Keddrick Corday Thompson Loses Debate- Goes Internet Thug Part 1

Keddrick Corday Thompson Response 01, June 21, 2020:

Keddrick Corday Thompson: Never shamed. 

Requesting my help for you to generate an IRR memo was your attempt to sham out of a deployment. Additionally, you are hoping to sit out the last three years of your service in the IRR... Until I told you about the points requirement and rank reduction that would be involved.

When you realized that the IRR was not an option, you focused on rear detachment. With that not being a possibility, you acted like you would be able to find another option. Or, as you put it:

"...and face to face I make things happen. Not my 1st rodeo... did it before..." -- Keddrick Corday Thompson

This was in the context of getting out of a deployment. So yes, you are attempting to sham out of this, and you appear to have a history of shamming. Otherwise, you would not have made that statement.

Keddrick Corday Thompson: So stop that. 

Nope. I will continue to call you out.

Keddrick Corday Thompson: But you entitled to your opinion. 

I am basing my arguments on the facts. You provided a lot of clues, through your statements, that support the arguments that I made. When you look into the IRR, or Rear D, you are looking to sham.

Keddrick Corday Thompson: As I said...Iwas Infantry most my career...no shamming. 

The fact that you were infantry does not negate the fact that you had just admitted, indirectly, that you are a person that shams. However, that does not mean that when it comes to the individual, mundane, nitty-gritty details of your infantry life, that you "did not" sham.

In fact, it was in an infantry unit where I learned the word "sham" and "sham shield". So yes, there are people, in the infantry, who sham.

Keddrick Corday Thompson: Yall deployed to FOBs...

As I said, I deployed to Iraq as an infantryman. You, as an infantryman, would know that I had crossed the wire. A look at your resume shows that they stuck you in a FOB... In the battalion TOC. In fact, for months during your Afghanistan deployment, you were an usher at a ministry there for the troops. You did this as an infantryman. This indicates that although you were infantry, you spent large blocks of time sitting in a major FOB.

Keddrick Corday Thompson Response 02, June 21, 2020:

Keddrick Corday Thompson: Trust. 

Considering your inconsistency, and your self-contradictions, I can't really trust anything that comes from your mouth or through your keyboard. Based on your inconsistencies, and on your wild claims, I would not be surprised if some of the things that you've listed on your profile are embellishments.

Keddrick Corday Thompson: You have no bearing on my life 

I never claimed that I did. However, the fact that you kept replying indicates that I have an impact on you. If I had no bearing on your life, you would have ignored me and not replied to me days before making that statement.

Keddrick Corday Thompson: I will still thrive in life whether I choose to go on this 

First, what you said earlier:

"This mobilization will damper my Salary and put me in a tense financial situation and position physically with my Son." -- Kedrick Corday Thompson

This came from you. If you would thrive regardless of whether you deploy or not, then a transfer from your unit prior to deployment becomes a nonissue for you. You would not be requesting to go into the IRR, or trying to get a rear detachment stood up.

Second, I'm looking at the lists, and timestamps, of your accomplishments. I noticed some "short stints". Additionally, you left the Army with approximately 12 years of active duty under your belt. For some reason, you did not go for the additional eight years of active duty to get 20. Shortly after you got out of the Army, you had short stints. Then you joined the Army Reserve.

Based on the tone and demeanor of your responses, I would not be surprised if what I listed above contributed to this reality. You have anger, stress, control, and narcissistic issues. A combination of these increases the risk that you would resort to violence if you don't get your away. The above arrest link, that I posted on you, substantiated what I see in you.

The reality is that I don't see you as "thriving in life" in the long run. This is if you are not willing to hold yourself accountable for the things that you've done wrong in the past.

NOTE: I searched the Internet for his name. What I discovered substantiated my suspicions on the kind of personality of what I was dealing with.  He was charged with assault and battery. In the associated blotter, his then-girlfriend claimed that they were arguing. She claimed that he subsequently hit her with his vehicle. She was treated for minor injuries. 

Keddrick Corday Thompson: mobilization...not deployment... Or not. [Repeat Point]

It's both. First, you get activated. Then, your unit mobilizes, as in sets itself up, in order to be an operational active-duty unit. Then, the moment you guys conduct movement to the location your unit is needed, you guys effectively will be in deployment. You guys are deploying away from your mobilization point to another location.

The reality, based on what you told me? You are making the deployment, the entire deployment.

Keddrick Corday Thompson Loses Debate - Goes Internet Thug Part 2

Keddrick Corday Thompson Response 03, June 21, 2020:

Keddrick Corday Thompson: Your tactics trying to say I'm shamming because I am not agreeing with you. 

