn't support this assumption. The report indicates that there was no conscious, official, effort to try to conspire with the Russians at the expense of the Hillary campaign. That "damaging" information referenced in the linked article relates to the Emails.

If you've held a security clearance, you'd know how serious a security risk is for accessing emails. It doesn't matter if they're just for official use only. It also doesn't matter if they have one of the more sensitive classifications like Top Secret, Secret, Confidential, etc. She had these emails outside of an authorized government server. Then thousands of these emails "disappeared".

Had a member of the military done this, the military member would've risked facing court-martial. This is how serious this is. The "damming information", if it was in Russia's, China's, Iran's, or in a random organization's hands, and if it was done through negligence on Hillary's part, would indicate a violation of regulation and/or law.

No, the main suspicion, or knowledge, of "foreign operatives" involved Ukraine, not Russia. Yes, there were so many meetings, but they are not of the nature that you paint in your post.

Randy Shipley: Then there is what the report says about obstruction

What factcheck dot org said:

"Mueller noted that it was only the refusal of Trump's underlings to go along with his efforts to tamper that kept Trump from being able to successfully impede the investigation." -- "Fact" Check dot Org

What the Mueller Report quoted in the link said:

"The President's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests." -- Mueller Report

There's a difference between "tamper" and "impede", as used in your link, and "influence" as stated in the Mueller Report.

Also from the Mueller Report:

"Obstructive act. As with the President's firing of Corney, the attempt to remove
the Special Counsel would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry. Even if the removal of the lead prosecutor would not prevent the investigation from continuing under a new appointee, a factfinder would need to consider whether the act had the potential to delay further action in the investigation, chill the actions of any replacement Special Counsel, or otherwise impede the investigation." -- Mueller Report 

Removing the Special Counsel, or limiting his scope, would not have stopped the investigation altogether. The next senior member of the investigative team would step in and carry out the investigation until a replacement is appointed.

This is key. This didn't occur. Had Mueller been removed, no obstruction would've occurred as the next one in line would've taken over Robert Mueller's duties. The investigation would've continued. 

A reading of your link does not prove that the President committed obstruction. Likewise, a rereading of the Mueller Report does not support the obstruction charge. Robert Mueller didn't make a decision on that aspect of the investigation. However, when asked if he was impeded or obstructed, he replied, "No."

Debunking Randy Shipley's anti-Trump Argument of August 2019 Part 10

Randy Shipley: Oh and by the way - Job growth in Trump's first 29 months was 800,000 less than the previous 29 months [REPEAT POINT]

This statement is misleading. The job growth rate has been steady since it dipped in 2009/2010. This means that even if there were fewer jobs created now than before... The fact of the matter is that more jobs are being created, and more people are employed now than when Obama was in the White House. Unemployment rates have gone down at record levels, and worker participation in the market has gone up at levels not seen over the past few decades.

Bottom line, more people are working now than the number of people working when the last president was in office. 

Randy Shipley: regardless how you want to spin this decrease in job growth it is a fact. [REPEAT POINT]

Again:

According to an August 2, 2019, New York Times report, the growth rate slowed but remained solid... With 164,000 jobs added in July. Get that? "Added". Job growth is still job growth. When the liberal New York Times calls it "stable", it works against your attempt to downplay it.

These numbers will fluctuate on a by month basis, just as they've done under Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc. The fact that you'd zero in on "job growth down" speaks volumes of your animosity against President Trump... Which is driving your responses on this thread and elsewhere.

[As of September 2019] Did we have job growth after President Trump took office? YES [   ] NO [   ]

[As of September 2019] Has unemployment gone down since President Trump took office? YES [   ] NO [   ]

[As of September 2019] Has unemployment gone down for minority groups since President Trump took office? YES [   ] No [   ]

Copy and paste these three questions to your reply. Put an "X" in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional thoughts that you'd want to add to your response.

Randy Shipley: And regardless how you spin it, 

That's not spin, but fact. You conveniently ignored the drop in deficit long before the Democrat Congress contributed to raising it. More on that later.

Randy Shipley: the annual deficit has gone up under Trump and is continuing to rise, after Obama reduced the annual deficit from $1.4T in 2009 to $665B in 2017. Trump has now increased it to an estimated deficit to $960B and will start topping $1T in 2020 [REPEAT POINT]

Again, you're confusing debt with the deficit. Deficits and surpluses have everything to do with whether the government is spending more or less than what it receives. Even if we have a surplus, we still have the debt. We still had the national debt under President Clinton, despite the surpluses that we had.

The deficit declined from 2004 to 2007, even with both the ongoing Iraq and Afghanistan wars.  It wasn't until 2007 that the deficit climbed again. Keep in mind that it's Congress, not the President, who is in charge of the budget. Congressional action dictates whether we end up with surpluses or deficits. The Democrats won in 2006 and took both houses of Congress starting in 2007. Notice that it was in 2007 that the deficit started to shoot up.

Debunking Randy Shipley's anti-Trump Argument of August 2019 Part 11

Questions that you refused to answer before are presented again. Understand that even if I don't get back to you tonight, tomorrow, the next day, the next week, the next month, the next year, I will get back with you. My counter rebuttals are almost as guaranteed as death and taxes.

