Mark Hutchins falls for bio lab conspiracy

Mark Hutchins: Did you know of bio labs ? 

The reports of bio labs in Ukraine, where the US was allegedly creating new bio warfare weapons, are nothing but propaganda. In the aftermath of the disintegration of the USSR, Ukraine had Soviet biological laboratory research centers. The United States entered an agreement with Ukraine to assist the Ukrainians with containing and managing what was in these labs. The United States was not conducting biowarfare research in these labs.

Why would we be doing that? Effective 2014, Ukraine faced the risk of being completely invaded by the Russians. So, even if this nonsense theory was correct, it would not have been the case in the immediate aftermath of Russia taking Crimea in 2014. However, that theory was never correct.

One of the conspiracy whack jobs posted a part of an agreement regarding bio labs between United States and Ukraine. The conspiracy whack job claimed it was an agreement for the United States to engage in biowarfare research, or to support it. However, when I pulled up the document, it described what I just mentioned above. Nothing nefarious, no conspiracy, nothing like what the Russian propagandists have claimed regarding of "evidence."

Mark Hutchins: No you were not privy I'm sorry, 

This is incorrect. A lot of what the conspiracy whack jobs have said about Ukraine is arguably wrong. The two main people that I've seen advance the biological warfare laboratory nonsense are either Russian trolls or Western conspiracy whack jobs. Both groups rely on each other for strength and reach. Enough information exists online to prove these whack jobs incorrect regarding Ukraine bio research labs.

The only thing you should be sorry for is the fact that this information is something that you are privy to, via your access to the Internet. Yet, you choose to believe the nonsense people have fed you.

Mark Hutchins: when they roll out war plans they seek the intelligence not the front line, 

This is incorrect. When you roll out the war plans, you are rolling out something that is already out of date. New information is required and is obtained via multiple methods. Yes, what is going on in the front lines is key. You need what is going on with the front lines, or potential frontlines, before you send combat troops into the area.

Mark Hutchins: you have mistaken the knowledge needed to create planning offensive and defensive, 

Again, you are incorrect. My argument is based on firsthand experiences related to the topic that you and I have argued. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. It is painfully obvious that you have absolutely no military experience under your belt. You, not having that experience, are trying to lecture somebody who does have that experience and who is trying to correct you by informing you of what really happens. I told you what kind of knowledge is needed to create planning for offensive and defensive. Without information straight from the front lines, whatever plans you come up with are futile, incomplete, and do a disservice to those who must carry out the operations.

Mark Hutchins: how do seals know what to expect? Intelligence, 

Intelligence straight from the front lines, what you claim is not needed. Your "recently retired naval officer" was more than likely a desk jockey relying on open-source information in addition to Navy related information that he may have been privy to. This is assuming that this individual is who he claims to be, and is not a Russian troll. 

Mark Hutchins: sorry my friend, you are way off base and ilinformed

Again you, having no military experience under your belt, or having a lack of military deployment experience if you did serve, are trying to tell someone who not only has military experience but also has deployment experience where intelligence and carrying out plans are involved, that he is "way off base" and "ill informed."

Your narcissism is such that you do not see what you are doing here. You, having no experience, yet you told someone with experience in the debate topic that he is "incorrect" in response to your being told how things work in the real military.

Mark Hutchins would rather believe an internet stranger than an actual veteran

 

Mark Hutchins: Thank you for your service, what I find I have reviewed by retired recently naval intelligence officer who has had privy to what is generally not out for all

A recently retired naval intelligence officer is no longer going to be privy to sensitive, classified information that the rest of us would not be privy to. Access to classified material is on a need-to-know basis only. Whatever information he obtained that he was privy to, based on his need to know, you and others were not privy to based on a lack of clearance and on a lack of need to know.

Meaning, if this "recently retired naval intelligence officer" is divulging information that nobody else is privy to, due to a lack of classification and to a lack of a need to know, then that "recently retired naval intelligence officer" is violating classified material information handling procedures.

However, given the inconsistency between the video you referenced, and what I have seen for a fact is reality when it comes to the war in Ukraine, I highly doubt that the individual is who you claim he is, or who he wants you to think he is.

Unless that Naval officer is a SEAL, or someone who served on the front lines, you're going to get a desk jockey's interpretation of what is going on. We are talking about boots on the ground infantry maneuvers. I'm more qualified to talk about this than he is as we're dealing with infantry tactics. More than enough information has been uploaded to social media that the information that comes out on the news is old, stale, and sometimes misses the mark.