False. First, what I said:

"When you said, 'and face to face I make things happen. Not my 1st rodeo... did it before...', One of the things you effectively told me was that you would push for things to go your way instead of doing what you are supposed to do... That you're a 'shammer'." -- [Redacted]

Where, in that statement, am I saying that you wanted to sham because of your disagreement with me? The fact that you would interpret it as such indicates your anger reaction to reading my replies to you.

Second, no, I'm not trying to say that you are shamming because of a disagreement. I'm actually telling you that you are shamming because of your attempts to avoid deployment. As in, sham out of the deployment via a transfer to another unit, component, or to remain in rear detachment.

Keddrick Corday Thompson: Never shamed as Infantry...in my numerous roles as PLT SGT and as SQD LDR

First, what you said:

"...and face to face I make things happen. Not my 1st rodeo... did it before..." -- Keddrick Corday Thompson

Given the context that you said this, you were looking to avoid deployment. You essentially admitted that you have weaseled out of these situations before. In other words, you shammed multiple times.

Also, on your roles as Platoon Sergeant and Squad Leader. You didn't list "Platoon Sergeant" among the list of job titles/positions. I would not be surprised that you stepped up as Platoon Sergeant during block leave, or during PT formation.

But still, the fact that you were infantry does not negate your statement above. There are people in the infantry who do sham. 

Keddrick Corday Thompson Response 04, June 21, 2020:

Keddrick Corday Thompson: But believe what you will. 

I believe what the facts indicate. First, with what you said here. Second, with what I found doing an Internet search with your name. Facts are facts.

Keddrick Corday Thompson: I sought your opinion..

You asked for an opinion. I provided you the facts based on my familiarity with the process involved with submitting an IRR packet.

Keddrick Corday Thompson: I got it but for whatever you still responding because you butt hurt.

Because your response wasn't restricted to something like this: "Thanks for your feedback, I will make preparations for that deployment after all". Instead, you gave me a childish response. You were trying to "get the last word in" while you were at it.

You were butt hurt. My explanation made you realize that unless you wanted to lose your rank, transferring out of your unit was not an option. I also made you realize that your unit was not having a Rear D effective our argument. 

I continued to hammer you with the facts. Had you remained with a "Thanks for your feedback", followed by a realistic course of action like what I just recommended, this argument would not have occurred.

You're using words, and language, driven by your control issues, anger issues, stress issues, and narcissistic issues, etc.

Keddrick Corday Thompson: Keep texting your script. 

You should know, by now, that I'm going to keep responding to you as I enjoy doing this. I know that you said this out of frustration over the fact that I won't stop hammering you.

Keddrick Corday Thompson: Sheep. [SELF TRAIT PROJECTION]

Says the guy that hangs his hopes on rumors... Like a Rear D being set up... Instead of on reality. No, I'm not "sheep" for believing public records related to you. I believe them over your explanations trying to justify your actions or your attempts to be dismissive of this event.

Keddrick Corday Thompson: Congrats on being mediocre. [SELF TRAIT PROJECTION]

Your conduct in this debate is not what I would expect from someone if I were "mediocre". I've noticed that you've lost steam in this exchange. One of us is mediocre, and it's not me. 

Keddrick Corday Thompson Loses Debate - Goes Internet Thug Part 3

Meme background: Monty Python and the Holy Grail by Monty Python, Mark Forstater, and Michael White.

Keddrick Corday Thompson Response 05, June 21, 2020:

Keddrick Corday Thompson: If you didn't...ok... congrats you can read.

If I don't send my response? Not happening. As I mentioned above, I consider your reply as a request for my feedback. Meaning, every time you reply, I'm going to respond. My continuing to respond to you has no bearing on my ability to read. It's just me doing what I want to do at the expense of what you want me to do. You need to understand that I don't accommodate the people that I argue against.

Keddrick Corday Thompson: Skill. Sure. You getting skilled on by me. 

You sound like the Black Knight on Monty Python's Holy Grail movie. You also sound like Comical Ali/Baghdad Bob. Both of these individuals claimed victory despite the fact that they were losing. You are doing the exact same thing. You're claiming that you've been using skill in this debate when you've done nothing but consistently retreat from your position.

Keddrick Corday Thompson: But your PRIDE won't let you accept it. [SELF TRAIT PROJECTION]

Wrong. You lost the moment this became a debate. This became a debate the moment you realized that you weren't getting your way. The reality is that you give me the appearance of being a narcissist. This is driving you to remain engaged in a debate where you're getting obliterated. Your excessive pride acts like an excessive amount of alcohol in your system clouding your judgment and preventing you from seeing how you're making a fool out of yourself.