One conclusion that you could draw from this is that I will continue to ask you these questions as long as you refuse to answer them per the parameters that I set. So here they are again:

Did any of these indictments involve knowingly colluding with Russian agents? YES [   ] NO [   ]

[As of September 2019] Did we have job growth after President Trump took office? YES [   ] NO [   ]

[As of September 2019] Has unemployment gone down since President Trump took office? YES [   ] No [   ]

[As of September 2019] Has unemployment gone down for minority groups since President Trump took office? YES [   ] No [   ]

Copy and paste these questions, and their yes/no options to your reply. Put an "X" in the box that represents your answer. Spare me any additional thoughts you'd want to add to these questions. Your failure to answer these questions will result in my asking it again in my next reply to you.

Note: Randy Shipley didn't answer these questions. The correct answer to these questions destroyed Randy Shipley's argument.

Debunking Randy Shipley's anti-Trump Argument of August 2019 Part 12

This is the post that Randy Shipley posted before putting me in block. He could've taken the rebuttal in private. But, since he couldn't concede gracefully in a private setting, I'm dismantling his reply in a public setting. This post is broken into two parts.

Randy Shipley: [Name redacted] - you are perhaps the happiest person on Facebook, at least on this thread - although [Name redacted] is close. 

I wouldn't be doing this for almost 16 years if it weren't fun. Again, I don't engage in debates unless two conditions are simultaneously met:

1. I have extensive first-hand experience or studied knowledge on the topic...

2. The opposition clearly doesn't know what they're talking about...

Both these conditions have been met on this thread, just as they were met in other debates that I've been involved with. Once the debate gets underway, a third requirement kicks in...

3. The opposition provides a rebuttal that must be met with a counter rebuttal.

The reality is that the opposition has no argument. If they had any sense of logic, they would admit to being wrong. They'd follow that action by going back to check the validity of their argument with the view of embracing what the facts dictate... Not what their feelings dictate. The opposition won't do this, as they want to remain in the fight. When they do this, against what the facts dictate, the opposition reveals their apparent psychological profiles.

You guys are clearly wrong, but you guys refuse to recognize or accept that. Your reactions show that. The opposition's continuing the debate, despite being thoroughly proven wrong, shows an opposition that's driven by narcissism, by control issues, by anger issues, by stress issues, etc.

The opposition, including you, is driven by emotion and by what feels "good" or "right" rather than what's actually is right.

Debunking Randy Shipley's anti-Trump Argument of August 2019 Part 13

Randy Shipley: You post no facts, you deflect and post a lot of opinions 

False. Advancing a fact-based, reasoned, logical argument requires a lot more words than just expressing an opinion. Additionally, going into an argument "with just an opinion" would not get that person far.

Facts allow one to keep arguing without needing to hide behind a link as a response. You ran out of argument and hid behind a website to advance your argument for you. Not something you'd do if you had the facts on your side.

If anybody did any deflection and opinion posting, it was you. That was all you had, albeit wrong information. However, that was the only way you could stay in the debate.

If I weren't advancing facts, just opinion, you'd easily be able to answer the simple, straight forward, yes/no questions that I asked you. You didn't. You ignored the first one that I asked, then ignored the additional questions that I asked.

Why? The right answer to these questions destroys your argument. Answering those questions truthfully and accurately requires you to counter your own argument. These questions force you to see how erroneous your argument is.

The questions that you refused to answer:

"Did any of these indictments involve knowingly colluding with Russian agents? YES [   ] NO [   ]

[As of September 2019] "Did we have job growth after President Trump took office? YES [   ] NO [   ]

[As of September 2019] "Has unemployment gone down since President Trump took office? YES [   ] No [   ]

[As of September 2019] "Has unemployment gone down for minority groups since President Trump took office? YES [   ] No [   ]

"Copy and paste these questions and their yes/no options to your reply. Put an 'X' in the box that represents your answer. Spare me any additional thoughts you'd want to add to this question. Your failure to answer this question will result in my asking it again in my next reply to you." -- [Name Redacted]

If I was just expressing an opinion, I wouldn't be able to craft these questions. They require both facts and logic. If you were expressing facts, you'd easily be able to answer these questions.

You dodged these questions because you know for a fact that you can't answer them without also destroying your entire argument. By extension, you know that you're wrong. Ignoring these questions "spares you" from having to admit or show the others that you're wrong. This, in turn, gave you a false sense of "not" being proven wrong.

Debunking Randy Shipley's anti-Trump Argument of August 2019 Part 14

Randy Shipley: - like Trump was not mocking that reporter because Trump and his P.R. firm say he wasn't. 

I posted a video by someone who voted for Hillary Clinton, who believed that President Trump mocked a reporter. He also saw Donald Trump as a bigot/racist. Then someone showed him a video of President Trump doing his motions... when talking about someone else.

If you watched the video, you'd see a comparison. Trump did the same thing when talking about this reporter as he did when talking about others. The demeanor was the same. Seen in context, he was mocking someone for not doing something that he could've and should've done, but didn't.