Mark Hutchins: Remember all signed the Minsk agreement except Ukraine, that's why we are here today, 

We are here today not because of the actions of the Ukrainians, but because of what the Russians did. The Russians sent their own military, under the auspices of being civilians, into the Donetsk and Luhansk areas, and they fabricated a false breakaway movement. The Russians were butthurt over the fact that the Ukrainians wanted to couple with the west rather than be influenced by the Russians. 

The Russians have an imperialistic mindset, and many of their oligarchs have not only consolidated the wealth in Russia, but they are also attempting to rob Ukraine of its wealth... The Russian occupied areas are industrial rich areas.

Mark Hutchins: there's alot that goes deeper

Yes, there is a lot that goes deeper, and unfortunately for both you, and for the "recently retired naval intelligence officer" have no access to "the deeper" aspect of this. What that individual did was cherry pick information, and then created a narrative based on that cherry picked information. He shows images from Ukraine where there are no signs of battle damage, and then follows that up with images from Israel showing battle damage. He draws a conclusion from that.

That is not what one would call an intelligence briefing. That is propaganda. If you want to dig deep, you must go outside Western media sources and see what the actual Russians and Ukrainians are saying. The Russians themselves, who opposed this war, accurately detailed why the Russians invaded. It had nothing to do with NATO, and nothing to do with "NAZIs." It had everything to do with Russian oligarchs wanting to expand their cash inflows. 

Demand Studios (Leaf Group Ltd.) defeats Demand Studios Sucks

Since my last series of rebuttals against some posters on Demand Studios Sucks, I regularly checked their website. Not long after the last series of posts that I had made in rebuttal to these individuals, the website started to slow down both with blog updates and with forum posts. Eventually, both the blog and the forums came to a complete stop. First it was days, then weeks, then months, and then years passing since the last posts.

During its final active months, the frequency of postings on Demand Studios Sucks dwindled, then dropped. One topic that sparked that site's community's interest was Demand Studios' (now Leaf Group) fate. Specifically, who would win, Demand Studios, or Demand Studios Sucks. Demand Studios eventually went through a change, to include a name change to Leaf Group as well as having stocks.

"Patrick," Demand Studios Sucks' owner, declared victory based on the name change alone. However, this was a phony victory. "Patrick," as well as the last remaining members on the site, became excited when it appeared that the stock, for what formally was Demand Studios, performed relatively poorly. However, Leaf Group continued to perform its mission years after Demand Studios Sucks "went silent." Their stock continued to go up and down depending on market conditions. 

Recently, while looking for the Demand Studios Sucks website, nothing showed up. Well, not what usually shows up when you click on the link leading to Demand Studios Sucks. The link leading to Demand Studios Sucks is still active, but what was once Demand Studios Sucks is not what you would see.

Instead, as of the time of this posting, if AI generated triple "X" mature adult content appeals to you, then Demand Studios Sucks is the website for you.

During my short participation on the website, and then during my subsequent back and forth with the members of Demand Studios Sucks, I noticed a common trait. They had the tendency to be emotional, vindictive, combative, etc. It appeared to be a website where individuals could complain about actual and alleged unfairness, and even mistreatment at the hands of Demand Studios. There was also a sense of "eat the young" mentality." 

Any kind of active solution to actually deal with Demand Studios, a constructive way to deal with them, was shut down or dismissed. In many instances, not even considered. "Patrick" even attempted to corner this niche by creating forums for the different content farms. The name of the forums was based on the name of the content farm site and the word "sucks." 

Could this website have continued to run, and be active, beyond its actual run? It is possible. The reality changed when algorithms, impacting content farm websites, changed. The gravy train stopped providing gravy. We had a bunch of writers facing a new reality to where their main or a significant source of income was threatened and eventually ended. 

This was a perfect opportunity to form a community of writers, with similar experiences, to share their knowledge and to help other writers in the community. "Patrick" could have steered the website, and the mission, towards one where writers can give and receive help and advice. This effort could potentially have led to a source of income. A community of writers could have been built, grown, and sustained based on their experiences with Demand Studios and with other similar sites. 