Keddrick Corday Thompson: That's why you keep texting back after I been ended this and said thanks for your analysis and opinion.

No, I keep replying to you because you keep replying to me. Here, let me simplify this for you.

Let "X" be your response.

Let "Y" be my counter-response.

What has been happening is this:

"If 'X', then 'Y'".

This argument continues because you keep providing the X. Naturally, I provide the Y to complete the "If 'X', then 'Y'" cycle.

Want this to stop? Quit forwarding "X"... If not "X", then not "Y". This is common sense. If you wanted this to stop, you would ignore me. But, your excessive pride, your control issues, and your anger issues push you to forward "X" repeatedly while hoping for a different result.

You know what they say about people who do the same thing and expect different results.

Keddrick Corday Thompson Response 06, June 21, 2020: :

Keddrick Corday Thompson: I str8 up laughed at you and still am. 

No you didn't. You're not the first person that I've debated against who claimed that they too were enjoying the exchange. I'm the only one that's enjoying it. You're the one that keeps complaining that I keep responding.

The reality is that my refusal to let your BS stand is angering you. Your blood "boils" every time I debunk your argument. You want me to stop, and probably wish that you could assault me for refusing to stop replying to you.

You're didn't laugh, you fumed. 

Keddrick Corday Thompson: But do yo thing. As I said before. Just let it go...hardcore.... 

That's a given. As I mentioned earlier, your response to me will be seen as a request for my feedback. Meaning, if you don't want my feedback, don't reply to me. It's that simple. Yes, I have every intention of debunking your BS every time you send it to me.

Keddrick Corday Thompson: You a internet thug... [PROJECTING YOUR TRAIT]

If you were laughing and were still laughing when you posted that statement, you wouldn't be calling me an "internet thug". That's something that someone would say if they felt that they were getting their rear ends kicked... This is an indication that you're seeing your argument consistently destroyed no matter what you do.

Keddrick Corday Thompson: I love tap dancing...

Yes, your responses indicate that you tap dance around the issue. Your argument with regards to your unit standing up a Rear D is an example of you tap dancing. Your entertaining "whataboutisms" is you engaging in tap dances.

Keddrick Corday Thompson: Too bad you can't accept losses. [PROJECTING YOUR TRAIT]

Once again, you sound like the Black Knight on Monty Python's Holy Grail, and like Comical Ali/Baghdad Bob. Watching a video of those two is like reading your claims regarding your "prevailing" in this argument. You aren't.

You're expecting me to accept something that isn't the case. Your statement is effectively a "gaslighting" attempt.

The reality is that you're the one that can't accept losses... As given by your repeated insistence that you have an option in your future that doesn't involve deploying... And given the fact that you refuse to acknowledge that I'm schooling you in this argument.

Kedrick Thompson: Its ok. 

Despite your saying this, you don't think that it's okay that I keep hammering you. You're hoping that I'd stop hammering you. 

Kedrick Thompson: You have fun continue to try and try and try.

The one thing that you got right here is that I'm having fun. What you got wrong is your claim that I'm "trying". There's no "trying" in this equation. I'm repeatedly cutting your rear end off and am shoving it down your throat.

Keddrick Corday Thompson Loses Debate - Goes Internet Thug Part 4

Keddrick Corday Thompson Response 07, June 21, 2020:

Keddrick Corday Thompson: You mad you can't dance. Probably can't shoot or bound or radio

False on all accounts. Not only could I dance... As in on the dance floor or in a club... But I've danced since before you were born (I graduated high school in the late '80s).

I've also pulled the trigger before you were born, and hit my targets using iron sights... This was before you fired your first toy gun and made "pew pew pew" noises with it.

Radio? My first deployment began in 1991. I was radioing back then. How old were you in 1991? Five? So, while you were playing with the toy phone, I was deployed engaging in RT procedures.

I could also bound. Both day and night.

Keddrick Corday Thompson: Good day sir.

Had you meant this; you would not have returned. You came back after this, proving to me that you were angry and not laughing.

Keddrick Corday Thompson Response 08, June 21, 2020:

Keddrick Corday Thompson: control and anger issues. You are trying analyze me. You way off. 

Nope, I was dead accurate about you. People who have narcissistic issues, anger issues, and control issues... Like you... Have a high tendency of getting physical during verbal altercations.

In your case, you were charged with assault and battery when your then-girlfriend informed the police that you hit her with your car... During an argument that you had with her. This is consistent with your conduct during this debate. This includes how you're reacting, responding, and on your statement that you wish that you would never see me... That I would run...

