Chris Kimball Gets Biblical Concepts Wrong - Part II

Chris Kimball: [Name redacted] you take what you want from the Bible and turn it into how you want it to work for you, 

I read the entire Bible from cover to cover more than once. What I've mentioned above is based on reading the whole Bible in context. I'm not turning it around to say what I want it to say. If you were to read the entire Bible from cover to cover, more than once, you too would see what I'm arguing.

No twisting around, just letting folk know what's actually said and meant in the Bible.

For example, the bit about Barabbas, and wanting him released instead of Jesus. Barabbas is freed and Jesus is turned over to be crucified. Those who haven't read the entire Bible up to that point, or even just the first five books of the Bible, would miss what's going on with this scene.

The Book of Leviticus prescribes the sacrifice that's needed to atone for the sins of a nation. In the Gospel of John, the high priest declares that Jesus would be sacrificed for the nation. In Leviticus, two goats are presented in sacrifice for a group or nation. One is released, with the sins of the nation transformed onto it (scapegoat). The other one is sacrificed.

Barabbas means "Son of God". His first name was Jesus. Which means we have Jesus who identified himself as "Son of God", and another Jesus whose actual last name meant "Son of God". Both symbolize the two goats mentioned in Leviticus when it comes to sacrificing for the nation. Barabbas became the scapegoat and Jesus became the sacrificial lamb.

Bottom line? Reading the whole Bible provides a different understanding of what Christianity is about... Than what one would get just attending church on Sundays.

I'm simply telling it like it is, giving it to you straight based on a simple reading of the Bible.

Chris Kimball:  so you can look like your so Holy. 

Nowhere did I claim, nor act, like I'm "holy". If anything, by accusing us of being "narrow-minded", you're implying that you're "not narrow-minded", ergo, "made holy of being narrowminded".

Again, based on a reading of the Bible... "To make holy" means to purge what's not desirable. A good example of this is cleaning up with regards to the new coronavirus. There's a meme going around talking about how to thoroughly clean and disinfect. The Bible describes this same process as "to hollow out" or "to make holy".

As used in the Bible, for example, the temple court was "hallowed out" to make room for more sacrificial alters.

Back to your case. You spoke of President Trump as "the antichrist" and spoke of us as "narrowminded". Without advancing proof of this argument, you're implying that you're "not" narrowminded... aka, you are "hallowed out" of "narrowmindedness".

Through your actions, you're the one that's portraying yourself, indirectly, as "being holy".

Chris Kimball:  I've seen enough of you fake Christians, so don't preach to me about religion.

First, your actions on this thread are inconsistent with God's laws, as mentioned in the Old Testament. They're also inconsistent with Jesus's teachings, as mentioned in the New Testament. I've explained one way that you've violated God's laws, and Jesus's teachings, above.

You're using your opinion, based on a lack of understanding of scripture, to define what a real Christian is. Whether someone is a true or fake Christian depends on the consistency of their action with scripture. Walking the walk with regards to scripture is what a real Christian does.

Chris Kimball:  You have the same mentality as Trump, twist and turn things to defend your actions... 

This statement makes it blatantly obvious that you have not read the entire Bible. This also indicates that you don't truly understand the Bible. Contrary to statements about the Bible "not supposed to be read cover to cover", a reading of the entire Bible shows that each book builds on the previous books.

Context is important. If you read bits and pieces of the Bible, without reading the books and verses that precede the selected verses, you'd miss a lot of what that verse is truly talking about.

Second, the reality is that I will not jump into a debate against someone unless two conditions are simultaneously met:

1. I have extensive first hand, or studied/researched, knowledge on the topic...

2. Those that I argue against have little to no understanding of the topic that they're arguing

In this case, references to "declaring oneself as God" and "declaring someone as an antichrist".

I'm not twisting, distorting, or creating verbal "voodoo" to defend my position. The cold hard reality is that I'm advancing a fact-based, reasoned, logical argument against your factually deficient one.

For your part, you're using emotion-based opinion to describe how President Trump and I see and argue things. Like me, President Trump will argue based on the facts.

Chris Kimball: or blatantly deny what has been said!! 

I'm not denying the facts. I'm proving your argument wrong. Not accepting your invalid argument does not constitute a "denial" of a "fact" or "reality".

I've been debating against people on the left for over 16 years. I've yet to have one of them advance a fact-based, reasoned, logical argument. Instead, they, including you, have advanced emotion-based arguments. Your arguments are generally devoid of fact but rich in falsehoods and distortions.

Chris Kimball: Give me a BREAK!!!!

I don't give breaks to people who make erroneous assumptions about me and about my arguments.

I recognize your argument for what it is; the successful result of the media's propaganda efforts. One of my MOSs in the Army is Psychological Operations or PSYOP. One of PSYOP's duties, while deployed overseas, is counter-propaganda. The information sources that also advance your argument, along with the leftist (mainstream) media's reporting, are textbook propaganda.

Chris Kimball Gets Biblical Concepts Wrong - Part IV

Chris Kimball: I've seen it time and time again. People professing to be Christians. Taking scripture out of context and using it to defend un Christian acts. Lying and cheating and using Bible Verses to try and cover their actions. 

Judging by the arguments that you advance on this thread, and your reactions to my explanation of scripture, I highly doubt that you have read the Bible in its entirety. Or, if you had read it in its entirety, I highly doubt that you understood what you were reading.

Your actions are inconsistent with what is preached in Scripture.

There is a recurring theme, thread, that repeats itself throughout the Bible. That theme/concept, when followed into the New Testament, makes it easier to understand what the parables mean, and what the actions in the Bible actually mean. This theme/concept even runs through the Deuterocanonical Books... Books listed in the Catholic Bible but not in the Protestant one.