Multiple possibilities existed that "Patrick" could've steered the site, and community, towards accomplishing. However, creating a site for the purposes of venting and complaining guaranteed a short life. The reality is that the vast majority of people will move on from the subject of their complaints. They normally pursue other activities and "forget" about the topic of their complaint. Leaf Group (formally Demand Studios) made this adjustment and change. 

I also had my suspicions, still do, regarding who "Patrick" and some of the posters were. The site owner apparently wanted to project an image of a man. However, the tone, the demeanor, etc., indicated someone who was a woman. Towards the end of activity on the site, some of the commenters came across as "Patrick's" sock puppets. 

I would not be surprised if the final Demand Studios Sucks interactions on that site were between the puppeteer and the sock puppets... A "one person show" after everybody else had moved on. I also would not be surprised if the majority of those who wrote for Demand Studios, who subsequently participated in Demand Studios Sucks, had returned to brick-and-mortar operations at least until the pandemic.

Demand Studios Sucks' disappearance came with it the disappearance of the threads related to my arguments with certain members of that site. What still exists are my rebuttals to those on that site who foolishly chose to continue to argue with me. The smart thing for them to do would have been not to try to argue with me in the first place. Had that been the case, The disappearance of the Demand Studios Sucks website would have also resulted in the disappearance of the rebuttals to them that I generated and posted to this site. 

So, the reality is that both Demand Studios/Leaf Group and I defeated Demand Studios Sucks, and we won our respective engagements with a straight cut victory. In Leaf Group's case, they won against Demand Studios Sucks without even firing a shot in a contest they did not realize they were engaged in. 

I posted about Demand Studios Sucks commenters on this blog from 2011 to 2013. In one of the posts, I predicted that Demand Studios Sucks would end its run. The above is a partial explanation behind why I did not think that the Demand Studios Sucks community would last. 

Jeanne Jondreau points to George Santos lies, says nothing about lies from Biden et al.

Jeanne Jondreau: [Redacted] Have you seen the crooked politicians in Congress? 

I have been aware of crooked politicians for decades. They exist on both sides of the political aisle, despite the mainstream media's insistence on reporting corruption from the Republican side while ignoring corruption from the Democrat side.

This corruption blew wide open in the aftermath of the 2020 Presidential Election. The Democratic Party, and their Republican in Name Only (RINO) allies showed their true colors, that they were truly corrupt, and that they were using their offices for personal enrichment. The Democrats have proven that they are all about power and that they care little about the regular people.

Jeanne Jondreau: The Founding Fathers may have wanted those with moral character, but that is not who is running the country. 

Because we have people like you, who base their voting decisions on emotions and opinion and not on the fact, what else did you expect to have? When people like you, and other Democrats/leftists, fall hook, line, and sinker, for nonsense and propaganda, and vote against the best interests of the country, what else did you expect to happen? How many times will people on your side of the argument keep voting for Democrat until they realize that the Democrats create the conditions that they complain about?

Jeanne Jondreau: George Santos has lied about everything he ever said, everyone knows it, he knows it, and, yet, he is still there. Unbelievable.

Yet, you say nothing about the corruption of the Democrats. George Santos is an amateur when compared to Joseph Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer, the squad, and others. I have had to endure decades of watching the news where the media gives a pass to Democrat corruption but turn on anthill into a mountain or completely make something up regarding a Republican.

Your argument indicates that what you consider as "people with moral character" depends on your opinions of that individual and how consistent they are with the socialist/progressive agenda.

Mark Hutchins tells veteran with experience gathering tactical intelligence that he is wrong... About military intelligence

Another coward that responded then moved to block instead of being man enough to take the rebuttal. 

Mark Hutchins: Ok, I'm sorry you are feeling offended that your rank did not give you the privy info you so gallantly thought was Topps, 

Again, you demonstrate lack of knowledge of how military intelligence works. You do realize that it's the enlisted personnel that gather the intelligence, do you? They gather it, analyze it, then provide a bigger picture for the officers to review. 

Also, intelligence information is on a need-to-know basis, not on what rank you hold. Meaning, that "naval intelligence officer" that you reference is providing you opinion that is not based on military intelligence data. If he were providing such, he would be in hot water as you and others do not have a need to know of what he is talking about. 

I do not envy that naval intelligence officer's position, if he is what he claims to be; he would have been a desk jockey who spent a lot of time pouring through open-sourced data to put his power point briefings together... We called folks like him "power point rangers." 