When it comes to analyzing you, I'm center mass. Right smack dab in the middle of the target. I wouldn't be surprised if some of your ex-girlfriends saw my posts, they'd substantiate what I just said about you.

This wouldn't be the first time this scenario played out. Every time someone, that knew the person I was arguing against, jumped in, that person agreed with me.

Keddrick Corday Thompson: Maybe you have a pride and weak person issue. [SELF TRAIT PROJECTION]

Unlike you, I don't have pride and weak person issues. However; I'm seeing this with you.

We both have infantry backgrounds. Which one of us keeps elevating his infantry background? You. Which one of us, despite both of us being POGs, look down on POGs? You. I could bring up more examples just based on what you said above.

Your pride refuses to acknowledge where you've been wrong... Like with that assault and battery charge levied against you. This indicates both pride and weak person issues.

Keddrick Corday Thompson: You can't stand regular talk. 

You're the one that's complaining about my constantly replying to you. You're the one that's hinting that this exchange should stop. I want this exchange to continue. The reality is that you're the one that can't handle regular talk when it means that you don't get your way.

Keddrick Corday Thompson: And try to read text...but your radar be off. 

You have a hard time reading what I'm saying because of your excessive anger. You can't read my replies without your blood "boiling mad". This gets into the way of you understanding what I'm saying. Combined with your control issues, this causes you to misinterpret what I'm arguing. You're seeing what you want to see instead of what I'm actually arguing.

Keddrick Corday Thompson: Nice try though

Not "try" but "success". Your responses are showing that I am very accurate with what I said about you.

Keddrick Corday Thompson Loses Debate - Goes Internet Thug Part 5

Keddrick Corday Thompson Response 09, June 21, 2020:

Keddrick Corday Thompson: You may need to take a vacation and try relaxing. 

Speak for yourself. Notice the timestamps of my reply? They only happen during a certain time in the day. Lately, in the evening. There's the rest of the day where I'm engaged with other activities.

As I mentioned above, I enjoy doing this. Destroying arguments like yours is one of my hobbies. It's fun and relaxing.

What you're really saying is that I'm the one that should stop replying. The fact that you continued arguing, instead of "vacationing and relaxing", negates similar advice that you'd want to give me.

Keddrick Corday Thompson: You get women 

Yes, I'm seeing a woman your age. She appreciates the fact that I don't believe in driving cars into her... Like what you're accused of doing to your ex-girlfriend.

Keddrick Corday Thompson: or you married 

What I said earlier:

"Unlike you, she has a valid excuse. I was in that situation before my late wife passed away." -- [Redacted] 

I believe that you were 12 years old when I got married to her. She was my second marriage.

Keddrick Corday Thompson: because you seem lonely...smh.

If you believe that nonsense, then you're lonely. Otherwise, why hang out over here responding to me? No, I'm not lonely. I just take pleasure in destroying your arguments. I also enjoy watching you react to my dismantling your argument.

Keddrick Corday Thompson:  do yo thing again.

This goes without saying. Remember, your reply gets a counter reply from me.


Keddrick Corday Thompson Response 10, June 21, 2020:

Keddrick Corday Thompson: I'm enjoying Father's Day. I hope you can too. You seem...nvm. let me not help you think I got anger issues. 

If you're trying to argue against me, and you're "enjoying Father's Day", then your statement is null and void. Shouldn't it immediately follow that my destroying your arguments does not take away from my enjoying Father's Day?

Your actions here show that you have anger issues. You proved that fact when you later told me that you hoped that you never see me in person. Yes, someone with anger issues will make that statement. 

Keddrick Corday Thompson Loses Debate - Goes Internet Thug Part 6

Keddrick Corday Thompson Response 11, June 21, 2020:  

In reference to seeing his mug-shot...

Keddrick Corday Thompson: You think that mean something. 

Yes. It proves my point that you have anger, control, narcissistic issues, etc., issues. These come to the fore when the person having those issues doesn't get his or her way. You reacted that way in this argument. You reacted that way during an argument against your then-girlfriend that didn't go your way.

Keddrick Corday Thompson: You know how many people been falsely arrested... smh. 

You're implying that since there are people who've been falsely arrested, that you've been falsely arrested. However, this isn't the case with you.

According to the blotter that listed your arrest, you were accused of running a vehicle into your ex-girlfriend. You guys were involved in a heated argument before that. She had to go to the hospital and get treated for minor injuries.

I mean, let me guess... Your ex-girlfriend is injured after you hit her with the vehicle. She calls the police, or she goes to the emergency room and the police end up coming after you. They press charges against you based on these events.