My explanations, during our argument, are consistent with this thread that runs throughout the Bible. None of what I explained above is "out of context", but rather, in the context of the message that keeps repeating itself from the beginning of Genesis until the end of Revelations.

You, with your insinuated "reading the Bible", have failed to explain your opinion that I "took the Bible out of context". Additionally, you failed to explain how others have taken the Bible out of context.

In fact, you have failed to address any of my arguments above. Your responses here are nothing but emotional defenses, emotional reactions, and emotional "rationalizations" of your position and of other people's actions.

These are defensive acts done by someone that is attempting to regain control in a situation where they have lost control in.

You have to prove that people are "lying and cheating" and "twisting Bible verses to cover their actions" before you could make those claims. Nowhere in our argument did you prove that. Nowhere on this thread have you demonstrated that I have done what you insinuated I've done.

Chris Kimball: I don't like fighting over religion or politics for that matter, 

If you don't like fighting over religion or politics, you would not have attacked President Trump as the antichrist. You most certainly wouldn't have responded to me.

However, by blocking me instead of having the integrity, honor, and character to receive my counter-response after you responded to me, your statement is self-serving... And false. The reality is that you don't want people to destroy your arguments. Especially if their argument leaves you without one.

Chris Kimball: but when it's trying to be pushed down my throat, I will defend both!! 

Calling President Trump "the antichrist" and referring to the rest of us that support him as "narrowminded" is you pushing your politics down our throats. Additionally, accepting blatant leftist propaganda against Trump as "Gospel", and pushing that, is you forcing your politics down my throat.

My "lengthy" replies to you is an example of my defending my politics against your attempt to shove your politics down my throat.

The reality is that what you are defending is an argument that your intellect is seeing is indefensible... But what your narcissism is seeing as "right" and that must be defended.

Chris Kimball: I will speak my mind like everyone else. 

And I will present a fact-based, reasoned, logical argument against someone's "speaking their mind" if it amounts to attacking President Trump and attacking Trump supporters based on erroneous assumptions. An attack against President Trump is an attack against a proxy for many of my arguments. An attack against a proxy for many of my arguments is an attack against me. Hence, I will "fight back". 

Chris Kimball Gets Biblical Concepts Wrong - Part V

Chris Kimball: I will not be an enabler! 

Then you wouldn't have responded to me in the first place. The fact that you did contradicts what you're trying to claim about your actions.

What you're really saying is that you will not resist the urge to do what you accuse others of doing... Forcing your politics and factually deficient arguments down people's throats. You will not sit back and refuse an opportunity to demonstrate anger, control, and narcissism issues.

Chris Kimball: So, you sir, go right ahead and try to bully all you want, but you won't bully me. 

Don't mistake my subjecting your argument to a blistering fact check scrutiny as my "being a bully". It isn't. However, your actions show that you're engaging in bullying. Your first response on the thread indicated such. You validated this with the remainder of your replies during the argument.

Chris Kimball: You really should try and be objective and less tunnel vision about Trump. 

You see, this is an example of you shoving your politics down peoples' throats.

I'm being objective and am basing my arguments on the facts. I will not debate a topic against the opposition unless I have extensive first-hand, or reading/researched, experience in the topic. My outlook on President Trump and on others is based on an extensive search of the facts.

Meaning, when people like you advance completely false statements, provably wrong statements, about President Trump, or about another topic, I'm going to prove the statements wrong. My doing so does not make me someone "with" "tunnel vision". It makes me somebody that is not susceptible to propaganda/gaslighting.

The reality? You, and others like you, are the ones that have tunnel vision on topics related to President Trump.

If you have read the Bible, as you implied, then you would be familiar with one of God's laws that requires a thorough investigation of claims against someone. You failed to do that would President Trump. I will demonstrate that below.

Chris Kimball: He says things(that his followers do not hear or see) and then denys he's said them. He's been video taped for heaven sake. He CAN'T deny it!!! So really, is he a trustworthy person? 

I've gone through the applicable transcripts of President Trump's speeches, and have read the statements on twitter and elsewhere. Additionally, I have seen some of the videos that you reference. Those videos are taken out of context. They cherry-pick those statements and force those cherry-picked statements to fit their propagandist narratives. However, when matched to what President Trump actually said, you get a completely different narrative.

I highly doubt that you have a sense of fairness to go through President Trump's actual speeches to see for yourself what he actually said. You would rather go by anti-Trump media, go by what they say, and fully accept their out of context/cherry-picked video content, as gospel.

Your insinuation, that anti-Trump media propaganda is "fact", given the availability of his actual statements providing a completely different narrative, demonstrates your narrowmindedness with regards to things related to President Trump.

Chris Kimball: Is this "TEXTBOOK PROPAGANDA"?

Yes, the videos and statements that you reference contain cherry-picked President Trump statements. The propagandists that created the videos you listened to selectively quoted President Trump in order to take him out of context and spew leftist propaganda.

We saw this in one of the briefings. A reporter tried to read back one of these out of context statements to the president. President Trump forced him to read his entire statement. When the reporter read President Trump's entire statement, the narrative completely changed from what the reporter initially pushed. President Trump responded by saying, "Thank you."

Again, one of my Army military occupational specialties is Psychological Operations (PSYOP). One of the things that PSYOP does overseas is counterpropaganda. What I did during our argument, as a private citizen/retired Soldier, is an example of what I would do if I were deployed as part of a psychological operations product and development team overseas when countering enemy propaganda.

Your references, based on your arguments, are textbook propaganda. Your argument is propaganda. You've advanced repeated leftist propaganda talking points and have failed to advance a valid argument showing how you've come to the erroneous conclusions that you've argued.

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 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 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."