Was he even in the Navy, I would not be surprised if this was a stolen valor case. Judging by the video, I would not be surprised if this individual is a Russian national.

Mark Hutchins: you have overestimated your knowledge by far, I understand your ego has been bruised but it's reality

Don't mistake my telling it like it is as "overestimating my knowledge." My knowledge is dead accurate, and based on firsthand experience. It's painfully obvious to me that you have absolutely no clue about what you are talking about. Nope, ego is not working on my end, but on yours. My actions were not ego based, but on the fact that I take sadistic pleasure in proving people like you wrong, and then watching your reactions. 

You refused to answer my question about whether you served or not. Your responses make it painfully obvious that you didn't serve... Yet that didn't stop you from telling someone with firsthand experience gathering information in the military that he was "way off" and "ill informed."

James Shepherd (Facebook) demonstrates cowardice

James Shepherd: You claim to be educated 

Not a claim, but a statement of fact. It's a fact that I'm a doctoral candidate on the research phase of my program. A claim is something that is not proven and is subject to being tested for validity. 

James Shepherd: and then post a 100% bullshit meme. 

Yet, you did nothing to prove the meme "wrong", nothing. A meme is not BS simply because you claim it is. You have to PROVE it to be such which, by looking at your emotion driven rant, you have not done so. Thus, the argument presented in my meme still stands.

You also failed to post this specific response to my response containing the meme. You did this deliberately, assuming that I was not going to counter your argument, something that I did on that thread just as I've done here. 

James Shepherd: GTFOH. 

Retired Soldier, war veteran here. I have every right to exercise my first amendment rights, on that thread, here or elsewhere, rights I was willing to come back in a flag draped coffin for.  

The fact that you'd tell me to "get out of here," together with the rest of your comment, indicates someone who has anger issues, ego issues, and control issues. Your response is typical of that of someone who didn't get his way and is "pulling a tantrum" in response. 

James Shepherd: You're just another partisan moron [SELF-PROJECTION]

First, you failed to prove anything that I posted, either via the comment or via the meme, "wrong." All you've done was blow hot air out while demonstrating lack of restraint and lack of discipline on your part. 

Second, I don't comment, or argue, on a topic unless two conditions are simultaneously met:

1. I have extensive knowledge on the topic gained from firsthand experience and/or extensive study/research...

2. Those who disagree with me, or would disagree with me, have little to no knowledge of the debate topic. 

Both of these were met. You proved it with your own actions, choosing to issue insults and show anger, ego, and control issues rather than address the points that I advanced. You also dodged replying to me directly where I could respond to you on that thread. 

I've been debating against Democrats for 20 years, and this has been a part of my strategy. 

James Shepherd: that is merely repeating BS right wing talking points.. [SELF-PROJECTION] 

Speak for yourself. Again, I've been debating against Democrats, online, for 20 years. Your reaction here is nothing new, I've lost count of how many times I've had your very argument spewed in my direction throughout those two decades. 

It's like you guys are passing the same script around... Must be aged, yellowish, wrinkled, by now. You and others are like those non player characters in a video game who keep repeating the same script, no matter where these characters show up. 

Don't dismiss a fact based, reasoned, logical argument as "BS right wing talking points," especially when you're going to do so repeating the same leftist script I've come across over the past 20 years, and especially if you're going to fail to prove your claims beyond emotionally making them. 

James Shepherd: Stop trying to make everything a partisan issue 

On a post involving politics, related to an upcoming election, you should expect people to take one side of the argument or the other. 

James Shepherd: and you'll actually LEARN something.

Sorry, for me to learn something from someone, they actually have to know what they are talking about or doing. Again, you failed to prove your claims, other than ranting them. Also, do you honest to God expect me to do anything that you demand given how you responded to me? Guaranteed, the way you talked to me does nothing but further entrench me in my arguments and habits while making me more hostile to yours. Demonstrating tact goes a long way with me, learn it.  

Jeanne Jondreau misunderstands the concept of the Bible being written for the times

In response to a post, that people should let Scripture change them rather than attempt to change Scripture to meet the times, Jeanne Jondreau commented about the Bible being written for the times. Specifically, that it was written for ancient times, for an ancient audience, with the implication that relevant portions of the Bible are not applicable today. Jondreau also argued that the Bible should not be literally interpreted. 