No, that doesn't sound like a "false arrest". This sounds like a "probable cause".

You're justifying your actions and subsequent arrest instead of owning up to your poor judgment calls.

From the website "The Donald Win".

Keddrick Corday Thompson: You probably believe that cop was justified in killing Floyd hih. I knew you sounded familiar...I know a racist when I see one type... hmmm

You're making an assumption on what my arguments on this issue are. Then, based on your erroneous assumption, you proceed to assume that I'm "racist". You assumed wrong.

The cop didn't intend to kill George Floyd. However, George Floyd later responded to the cop indicating that he would cooperate. This was in conjunction with Floyd's calling for his mom. George Floyd should've been given the opportunity to get into the vehicle.

The cop didn't give him that opportunity. Result? His treatment of George Floyd, combined with the condition that George Floyd was in, both natural and self-imposed, resulted in his passing away.

If you read the transcript of the call that lead to George Floyd's arrest, you'll notice some things. George Floyd was reported as purchasing things with counterfeit money. The employee approaches George Floyd's vehicle and asks for the merchandise back. George Floyd is described as drunk, not in control of himself, and as refusing to return the merchandise.

The employee subsequently calls the police. In the video, you could tell that George Floyd attempts to resist being removed from his car. Based on his failure to cooperate with the employee, one could reasonably conclude that George Floyd failed to cooperate with the police. Hence, his physical removal from the vehicle.

Apparently, he continued to refuse to cooperate with the police officers. This led to the scene in the viral video. Hence, how the police handled him doesn't dismiss the fact that George Floyd drove, while under the influence of alcohol, or drugs, or both, to a store. He made purchases with counterfeit bills.

When I was growing up, we were told to cooperate with law enforcement. We were raised to do what the police tell us to do when they are in the line of their duty. More importantly, they warned us not to break the law so that we wouldn't have to deal with the police officers.

Had George Floyd not resisted arrest, we wouldn't even have heard of him. George Floyd would still be alive and possibly be sitting in jail or waiting for his trial.

We wouldn't have had these barbaric acts involving looting, property destruction, history destruction, etc. My impression, of the rioting and looting, is that of barbarians sacking Roman cities.

The fact that you'd ignore George Floyd's faults suggests that you're giving him a pass for two reasons... He's Black and because you have had police involvement in your past. This suggests racism on your part.

Simply put... People need to obey the law. Should they break the law, and the police get involved, then they should cooperate with the police officers and follow instructions. If they did not commit wrong and they were arrested, then let their lawyer and the justice system sort things out.

Hint, people would have no need to resist arrest if they didn't break the law. They'd willingly cooperate knowing full well that they will prevail.

My advice to others regarding police officers? Obeying the law reduces the risk of "not breathing" easy. Don't get yourself into a situation that would result in the police having you on the ground.

You, as an NCO, should understand that concept all too well... The concept of accountability and responsibility is "shoved down people's throats" as soon as they join the military... And consistently throughout their military career.

Nothing I explain here excuses the police officer for his actions... If proven to be negligent. So, there you have it. You, as an NCO, would've gotten this argument first before making a conclusion about what I thought. Instead, you made an assumption the way Privates make assumptions.

Keddrick Corday Thompson Loses Debate - Goes Internet Thug Part 7

Keddrick Corday Thompson Response 12, June 21, 2020:

Keddrick Corday Thompson: I know 3 CEOs with arrest records. But difference is I know their story...not just want they pleaded to. 

There is a story behind every arrest, charge, and conviction. However, the fact that the story exists does not imply valid extenuating circumstances.

You're suggesting that your story, as you justify your situation, would show that your arrest was "erroneous". However, a look at the blotter related to your arrest shows that the police had probable cause to charge you.

Bottom line, you were charged with assault and battery. You received this charge on the account of an accusation that you drove your vehicle into the person that you were arguing against. You could have been charged with something worse.

And not just what they pleaded to? This suggests that not only were you charged, but you pleaded innocent but were convicted... Or you pleaded guilty. Perhaps I could search the public records on your arraignment and on your trial to see what actually happened in your case.

Your response shows that you're not willing to learn from this experience. You're hinting on justifying that action. That accusation and subsequent arrest would not define you had you learned from the incident... Had you recognized that you committed a mistake, and had you worked to correct yourself accordingly.

Your conduct in this exchange, and your trying to explain this arrest away, indicates that you did not learn your lesson.

Keddrick Corday Thompson: But again. You think anything you see is truth. So one sided but what should expect from a weakling.... 

