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.
No comments:
Post a Comment