Jeanne Jondreau was right where she did not intend to be, and she was wrong where she thought that she was right. As used in her argument, Jondreau implied that many parts of the Bible were intended for an ancient audience and not necessarily for modern ones. Additionally, by not taking the Bible literally, a pathway is open to liberally interpret what Scripture says. This assumption also opens the way to dismiss certain parts of the Bible. 

However, Jeanne Jondreau gets it wrong given that the Bible is jampacked with metaphors, allegories, symbols, etc. to get a point across. The underlying meanings are still applicable today. 

Many of the metaphors and storylines appealed to the audiences at that time. For example, the use of fire. Many Christians today believe that fire is associated with Satan. However, reading in context of the entire Bible, the fire metaphor leverages the use of fire in industry and everyday living during that time. Fire was a valuable tool. 

Tourists going through the ruins of Pompeii would see evidence of the ancients use of fire. Fire was used for cooking. Work smiths created a final product utilizing furnace fires as a part of the production process to arrive at a finished product. A common theme involving mention of fire in Scripture leverages most commonly understood concepts regarding the utility of fire in ancient times. 

In the Old Testament, people "doing what was right in their own eyes" as opposed to what God defined as right, where metaphorically described as "burning." Their lives were much harder than what they needed to be. To improve their lives, they had to abandon their interpretation of what was right in favor of doing what God defined as right. 

One underlying theme in this description is captured in a common Internet saying, "Life is tough, but it is tougher when you are stupid." This theme utilizes the image of a work smith using a furnace to solidify "perfection." God is described as the work smith, and humanity is described as the product. For example, the exile is described as "a furnace" aimed at purging impurities from the Judeans just as a metalsmith purged impurity from liquefied metal. 

This is just but one example of how the descriptions in the Bible address themes that are relevant today. For example, a person who genuinely cares about others in the workplace, who gives credit where credit is due, who does not steal credit from others, who helps others achieve their goals, is more likely to have a better time at work to include endorsements for promotion, pay raises, and retention. However, a person who takes credit for someone else's work, who blames people for things that they did not do, who throws people under the bus to make himself/herself look better, is a person who contributes to the erosion of worker morale in an organization. People have turnover intention, or fire back with counter incivility, and do things that work against efficient operations and against the organization's ability to meet its objectives. 

Scripture addresses human nature that is still relevant today. Understanding the Bible, from the perspective of someone who lived during that time period, makes this evident.

Jeanne Jondreau, pulling the Christian card while failing to play the part

There's nothing Christian about judging people without the benefit of the facts. The fact that you posted these memes, and your statements, rendering judgment without knowing what you are talking about, contradicts Scripture... There's a big difference between following Jesus of Nazareth and your actions. learn the difference instead of showing a meme telling people to learn the difference. It's painfully obvious to me that you have not read the entirety of the Holy Bible. It's also painfully obvious that you like to post Christian related comments and images on Facebook while failing to act the part. 

The thread starter deleted the thread, sparing you from the balance of the blistering fact check scrutiny that you were about to be subjected to. It's a good thing that I saved this for posting on my blog. 

 Jeanne Jondreau: During the Civil War, the Democrats were slave owners. Yes, that was sad to find out. 

This is the only thing that you said that was correct.

Jeanne Jondreau: But, now, it has all switched. 

That's a myth, partly based on the argument on how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed by Democrat controlled Congress and signed into law by a Democrat President.

Support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was just over 80% among Republicans, and just under 70% among Democrats. Democrat Senators, 21 of them, set a record filibuster at the time attempting to kill the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Republican support for the bill contributed to breaking the deadlock, ending the filibuster, and passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to the White House to be signed into law. 

The myth is that racist Democrats transferred to the Republican Party to protest the Democrat vote. That makes as much sense as moving from Florida to Alaska to protest Florida winters. Out of the 21 Senators, only one transferred to the Republican Party, one senator is not going to change the entire party. The other 20 remained with the Democrats. 

Jeanne Jondreau: I can't remember what year I read that happening. 

You won't remember, because it never happened.

Jeanne Jondreau: Tell me, 

I did, see above. 

Jeanne Jondreau: you know so much. 

I've been a history buff for over four decades, and have argued this and other topics against Democrats for 20 years. 

Jeanne Jondreau: So here we are. The Republicans have picked up where the Democrats left off in the South. 