No, I base my outlook on the facts. Someone accused you of assault and battery with a vehicle. This individual had to go to the hospital to get treated. Based on this individual's testimony, you guys were involved in an argument and then you subsequently drove the vehicle into her.

Her injuries substantiated her story. This didn't help your attempt to justify your actions. You're insinuating to me that your arrest was incorrect and should not have happened.

I'm going by public records-based information. The blotter and your mug shot indicate something that you do not want to admit to. That does not make me a weakling.

You're suggesting that if I were to believe you, then I would "not" be a weakling. This is an indication of you having control issues, narcissistic issues, excessive anger issues, etc. You're the weakling for refusing to own up to that arrest and subsequent charge.

Keddrick Corday Thompson: Good day sir

Any day I destroy your argument is a good day.

Keddrick Corday Thompson: Enjoy uour lonely life

Nope, my life is not a lonely life. However, I would not be surprised if you were lonely. This would help explain why you kept engaging in this argument when you wanted it to stop.

Given your behavior in this exchange, I would not be surprised if most of the people around you do not want to hang around you.


Keddrick Corday Thompson Response 12, June 21, 2020:

Keddrick Corday Thompson: Same here. You funny and weak...you lonely. You gullible. 

No, you're not enjoying this argument. You're not getting out of it what I am getting out of it. If you truly found my replies funny, you wouldn't be repeating yourself like a broken record. Additionally, you would not have told me that you hoped that you do not see me in person... That I would run instead.

Your claimed reactions are not what I'm seeing when reading your replies. Why? Your reactions are funny. Notice, for example, how I read your replies but didn't come back until the next day? You responded immediately because you have control issues. You have anger issues.

Keddrick Corday Thompson Loses Debate - Goes Internet Thug Part 8

Meme background: Monty Python and the Holy Grail by Mark Forstater and Michael White. 

Keddrick Corday Thompson Response 13, June 21, 2020:

Keddrick Corday Thompson:  You got crushed. Just like TRUMP you get fucked up but stay claiming you won. Sorry you can't accept losses.

Once again, you sound like the black knight in the Monty Python movie. You also sound like Comical Ali. The black knight in the movie, and Comical Ali, both made claims of victory when it was clearly obvious that they were losing.

Your telling me that I "got crushed" is like the black knight dismissing the loss of his arm as "a flesh wound".

But no, you did not crush me. Far from it. Instead, you consistently abandoned the argument that you engaged in. You did this with your original argument as well as with the argument that you shifted to. Now? You are engaging in ad homonyms. You are also repeating yourself like a broken record.

Anybody reading our exchange would know that you got destroyed and completely obliterated in this argument. Despite that, your pride is blunting you to the foolishness of your actions and statements. To you, they make sense. But to me, you sound like the black knight in the Monty Python movie.

And, President Trump getting fucked up and crushed? Whatever it is that you're smoking, it must be some seriously good stuff. 

Keddrick Corday Thompson: You got smashed racist. 

Nope, you're the one that got smashed. The evidence is in our argument. Perhaps years from now, when you go back and read our exchange, you would realize how bad you got demolished in this debate. This is assuming that you abandon your apparent narcissistic issues, excessive anger issues, and excessive control issues.

Your excessive pride deceives you. Your replies reflect this.

Keddrick Corday Thompson: But I don't argue with fools. 

If you think that I am a "fool", and by extension, you don't argue with fools, then why did you continue to argue? If what you said were true, you would have given up this argument a long time ago.

Keddrick Corday Thompson: So I see you not gone accept you failure. [SELF PROJECTION]

Correction, you're the one that is not accepting failure. Your pride is acting like horse blinders blinding you to the fact that you are in self-destruct mode. You even lost your initial consistency with your writing. The way you're putting words together suggests anger. It also indicates a desire to quickly "fight back".

This reflects an excessive amount of anger on your part. Anger over the fact that you know that you lost control. The only thing that you have left is a futile attempt to outlast me in this argument. Somehow, in your mind, this would serve as a consolation prize. It won't.

Keddrick Corday Thompson: You fucking slow....

Correction, you want me to give up this argument and let your nonsense stand unchallenged. My refusal to do that frustrates you.

However, I have absolutely no intention of backing down. If you want me to stop arguing with you, then you need to stop arguing against me. Guaranteed, if you stop replying to me, I would have nothing to reply against.


Keddrick Corday Thompson Response 14, June 21, 2020:

From bustedmugshots dot com. 

Keddrick Corday Thompson:  Just hope I don't see you in person...Im sure you would run.