For example

"They asked Jimmy why he didn't go outside... [shakes forearms around]... It's too cold outside..."

I'm a Disabled American Veteran, and I've seen the video where he allegedly did that. I didn't just see it in the link that I provided. I also saw a video of the disabled reporter, who didn't look like he was shaking. You wouldn't even suspect that he was disabled from watching that one segment.

Hence, neither fact, logic, nor common sense supports the assumption that the President mocked the reporter. He didn't. He didn't make fun of someone's disability, because the facts indicate that he didn't.

Randy Shipley: All done replying or reading Just blocked your garbage, your rhetoric and your blind faith in the orange buffoon.

That's not the real reason why you blocked me. You did so because you "lost control" in the debate. By "lost control", you saw, deep down, that I thoroughly destroyed your argument. You couldn't even mount an effective defense... You chose to "shoot and retreat". You even hid behind a website... Using its links as your rebuttal.

That didn't stop me from debunking your argument again, including the one advanced by that "fact" check site. It wasn't until I kept pressing you to answer simple yes/no questions that you decided to block me.

The reality is that my constantly remaining on your six, no matter what you did to try to shake me away from your argument, is also what drove you to block me. You had no real argument. You tried to substitute for that by attempting to "get the last shot". Not succeeding in that, you "regained control" by putting me on block.

Again, you dodged simple, straightforward questions. These are questions you knew destroyed your argument in entirety. Why the action?

#QuestionDodgRandy in order to #StinkSpewShipley

The fact that both Joe Jagunich and you blocked me speaks volumes to the fact that I destroyed both of you in debate... And you guys know it. Blocking me after replying to me demonstrates your control issues.

You could've had the character and integrity to bow out gracefully. That would've ended the debate. But, you wanted the debate to conclude more palatable to your excessive pride and feelings. You wanted the debate to end on your terms despite not being in a position to dictate any terms. For that, I've posted my rebuttal here... In a way that gives you internet search fame.

Again, you action tells me that you know that you can't take me on in debate. If you had the facts, reason, logic, common sense, etc., on your side, you wouldn't need to put me on block. You'd be able to stand your ground. You didn't because you didn't have a valid argument.

Debunking Joe Jagunich's anti-Trump Argument of August 2019 Introduction

Joe Jagunich demonstrated poor knowledge of what he was debating. Hopefully, his performance on that instrument isn't like his debate performance.  (Facebook)

I entered a Facebook debate against Joe Jagunich in August 2019. A mutual friend generated a Facebook post addressing Congressman Stauber. Joe Jagunich was one of the posters that jumped in and supported the thread starter. He attacked President Trump and his policies.

He was among those that I debunked. Joe Jagunich was one of two posters, on that thread, who blocked me instead of conceding defeat. When a poster blocks me, I use that as justification to smoothen out my replies and post them here.

His statements were copied over, but not edited. They are as Joe Jagunich posted them.

During the course of the debate, I asked him a simple yes/no only question. The correct answer to this question destroyed the specific argument that Joe Jagunich made. He failed to answer that question.

Since this argument occurred during the summer of 2019, my responses are based on factors that were applicable at the time of the debate.

If Joe Jagunich is a Christian, his argument is a contradiction to God's Commandments, statutes, and judgments. By extension, they're a contradiction to the Gospels. Among God's statutes in the Old Testament is the requirement to "diligently search the truth" before rendering judgment.

My responses represent the results of "diligently searching the truth". Had Joe Jagunich done the same thing, and if he were impartial, he would not have made the argument that he made. This is assuming that he is a "practicing Christian".

When the opposition debates me on Facebook or in other private media, they have two choices to make. Get destroyed in a private setting, or get destroyed in a public setting. When they chose to block or unfriend instead of ceding the argument, they chose to take the whoppen in a public setting.

Debunking Joe Jagunich's anti-Trump Argument of August 2019 Part 1

Joe Jagunich: John, Rep. Stauber is afraid of Trump. 

No, he's doing the equivalent to "negotiating through office politics" while doing the job he was elected to do. Additionally, President Trump represents the conservative base. Any Republican that goes against President Trump's initiatives will anger the conservative base. This is a legitimate concern for any House or Senate Republican.

Joe Jagunich: Trump came to Duluth to support Rep Stauber's election campaign.....

This is the only thing that you said that's correct.

Joe Jagunich: so Rep Stauber is afraid that Trump will destroy him if he doesn't follow the Trump Party line. 

This falsehood is based on three erroneous assumptions.

The first assumption is that the Congressman is only doing what he's doing in order to stay in President Trump's good graces. The second assumption assumes that he doesn't do any thinking of his own. The third assumption ignores the excitement, among the conservative base, who voted for Congressman Stauber.

Understand that this was the election that was supposed to give us a "blue wipeout" at all levels, including Congress. Many were expecting the Democrats to take the Senate, not just the House. So, it speaks volumes when a Republican wins a congressional race. 