This is a spectacularly incorrect statement. You do realize that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would not have been passed had it not been for Republicans, do you? Again, support from the Republican side was over 80%, it was 21 Democrat Senators that attempted to kill the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was not until the 1990s until the South became solidly and consistently Republican. 

Jeanne Jondreau: So I am liberal Dem used to be a Repub during the Civil War. Chew on that for awhile.

First, you're making that statement based on your erroneous understanding of US History. Both Democrats and Republicans in the 19th Century would've seen your argument as an abomination. In the 20th Century, the Democratic Party shifted towards the extreme left, socialism and communism. The Republicans, on the other hand, did not adopt the policies of the Democratic Party... That's a BS myth. 

Second, the policies of the Democratic Party, both before and after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, go counter to the conservative principles of the Republican Party. Racism goes against conservative principles. It speaks volumes when numerous Blacks have walked into Republican rallies, and found out that the idea that the Republicans are "racist" is just a myth. 

If you want to find out who the Democrats truly are, listen to what they say about the Republicans. 

Fake video of Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and Alexandria Cortez conversation is floating around

Someone spliced together different videos and utilized manipulation to create a false conversation, with false statements, to mislead audiences. There apparently is an attempt to discredit James O'Keefe and Project Veritas. This phony video, when utilized by the unsuspecting, opens an entire group for discrediting. 

The false statements making up the phony conversation:

Nancy Pelosi: I have given a shoot to kill order for any breach of the speaker's lobby. Every one of these maggots must be prosecuted. Yes, I agree, no more protests in our Capitol.

Nancy Pelosi: We must send a signal to the American people that we are in charge...

Joe Biden (To Alexandria Cortez): Listen sweetheart, let the men handle this. 

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (To Joe Biden): Are you even listening to me?

Alexandria Cortez: No... No... No...

Joe Biden (To Alexandria Cortez): Why don't you let me finish?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (To Joe Biden): ... Congressional staffers were almost killed! I thought I was going to die!!!!

Joe Biden (To Alexandria Cortez): ... This is an adult discussion...

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (To Joe Biden): The public doesn't fear us anymore, and you better do something!

Nancy Pelosi (to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez): What am I supposed to do?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (to Nancy Pelosi): Do you fucking job, Nancy! 

Pelosi: Alexandria, let's both be patient and respectful of each other's ideas.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: No... No... No...

Joe Biden: Let's take a step back and look at the big picture.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Joe, I don't really have anything to say to you. If we don't make sure those who perpetrated this mayhem are brought to justice, we are all dead!

Nancy Pelosi: This was a mostly peaceful protest.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: I don't care why the were there, violence, non violence, doesn't matter. We can't allow those who showed up to get away with it.

This is all nonsense.

Kim Isaacson mistakes emotional and baseless opinion as "smoke to the fire"

 

Today's batch of posts are a continuation of the Tonya Zylka batch of posts from below. This is a debate that took place in 2020, on this thread that I lost access to due to being blocked.

Kim Isaacson responded to meme mocking leftist double standards. In this situation, accusing Trump voters of not caring about his being "racist." If this were the case, the Democrats should accept a similar argument that they have no issues with Joe Biden's sniffing children's hair, and engaging in unusual activities related to children. 

Kim Isaacson: [Redacted] I believe where there's smoke there's fire, 

Your "there is smoke, therefore there is fire" argument is just a cover. It's a cover for your emotions and feelings behind your opposition to President Trump in particular, and conservatives in general. It's not a valid foundation for this argument.

You, along with the rest of the left, are desperately looking at any negative reporting on the president. And then, when you find something that you think is damaging, you automatically assume that he is in the wrong and that your opinion is "gospel".

The fact of the matter is that you attempted to accuse him of being a rapist. However, it speaks volumes that the person behind this claim does not push for it after the election. She had dropped it a second time, right after the day of the presidential election.

The leftist, propagandist, media does not like President Trump. Had this been a valid case, it most certainly would have dominated the news. The "rape" would have dominated the news during the transition. I say this based on my being a news junkie since 1982. The propagandist media covers the Republicans and Democrats differently. 

The facts? The mainstream media did not blow this out of proportion. The person, that's the basis of this claim, didn't pursue these charges after the election. 

Kim Isaacson: too many, 

You disagree with much of what President Trump represents. That is where your "too many" comes from. That's not a valid argument to advance.  