You wouldn't be saying this if you "smashed" me and if you found me funny. Given the fact that you've been accused of running a vehicle into a woman, yes, I would run... In a direction that you couldn't drive after.

I would not put it past you to want to inflict harm on me... A retired soldier, disabled veteran, with a disability rating that puts him in priority group 1 in the VA health system, who also happens to be in his 50s. If you could run a vehicle into a girlfriend, what am I in comparison? So yes, I'd run in a direction that you couldn't pursue. Don't want you driving into me.

You know what this makes you? A thug, what you accused me of being. How does it feel that the you had to resort to blocking me as a substitute for arguing your position? Hint: if you had the facts on your side, and if you were winning, you would not have blocked me.

Chris Kimball Gets Biblical Concepts Wrong - Introduction

"Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." - Matthew 15:14 (Chris Kimball/Facebook)

I debated Chris Kimball in April 2020. She made statements against President Trump and his supporters that were provably false. She was motivated purely by her anti-Trump emotions.

This was a semi-religious thread, as the thread starter consistently posted religious-themed posts.

Chris Kimball pushed the narrative that President Trump was an "anti-Christ". She proceeded to insult those of us who support him. I'm a Trump hat wearing Trump supporter. I didn't recognize myself, nor other Trump supporters, in her description of us.

I back him based on the facts that I've gathered from two main interests. The first one is on my being a news junkie since 1982. The second one is on my being a history junkie since 1979. Get knee-deep involved with current events and history-related information gathering and you'll be bound to notice patterns in the facts. Not just any patterns, but predictable patterns.

Add to this my experiences from a quarter of a century, cumulative, worth of military service and you have someone that's naturally conservative. In the military, there's a heavy emphasis on basing information on the facts. Not just on any amount of the facts, but an extensive amount of the facts. The success of the mission, even people's lives, depends on this.

This is a reason why most veterans, of the old military, lean conservative. Now, there are other people, who are conservative, who don't have military service under their belt. Many similar factors that lead service members to being conservative exist elsewhere.

Conservatives share a common trait. This includes pursuing the complete set of facts, detecting a pattern in these facts, and finding cycles that repeat themselves in both history and current events. This habit leads people to being conservative.

So, when Chris Kimball argued that we "loved" our "anti-Christ", she implied that we were the opposite of who we truly are. She implied that we blindly followed emotion and not fact and that we followed President Trump out of "cult of personality".

This further implied that what belief she held, regarding President Trump and the issues that we debated, was "factual". If only we "saw" things "her way", we'd break from that "cult of personality hypnosis.

This, of course, was Chris Kimball demonstrating narcissism, control issues, and anger issues. In order for us to abandon the conservative argument, in favor of the one that Chris Kimball et al embraced, we would have to abandon fact, reason, and logic. We would have to vote against our conscience.

We refuse to do that. However, people like Chris Kimball refuse to see things from that perspective. They'd rather we go against our conscience and vote for politicians that we disagree with. They want us to vote for politicians who would push for policies that we disagree with if it means that they get their way.

The next series of posts represent our argument. The last three posts are my counter rebuttal to her rebuttal to me... What she would've read had she not blocked me. This act showed me that she knew, deep down inside, that she had no argument. Her blocking me was her attempting to regain control in a situation she was losing control in... An indication that she subconsciously knew that she got destroyed in the debate.

As usual, I didn't edit the opposition's writing. Chris Kimball's comments are as she typed them during the debate.

Chris Kimball Gets Biblical Concepts Wrong - Part I

Chris Kimball: Jeffrey Line They love their ANTI Christ. You ain't gonna change their TUNNEL vision.

The "Anti-Christ", as defined in the letters of the Apostles that follow the Book of Acts, is someone who doesn't believe in Jesus Christ. "Belief", based on the context of a reading of the entire Bible, means "doing" in addition to "knowing". Ergo, you believe in Jesus Christ by walking the walk with regards to his gospels. By logical extension, not walking the walk with regards to the gospels is equivalent to not believing in Jesus.

Jeffrey Line bore false witness by claiming that the President declared himself "God". Your posts, regarding President Trump, also bears false witness against the President. It also bears false witness against those of us who support President Trump as it suggests "cult of personality".

It erroneously shows us as "blindly following". It ignores reality...  We support him because we agree with most of his policies. Your assumptions also imply that we're driven by emotion with regards to information. That assumption blinds the left to the fact that we'll support what's grounded by fact and reject what we could prove wrong.

These opinions against us violate the commandment against bearing false witness. Additionally, the false image that you guys push, of the president and of us by extension, represents "theft".