As I mentioned above, the conservative base is excited about President Trump and is supportive of his policies. President Trump represents the conservative base. Turning against President Trump means turning against the conservative base.

This is a point that your side of the argument continues to be blind to.

Joe Jagunich: Pretty sad that our Representative is supporting a most-terrible, narcissistic excuse of a man! 

Sorry, but the terrible narcissist left the White House back in January 2017; replaced by someone who isn't a narcissist. President Trump is essentially doing this job "nearly for free". He's working long hours, etc., to fix the mess that he inherited from Obama. Not exactly what one would expect a narcissist to do. President Trump is clearly doing work to improve our situation, then turns around to donate his federal paycheck to one cause after another intending to help others out.

President Trump isn't a terrible president, he's a great president. He will go down in history as one of the greatest presidents we've had.

Joe Jagunich: Keep the pressure on John. 

What pressure? President Trump is facing hurricane-force headwinds from the leftist elites, from the movers and shakers in D.C. as well as from the establishment. That doesn't stop him from doing the great work that he's doing.

Joe Jagunich: Trump has gone after your religion, and labeled you as a person that 'doesn't understand' and 'is not loyal'. I am with you, John!

What President Trump actually said:

"I think any Jewish people that vote for a Democrat, I think it shows either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty," - President Trump

This is not an attack. He lists two reasons why Jewish people would vote Democrat. One of those reasons is "total lack of knowledge" and the other is "great disloyalty". Two possibilities.

This is a dead accurate statement. The Democratic Party is no friend to Israel. There are people that insist that "Israel" and "Jews" are separable and that opposition to Israel's policies is "not" opposition to Jews.

This clearly indicates a total lack of knowledge of what is happening in that area.

On a strategic level, Israel's enemies and adversaries want Israel gone. They want to replace Israel with an Islamic Palestine. They consider Israel and Jews as synonymous. They see Israel as an "unjustified Jewish occupation of Arab lands".

The radical elements among the Palestinians do not intend to live peacefully side by side with Israel. They consider the idea, of not having all of Israel as Palestine, as a total insult. The areas the Palestinians currently have is an insult to them and falls short of their main objective.

Their Israel related policies are intended to end Israel's existence. Israel is in a state of war. Large segments of the Israeli population are either on active duty with the military or are in a reserve status. They have to stay vigilant at a security level, and they had to fight back against the Pro Palestine anti-Israel United Nations resolutions.

The removal of Israel, as a country, would not be an "end state" for the radicals. For them, it would just be the "beginning". Why? Their radical elements fully intend to eliminate Jews. They also intend to eliminate Christians.

So, it doesn't matter that we have Democrats who want to separate "Jews" from "Israel". The radical elements waging a war against the West and against Israel do not see such distinction. To the radical Islamists, "Israel" = "Jew". That's the reality that we have to deal with.

So yes, it is a factual statement that Jewish support for Democrats is done through a lack of knowledge of what is really going on.

Debunking Joe Jagunich's anti-Trump Argument of August 2019 Part 2

Joe Jagunich: [Name redacted] I support the Office of the Presidency. 

If you supported the Office of the Presidency, you would not be basing your argument, against President Trump, on what others have said about his statements. Instead, you would read the actual transcripts of the statement in order to get it in context. A person supporting the Office of the Presidency would make every effort to understand the intent of the president's statement, comments, etc. Your argument indicates that you did not do that.

Joe Jagunich: It is tragic that you have the same message as Trump. His message: 'Like what I am doing, and how I am behaving, or leave the Country. Support me (Trump) or leave. That is just not an American attitude!

No, what is tragic is that your statement is not consistent with what the president actually said. If you read his actual tweet or the actual transcripts of the speech, you would see his statement's full context. 

What President Trump actually said:

"They're very unhappy, I'm watching them and all they do is complain. So all I'm saying is if they want to leave they can leave John, they can leave! I mean I look at the one, I look at the one I look at Omar, I don't know her, I never met her, I hear the way she talks about Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda has killed many Americans. She said you could hold your chest out, you can, what I think of America... huuuh... When I think of Al Qaeda I could hold my chest out... When she talked about the World Trade Center being knocked down, some people, do you remember..." -- President Trump

As you can see, there's an inconsistency between what you claimed he said, and what he actually said. If you read the actual transcript, or watch/listen to him make the speeches, you would notice that he is offering a conditional statement...

If you don't like it here, leave! By extension, if you like it, stay.

That's not him telling people to leave if they do not support him. That's nothing but pure propaganda that certain people fall for hook, line, and sinker.

People can't even use the tweets that he made. If you separate those tweets by sentences, you would get the context of what he was saying. He didn't tell them to "go back where you came from," He told them to go back to the "crime infested" places that they came from. "Crime infested" and "broken down" are descriptions that Conservatives use to describe Democrat districts that have voted Democrat for decades.

He was telling them to go back and fix their districts. He wasn't telling them to go back to "their" countries.

Debunking Joe Jagunich's anti-Trump Argument of August 2019 Part 3

Joe Jagunich: Randy Shipley Hi, Randy. Good to hear from you after so many years! No to both questions. If a Priest is accused of being a predator, he is removed. I'd like to see the same thing happen to Trump.