Kim Isaacson: I wouldn't trust him to watch my granddaughters, would you? 

Would you trust Sleepy Creepy Joe to watch your granddaughters with nobody else present? YES [   ] NO [   ]

Copy and paste this question to your reply. Put an "X" in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional response that you would want to provide to amplify your answer.

Kim Isaacson: I trust my gut, 

No, what you are identifying as "gut instincts", is nothing but an incredibly biased anti-Trump opinion. Your bias is what is shaping how you see him... This will drive you to look for everything, anything, negative about President Trump. Then, based on what you find, you assume that what you come up with is "gospel".

Kim Isaacson: This man is an abuser, 

Based on what? I'm sorry, your opinion, based on your anti-Trump bias, does not constitute a valid argument.

I have not seen any evidence of him being an abuser. I have not seen any court cases, or court convictions, convicting President Trump as an abuser. No police reports containing valid testimony.

You have absolutely no evidence other than your "gut instincts". These "instincts" are nothing but your anti-Trump bias.

Kim Isaacson: being a survivor 

I have dismantled your arguments numerous times before. You've exposed to me your apparent psychological profile. What I am detecting, based on your arguments, and on your decision to argue an erroneous argument, is an apparent psychological profile. This profile contains three main components: a tendency for anger, a tendency for control, and narcissism issues.

You refuse to take responsibility for your own situation. Yet, you have a strong opinion about how things should go. While reading about domestic altercations, I have found that both sides of the equation, the man and the woman, possessed those three issues.

A battle for control. Both sides want things their way. Both sides exerted control to attempt to make it that way. Unfortunately, without compromise, neither side is going to get what they want. Enter anger.

You may have had a situation where you were in disagreement with the other party. This disagreement led to a chain of reactions that resulted in an altercation, or a series of altercations.  Result? In addition to your political animosity against President Trump, you have effectively turned him into an "avatar" for the one who put you in the situation that you survived. 

Through President Trump, and through those of us that you disagree with on Facebook, you wind up reliving the conflict... Making us the "avatar" for the antagonist in your survivor story. 

You are still trying to, via these debates, relive and "win" that conflict with the attacker/abuser. Or... There is more to the story to your "survivor story" then what you are implying.

Kim Isaacson mistakes her emotion driven opinion as "gut instinct"

Kim Isaacson: my guts tells me and trump is the worst....

I'm sorry, but your "gut" is intoxicated with your anti-Trump bias. It's also intoxicated with your bias influenced by the circumstances that resulted in you being "a survivor". My disagreement with you is based on cold hard fact... A track record of facts.

Kim Isaacson: he's a con man, 

False. He advanced numerous campaign promises in 2016. Then, when he won the election, and then took office, he delivered on the majority of his promises. 

The vast majority of politicians have failed to deliver on the majority of their promises. Guess who the real conmen are? It's the career politicians, not someone who has been a politician for less than four years.

Kim Isaacson: he's a cheat, cheated on every woman he has been with, 

False. I'm not going to believe the word of a bunch of leftist women. These women are abusing their position in society in an effort to derail a man based on false claims.

Those women claimed to have an affair with him. They haven't effectively proven their case. As God commanded in the Old Testament, we are to do a diligent search of the truth before rendering judgment.

A diligent search of the truth does not support those women's claims. On a side note, I'm not going to believe them simply because they are women. 

Kim Isaacson: slime that paid for sex, 

Based on what evidence? The claim of the porn star whose court case fell flat on its face? In fact, didn't she lose against President Trump in court? Apparently, a court's decision is meaningless to you if it rendered judgment in favor of someone you don't like.

Kim Isaacson: making money off tax payers while golfing, 

Certainly, you have earned a salary at some point in your professional career... Have you? When you are earning a salary, you get paid regardless of whether you are working or are given time off. At least, that is how it was with my military pay. Now, let's take stock of what I did while I was in the military.

One of the things I did was go on a tour to visit the ruins of Pompeii. Then, visited some other sites before going to Mount Vesuvius... To the summit.

Was I making money at the taxpayers' expense while walking the ruins of Pompeii? While walking up the volcano?

The answer is no. Both an active duty military member, and the president, are earning a salary. They both get paid at a fixed rate per month (biweekly pay for military). Those three and four-day federal holidays? People working for the government, including the military on active duty, still get paid during those days off.

They are not "making money off the taxpayers" when engaging in leisurely activities during those days off.