Those who don't know us, hearing your description of us, will have a false image of who we really are. This effectively steals who we actually are in your audience's minds. This violates the commandment against theft.

Now, our parents raised us to not say things about others, bad things, that are not true. Both you guys did that, which is a violation of the commandment regarding honoring parents.

A violation of any of the commandments is a violation of the first commandment.

You guys were driven by a combination of emotions to say what you guys said against the President. During ancient times, a deity represented each of our emotions. By acting according to these emotions, people "did the bidding" of these emotions.

A reading of the Bible shows that "worship" means "doing the bidding of". By following these emotions, by saying false things about the President, and by broadcasting false assumptions about us, you guys "did the bidding" of these emotions..." In effect "having strange gods before God". 

By going against these commandments, you guys went against Jesus's instruction to "Love God with your heart, mind, and soul", as well as loving your neighbor. You love God by abiding with the first through fourth commandments. You love your neighbor by abiding with the fifth through tenth commandments.

Hence, you went against Jesus's teachings... effectively turning yourself into the antichrist. By doing the bidding of your emotions, you guys did what you guys wanted to do, effectively declaring yourselves "gods" in God's presence.

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 III

Chris Kimball: [Name redacted] wow what a lengthy comment! Long winded to try and make a point. 

I've lost count of how many times the opposition has complained about this. The reality is that when you guys complain about the length of my posts, you guys are protesting the fact that I completely demolished your arguments. Those on my side of the argument have seen the same type of replies and raved them.

Advancing a fact-based, reasoned, logical argument lends itself to being "lengthy". Your argument was full of fallacies and falsehoods. It required a "lengthy" reply to prove it wrong.

Chris Kimball: Bully for you!!!! 

Actually, you're projecting your own traits onto me. What I am seeing in your replies to me are a combination of excessive pride, desire for control, and anger. These are traits that bullies display. Each of these was also represented by deities in the ancient world; the god of pride, the god of control, and the god of wrath. These emotions actually cause you to do things counter to Scripture.

Chris Kimball: You certainly didn't have to waste your time Categorizing my comment. 

Nope, not wasting my time. It does not take long for me to generate these replies using speech to text software. This is one of my tactics. You're so thoroughly wrong in your argument that I have to address you point by point... To show you, and others, that you do not have an argument.

I will gladly exercise my right to debunk your argument point by point. Your protesting my doing this demonstrates your argument's lack of validity.

Chris Kimball: You think you know everything about the Bible and everyone else is Ignorant. 

Nowhere in any of my posts do I make that claim. Also, nowhere on the thread did I claim to know everything about the Bible. If that were the case, I would not have needed to read it more than once. I would not have any plans to read it again in its entirety in the future.

Your arguments, on the other hand, indicate someone that does not understand the Bible the way I understand it... Especially since the last time I read the Bible in its entirety was recent.

I base things on the facts. I look for a pattern in the facts. I make projections based on these patterns of fact. I also look at other people's actions. Your commentary on this thread shows little to no understanding of either meaning or context of the entirety of the Bible.

Chris Kimball: You don't know me or what my Religious beliefs are, or how many times I've read the Bible. 

All I need, to gauge your understanding of the Bible, is what you say regarding my understanding of it... As expressed on the thread of our argument. If you've read the Bible many times, you'd be able to do one of two things.

One, you'd be able to provide a real counter-argument with what you think are supporting scripture and explanation. Two, you would be in agreement with my own argument related to scripture. 

You've done neither. Instead, you denigrated my understanding of it by insinuating my being a "fake Christian".

A reading of the entire Bible, in context, shows a contradiction against leftist/liberal/Democratic philosophies. The philosophy of the Bible actually supports the conservative arguments and opposes the Democrat arguments. Someone on the left claiming to agree with what is in the Bible is like a slug claiming to agree to be sprinkled with salt.

If you've read the entire Bible, frequently, and understood what you've read, you would be in a state of cognitive dissonance holding the opinions that you argued.

Additionally, had you read the entire Bible; you would not have accused me of twisting things to fit my interpretation. You would be in agreement, or near agreement. However, you aren't in agreement, nor does your argument show an understanding of what is in its pages.

Chris Kimball: And really it's none of your business. 

It's "none of my business" because the reality is that your actions show that you either didn't read the Bible, read it but didn't understand it, or both.

Chris Kimball:  I don't have to defend my Christianity against yours. 

I'm not telling you that you are not a Christian. What I'm telling you is that your actions and arguments contradict scripture. You insinuated President Trump as being an "antichrist". That opens you up to being informed of what constitutes an "antichrist". By extension, that's my showing you how you're projecting your traits onto others.

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 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.