Based on what? Your side of the argument has colossally failed to prove your anti-Trump arguments to be "true". The cold hard reality is that President Trump is not guilty of what you guys claim him to be guilty of. So, President Trump is perfectly fine where he is at. Hopefully, he gets a second term and serves until January 2025.

Randy Shipley: Joe Jagunich good to hear from you as well! I have zero respect for Trump as a person or a leader 

Considering that your side of the argument has failed to prove your anti-Trump comments with a fact-based, reasoned, logical argument, this speaks volumes about you. President Trump has done a lot to earn respect as a person and as a leader. He is exactly what we need. Anybody that claims that he doesn't deserve respect is doing it for emotional reasons... Or they are doing it based on a lack of knowledge of what is going on... Not on fact.

Debunking Joe Jagunich's anti-Trump Argument of August 2019 Part 4

Joe Jagunich: [Name redacted] I am baffled at your statements. You articulate very well, but let's just say that I do not share your admiration for President Trump. 

I knew before I replied to you, that we would disagree with each other regarding President Trump. One reason for your being baffled is that your information sources have told you one thing about President Trump, and that has influenced your views about him.

You're not the only one that's baffled at my statements. This is a common reaction by others who don't think that the mainstream media has abdicated their journalistic responsibilities.

Joe Jagunich: He is NOT a good man. 

Your opinion isn't supported by what I've observed in him. If he weren't a good man, he wouldn't be donating his presidential salary. He has done other things that prove your statement wrong.

Joe Jagunich: He is a liar, a cheater, a racist, a narcissist, and has NO redeeming qualities.

I've lost count of how many times people claimed that President Trump "lied", just to find out that he was providing the facts. Likewise, women have come forward trying to claim that President Trump was a cheater, yet they haven't proven their claims.

A racist? President Trump hired people from all demographics. If he were a racist, he'd only hire white people. His actions around people from different demographics don't indicate someone that's a racist.

A narcissist? Are you talking about President Obama? The last president was a narcissist. It was about him big time. The current president is giving people a taste of their own medicine, that doesn't make him a narcissist. Likewise, the claims about his statements regarding "loyalty" and "getting out" are false claims. Hence, arguments about his being a narcissist fall flat on their faces.

He has plenty of redeeming qualities.

Joe Jagunich: That's why only despots and dictators support him. 

Actually, multiple world leaders support him. Other countries' leaderships are glad that someone is finally showing leadership. Yes, the U.S. economy was a topic point at the summit, and world leaders over there were supportive of his efforts with regards to the U.S. economy. They are going to have their differences on an international scale, but they have a lot of similarities and interests, which don't make it as much in the news.

Joe Jagunich: Most Democratic government world leaders have a very low opinion of Trump. 

That's one of the prices that you have to pay when you're in a leadership position. You're going to make decisions that many others aren't going to be happy with. I experienced that while in leadership positions during my military career.

However, the claim that most democratic government leaders "have a low opinion" on him could only be based on media hype and not on reality. The body language of the other leaders, in the same area as President Trump during their interactions with him, does not indicate that they have a low opinion of him.

Joe Jagunich: He can't even read, and can't speak in complete sentences. 

I've watched him speak in complete sentences, and he is capable of reading. His ability to speak and read is one of the reasons why he is a billionaire president. Keep that in mind when you insult him from your home office.

Joe Jagunich: He will never be re-elected.....thank God.

They said he would not win the election back in 2015 and 2016. They said it as if it were an empirical fact. They said that when he went up against career politicians during the primaries. They said that when he went against someone who was "supposed to have her turn."

I stand by what I stated earlier. I've been a news junkie since 1982. The last time I've seen this kind of excitement from the Republican base was in 1983 and 1984. It's like déjà vu again, down to the audience chanting, "USA, USA, USA."

I predict that with all other things being equal, President Trump will win re-election.

Debunking Joe Jagunich's anti-Trump Argument of August 2019 Part 5

Joe Jagunich: [Name Redacted] No, 

Yes, what I said in my previous post is correct, just like what I'm about to say here.

Joe Jagunich: other democratic world leaders used to be eager allies. Trump has made snide remarks about the leaders from Germany, France, UK, Mexico, Canada, many African countries, Puerto Rico; among others. 

Wrong.

First, they still want to be our allies. It would be a geostrategic disaster if they decided that they didn't want to be our allies. The alternative to the U.S. isn't pretty. Just ask the Asian countries surrounding China. Those countries are looking to the U.S. to counterbalance the Chinese. China's idea for their "national borders" extends deep into the South China Sea. Consequently, they have conflicting territorial claims... On islands closer to these countries than to China.

If you were to read their accounts about what's going on, you'd find that even Vietnam wants to politically ally with the U.S. against the Chinese. It speaks volumes when protesters in Hong Kong wave the American Flag and speak about President Trump in favorable terms.

Second, you ignore the fact that world leaders made remarks regarding President Trump and the United States. These were criticisms. Together with the mess that they have in their countries, that they are not effectively dealing with, it is just for President Trump firing back.