Additionally, many a business decisions are being made on the golf course. I have gone to the golf course for an entire workday. You would be surprised at how many work-related discussions are held on the golf course. Additionally, there is a lot of "problem-solving" related to work that occurs during the round.

Kim Isaacson: won't show his tax returns cause it would prove it....

So how are his tax returns, from before he became president, going to "prove" that he made money off the taxpayers while golfing as president? No, a display of his tax returns will not prove any of the arguments that you advanced here.

Kim Isaacson: he will go done as the worst president 

False. He will go down as one of the greatest presidents that the United States has ever had. However, the last democrat president, Obama, will indeed go down as one of the worst presidents. In fact, he displaced Jimmy Carter as the worst president in modern history.

I've been following the news since 1982. I lost count of the number of people who lacerated, insulted, verbally attacked, etc., Ronald Reagan. Today, he is seen as one of the greatest presidents in American history.

Kim Isaacson: more people voted against him than for him, 

I recommend that you read the United States Constitution... Specifically in the area involving who chooses the president.

The states, not the people, are responsible for voting for president. The states vote for the president via the electoral college. 

Meaning, per the United States Constitution, the national popular vote is absolutely meaningless. The only popular vote that matters is what is contained within each state. In reality, the "Presidential Elections" held in November are not the actual elections for the president.

I say "elections", as this is not a single contest. The "presidential elections" are 51 separate contests... Each of the states and the District of Columbia. We, the people, don't vote for president. We vote for a set of electors.

The real presidential election takes place when the electors meet and vote for president.

Kim Isaacson: he is not the people's president.....

False. What matters is what the Constitution decides. President Trump is our duly elected president. He was elected per a constitutional process. Remember, it is the states through their electors, and not the American people as a whole, that vote for President. 

Tonya Zylka Johnson gets called out for her repeated propaganda

A Facebook netizen and I argued the same thing. Where he spoke his mind, I showed Tonya Zylka, via the disconnect between Tonya's arguments and reality, how GW was "center mass" on what he said about her. 

What he said:

GW: Tonya Zylka and so do you .. you are the most hateful racist period ... you spew lie after lie with you uneducated propaganda !!! You try to use a social media platform to push your bullshit agenda day in and day out .. it's a shit fucking broken record !!! 

Giving an opinion isn't hate, unless you're conservative

 

RE: GW...She doesn't like Trump...so what? Giving an opinion isn't hate dumbass!!!

And, providing an argument against Tonya Zylka does not make GW a "dumbass". He expressed what I, and I'm pretty sure other Trump supporters, feel. Unlike me; however, Gordy spoke his mind.

I did not use his exact words. I showed it by taking her argument, as well as everybody else's anti-Trump argument, apart... And countered them with a fact-based, reasoned, logical argument. It's a given, based on what she is arguing and saying, that she doesn't like Trump.

She could express her opinion. However, as with any political argument, the risk of debate is very high.

Carol King's meme about ventilator shortages, ignores knowledge timeline

 Carol King: [meme: Our leaders knew about ventilator shortages]

The shortage of ventilators was an issue since 2003. In fact, from 2003 through 2015 and into the current pandemic. Both Democrats, and Republicans, at the federal, state, and local levels, did not take substantive action to actually have the materials needed to deal with this pandemic:

If that is what your meme is implying, then for once you expressed a valid argument. If you are trying to hang this around President Trump's neck, then you're doing nothing but pedaling propaganda. Trump followed the footsteps of career politicians on both sides of the political aisle in this specific matter.

Tonya Zylka Johnson makes the brigading call

Tonya Zylka: Teri Manisto, Callie Bush, Bo Johnson

I started a new semi thread rebutting all three of them. The intent was to get all three of them in that semi thread. You essentially helped me along to canalize their actions.

Bo Johnson dismisses a fact based argument as "Fantasy Island"

 

Bo Johnson: [Redacted] you leave me speechless! Life must be awesome for you, a true fantasy island. [SELF PROJECTION]

Correction. It is you, and the others here that I have rebutted, who live in a fantasy world. Your arguments are based solely on propaganda. Disinformation that is easily proven wrong. All one has to do is to go straight to the source of the news to find the facts.

Memes, October 25, 2022

 Elaine Luria is shielded from the impacts of inflation:

 

Moderates? That's just a facemask: