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 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.