The Germans have a disaster on their hands with regards to migrants, as well as with their economic policy that makes them dependent on Russia. President Trump criticized them for these issues, and for the fact that they needed to be cattle prodded to meet their NATO obligations.

The French are dealing with similar problems, which reached the point that they've had demonstrations on their streets for multiple weekends.

The UK? Are you talking about the "stone-cold loser" London Mayor that attacked President Trump? Other UK politicians? Both their leaders and their talking heads, like to lecture the United States about topics like gun control. Yet, they have problems in that country that they are not effectively addressing... Like knife crimes.

Mexico? He hammered them hard for failing to enforce their own immigration policies. Result? The Mexicans are doing things now that they did not do during previous US administrations. They are effectively in the process of turning Mexico into an extension of "The Wall". If they were not eager to be our allies, they would not have gone through extensive measures to comply.

One of the purposes behind President Trump's remarks, regarding both Mexico and Canada, involves the fact that they were benefiting at our expense under NAFTA. During the negotiation process for the new trade agreement, he continued making those remarks regarding both countries and both leaders. Result? They ended up agreeing to a replacement trade agreement that's closer to being fair among the participating nations.

Those African countries whose leaders President Trump spoke against? They are still our allies. It would be suicide for them not to... Especially now that we are sending military advisory teams to their countries to advise and train them to deal with militant terrorists.

Puerto Rico? You do realize that Puerto Rico is an incorporated US territory, do you? As with the case with his criticisms of world leaders, his criticism of Puerto Rico is spot on. A generous amount of money was sent to Puerto Rico for them to deal with the hurricane's aftermath. Yet, Puerto Rico mismanaged the money. The help that this money could've brought about did not materialize. Where did the money go?

Legitimate corruption, within the Puerto Rican government, has come to light. Have you not noticed the fact that their previous governor stepped down? President Trump was dead right about these guys, just as he was about his criticisms of other countries' leadership.

Joe Jagunich: Almost none of these leaders can trust him. 

The recent G-7 summit counters that assumption. The mainstream media didn't accurately report what occurred during that summit, just as they failed to accurately report what happened in Iraq during the Iraq War.

The fact that they still would attend meetings like the G-7 meeting in France, with President Trump there, proves you wrong. These meetings aren't events where people just get together to watch slide show presentations. Many deals are made during these meetings.

What you seem to be missing is the fact that these guys are politicians. They will say things to garner support back home and to hopefully leverage things their way during these meetings. President Trump secured some agreements during this meeting. President Trump wouldn't have accomplished this if "none" of these leaders trusted him.

Joe Jagunich: He has alienated most of his self-appointed cabinet members, 

You mean, like how a supervisor would "alienate" a substandard performer for calling him out for his substandard performance? Like how a leader would "alienate" someone in the team who was not performing in a way that positively impacted the team's performance?

I put "alienate" in quotation marks, as these are examples of things that a leader would do. A leader has a goal to accomplish. If those under him refuse to support him or refuse to take the actions needed for him to accomplish his goals, then that leader has every right to provide constructive criticism.

That's what President Trump is doing. He's providing constructive criticism. If you've been in leadership positions during your career, you'd recognize this. I do; I've been in leadership positions in the military. 

Joe Jagunich: any and all political opponents.o 

Yet, no complaint on your part about his political opponents disparaging him first? This is the same pattern I see elsewhere. Certain "favored" people attack President Trump. He holds fire, and they continue to attack him. Then, "wham", President Trump hits back and he hits back hard.

Do those who attacked him get told, "That's what happens when you keep poking the bear!"? No, your side of the argument chooses to demonize President Trump and act like those that he fired back on were initially "innocent".

Up to 90% of the media coverage on him is negative. They amplify his opponents' and detractor's voices. They refuse to report accurately in situations involving President Trump. Do you honestly believe that President Trump would just sit there and take it? Negative. He will go to twitter. President Trump does and says things in a way that exposes his enemies and adversaries for who they really are.

Debunking Joe Jagunich's anti-Trump Argument of August 2019 Part 6

Joe Jagunich: He has paid off women so they don't 'talk'. 

The fact that he has paid money to certain people does not indicate guilt. If the accusers are so sure that they could win big in court, why even bother with a settlement that pays less? One reason is that the probability of getting something for less, in a settlement, is greater than the chances of getting more in court... A possibility that wouldn't even be a consideration if this were a "slam dunk" case.

The fact that they did not go to trial speaks volumes to the fact that the claims are nothing but BS. In fact, one of them tried to sue President Trump for statements about her. Her case got thrown out and she had to pay President Trump's legal fees.

We are innocent until proven guilty in our justice system. If you're willing to label President Trump as guilty in this case, with zero evidence to support such a label, then you are just as bad as the despots and dictators that your side of the argument lambastes.

Joe Jagunich: You, my friend, have been wrong on every point you've made. 

False. I've been correct with every point that I have made. This is true on this thread; this is true with everything I've said in the debate against the left over the past almost 16 years.

First, in order for me to engage in these kinds of debates, two criteria have to be met:

1. I have to have extensive first-hand experience and/or extensively studied/research experience on the topic.

2. The opposition clearly does not know what they are talking about, they are clearly wrong on the topic being debated.

Both of these criteria have been met on this thread. As you have seen with my rebuttals, it is you that is wrong. You and others that I've rebutted here have been wrong on every point. This is why I can easily dismantle your arguments. I easily dismantle your arguments on the topic as well as your arguments on what I am doing.

I dismantle your arguments, as well as that of others because you guys are wrong. If you guys were "right/correct", I wouldn't be able to reply to you guys the way I'm replying to you guys here. The more wrong you guys are, the longer my replies generally are.

Second, as with the others on this thread, you have consistently failed to prove your argument "correct". All you have done is to advance an opinion as well as advance a leftist set of talking points. Anybody could provide an opinion. However, there is one set of facts. Your replies lack the facts. They're absent from the opposition's replies. They're absent from the replies that I rebutted on this thread.

Joe Jagunich: Trump is a despicable man. 

Based on what? If you're simply going by the "orange man bad" mainstream media narrative, then that "would" seem to be the "case". However, when it comes to his actual actions, your statement is wrong.

The majority of people that work with him, for him, for his organizations, as well as those who came across him, described him as something else. Not as a despicable person, but as an actual leader who cares about the people that work in his organization.

Joe Jagunich: He has no empathy toward anybody.

False. President Trump can't help it if, in the execution of his leadership responsibilities as well as his enforcing the laws, if certain people are not going to benefit from it. His putting up walls to serve as a barrier that prevents people from coming in? Who are trying to escape certain conditions in their home countries?

There is a legal way of coming to the US. It's not done by simply crossing into our border uninvited and without authority. They made the decision to cross. They and they alone bear the responsibility and risks of such a decision.

Going after the people who don't have America's best interests at heart? That does not make President Trump someone who "lacks empathy". What I see, with regards to his actions? Things that need to be done to improve our situation. His actions make sense economically, strategically, and politically.

As with your prior point, his actions do not show the actions of someone who "lacks empathy". Don't mistake his refusal to be a doormat, or his refusal to abandon his position in relation to the opposition, as his "lack of empathy". It isn't.

Joe Jagunich: He doesn't read his briefings and reports; 

And you say this based on what? I highly doubt that you are in the room with President Trump when he received these briefings and reports. In fact:

Are you in the same room as President Trump every time he receives his briefings and reports? YES [   ] NO [   ]

Copy and paste this question, and the yes/no options to your reply. Place an "X" in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional explanation that you would want to provide related to this question. I will be looking for this in your response. If you do not answer this question per the parameters that I set, I will ask it again in my counter rebuttal.

Otherwise, you are not in a position to say, with certainty, whether he reads his briefings and reports or not.

Joe Jagunich: has discontinued daily press conferences, 

As he should. The mainstream media has abdicated its journalistic responsibilities. The job of the journalist is to gather information. Not just the information that favors their argument, but relevant information. Their job is to provide us with actual news, not to choose what the audience receives for the purpose of deceiving the audience to reach a specific conclusion.

These daily press conferences have become a joke. "Journalists" are acting more like pundits serving an audience sharing a specific opinion. This isn't how journalists should behave in situations like this. If they're going to use it as a platform to attack the president, and not focus on actual issues, then there is no reason to why these press conferences should be held.

They do nothing constructive, especially when we have access to information not related to what the press corps could provide us. If they're going to take him out of context, instead of reporting what happened, the President isn't obligated to give them a platform.

Note: This response, as with the rest of the Joe Jagunich posts in this series, occurred during the summer of 2019. Notice how the press reacted to the daily COVID-19 briefings this year. One of their arguments was that these briefings should discontinue. This is a contradiction to Joe Jagunich's argument. It would not surprise me if he concurred with the latter argument. 

Debunking Joe Jagunich's anti-Trump Argument of August 2019 Part 7

Joe Jagunich: and has only visited war zone troops once in his term. 

As someone who has combat deployed to Iraq, this is irrelevant. I didn't see any politician, let alone the last president when I was deployed. And, this isn't something that is on our minds when we are out there.

It doesn't matter if someone makes multiple trips to the combat theater or not. If they don't do their jobs that we expect them to do as commander-in-chief, that is what we are going to be focusing on.

Understand that when word goes out, among the military community, that President Trump is coming to speak on the base, many military personnel want to be there. This was also the case when Bush Jr. was president. When Barack Obama was in office? Leadership eventually had to "scrape every nook and cranny" to get servicemembers out to become an audience.

You could tell, by the looks on the faces of the service members at these speeches, that they were happy to be hearing President Trump first hand. When President Obama was speaking? They didn't look like they wanted to be there.

The troops have a rapport with President Trump. They had one with George Bush. It wasn't always there with Barack Obama. Let that sink in. This is what matters, not the number of times they've visited the combat theater.

Joe Jagunich: He has criticized Gold Star Moms and Dads (you should be aware of this). 

First, yes, I am aware of this and good on him for doing so. The father, Khizr Khan, attacked Donald Trump with a straw man argument.

Then Candidate Trump argued for a solution to help secure the United States with regards to radical terrorism. This included putting a halt to immigration from certain Islamic countries until a better vetting system is in place. This made sense considering the problems that Europeans are facing dealing with people escaping from Syria.

However, instead of focusing on that one topic, Khan made it about the Constitution and people's freedom of movement. That wasn't the point or intention of Donald Trump's recommended solution. Khan's argument deliberately missed the point.

Naturally, Donald Trump fired back. Khan's status as a Goldstar parent does not make him immune to criticism.

This is a big complaint that the mainstream media has. The left tries to roll out certain people that, if we criticize them or fight back, we are given one sort of label or another. They had these two individuals up on stage in an attempt to argue against Donald Trump.

As with the conservative base, he did not buy into that "speaker immunity" nonsense. It's one of the things that the left does to make up for the fact that they can't win an argument based on fact, reason, and logic. The guy was clearly wrong, and Donald Trump called him out for it. The mainstream media went overboard with their anti-Trump propaganda.

Despite accusations of how he approached other Goldstar parents, Goldstar parents have stepped forward and described how President Trump actually is when interacting with them. Nothing like how the media portrayed him.

When I was in Iraq, I told family and friends that if I were to die there, anybody that used my situation in an argument against the Iraq War, would not only be arguing against something that I strongly believe in but would be considered as disowned.

My requirements were clear. I strongly believed in what I was doing (still do), I knew what I was getting into, and if I die doing it, anybody that attempts to use that as an argument against what I believe in was to consider themselves "disowned."

Debunking Joe Jagunich's anti-Trump Argument of August 2019 Part 8

Joe Jagunich: You say you're a news junkie? Every point you've made is from the far-right news sources. Even Fox News reports lately are more critical of him, and have done polls that show his support among voters to be around 40%.....not good news for Trump. Your newsgathering efforts need to be more inclusive.

Yes, I am a news junkie. No, I do not watch Fox News. They have drifted from what they did that attracted me to them in the first place. If I tune in, it would only be for specific hosts. Likewise, I have not watched either cable or network news.

Heck, I don't even watch TV.

As with others who have made assumptions about me, you are wrong about where I get my news and with regards to where I need to get my news.

My "reading of the news" involves Internet searches surrounding specific topics and issues. The Paris Climate Accord? I didn't just go by the reports that I came across. I downloaded the text of the treaty and read it for myself. Collusion? I downloaded the Mueller Report and went through it. I didn't just go by what the media said. Climate change? I go straight to the websites that track raw data. I also went straight to the studies.

In every instance where I come across a study or the text of a treaty, it didn't support the media narrative that talked about that study or treaty.

The information that I argued above is based on this extensive research. I look for information that could be substantiated. I don't just trust what people say at face value. I go straight for "Tier 1" information sources.

The conclusions that I come to are based on that research. If it happens that my points are consistent with what you identify as "far-right news", then that is just a situation where two different people made the same or similar conclusions based on a review of the same information.

Also, given the track record of the polling of the 2016 presidential race, do you honest to God think that I will trust polling data that you throw around? Remember, Donald Trump was supposed to lose in 2016. This was based on polling and on pundit analysis. He was polling poorly, even into election night. That night, he started with a high probability of losing the election.

Well, we know how that turned out, don't we?

Don't make an assumption about what I'm doing with regards to information gathering, and what I'm not doing. I've yet to have someone make a negative assumption about me and be correct. They've always been wrong.

Contrary to your erroneous assumption, my news gathering is extensive and includes far more sources than what you assume I'm using. If by being "inclusive", you want me to include the propagandist sources of information that you follow, I would say, "No thanks."

Let's take CNN and MSNBC for example. They hammered the drum hard about Russian Collusion. I downloaded the Mueller Report and went through it. Nowhere, in that report, did it say that President Trump knowingly colluded with the Russians. Nowhere in that report did it say that anybody involved with the Trump campaign knowingly colluded with the Russians.

Yet, far left/radical left/leftwing news sources like CNN and MSNBC pushed that narrative as if "there was" collusion. The report disagreed with their hyped narrative, and it disagreed with the "obstruction" nonsense that these media sources were peddling.

The 97% "consensus" on climate change? I downloaded that study and went through it. It turned out that this "97%" is based on 32% of the papers downloaded out of over 11,000 papers downloaded. They focused on the abstracts. I'm sorry, but "97%" of "32%" does not constitute a "consensus" among the scientific community.

But wait! There's more! They only read the abstracts for these papers. The meat and potatoes are actually in the paper, after the abstract, not in the abstract. This was a sham study that disregarded scientific research principles. Yet, the leftist propaganda media harped this "consensus" as if they were quoting the Bible.

These are the information sources that you want me to "be inclusive of". I'm sorry, but I will reject propaganda. My primary MOS in the Army is Psychological Operations (PSYOP). One of PSYOP's duties, while combat deployed, is to counter enemy propaganda. A look at leftwing news like CNN, MSNBC, New York Times et al. shows an example of textbook propaganda.