Debunking Joe Jagunich's anti-Trump Argument of August 2019 Introduction

Joe Jagunich demonstrated poor knowledge of what he was debating. Hopefully, his performance on that instrument isn't like his debate performance.  (Facebook)

I entered a Facebook debate against Joe Jagunich in August 2019. A mutual friend generated a Facebook post addressing Congressman Stauber. Joe Jagunich was one of the posters that jumped in and supported the thread starter. He attacked President Trump and his policies.

He was among those that I debunked. Joe Jagunich was one of two posters, on that thread, who blocked me instead of conceding defeat. When a poster blocks me, I use that as justification to smoothen out my replies and post them here.

His statements were copied over, but not edited. They are as Joe Jagunich posted them.

During the course of the debate, I asked him a simple yes/no only question. The correct answer to this question destroyed the specific argument that Joe Jagunich made. He failed to answer that question.

Since this argument occurred during the summer of 2019, my responses are based on factors that were applicable at the time of the debate.

If Joe Jagunich is a Christian, his argument is a contradiction to God's Commandments, statutes, and judgments. By extension, they're a contradiction to the Gospels. Among God's statutes in the Old Testament is the requirement to "diligently search the truth" before rendering judgment.

My responses represent the results of "diligently searching the truth". Had Joe Jagunich done the same thing, and if he were impartial, he would not have made the argument that he made. This is assuming that he is a "practicing Christian".

When the opposition debates me on Facebook or in other private media, they have two choices to make. Get destroyed in a private setting, or get destroyed in a public setting. When they chose to block or unfriend instead of ceding the argument, they chose to take the whoppen in a public setting.

Debunking Joe Jagunich's anti-Trump Argument of August 2019 Part 1

Joe Jagunich: John, Rep. Stauber is afraid of Trump. 

No, he's doing the equivalent to "negotiating through office politics" while doing the job he was elected to do. Additionally, President Trump represents the conservative base. Any Republican that goes against President Trump's initiatives will anger the conservative base. This is a legitimate concern for any House or Senate Republican.

Joe Jagunich: Trump came to Duluth to support Rep Stauber's election campaign.....

This is the only thing that you said that's correct.

Joe Jagunich: so Rep Stauber is afraid that Trump will destroy him if he doesn't follow the Trump Party line. 

This falsehood is based on three erroneous assumptions.

The first assumption is that the Congressman is only doing what he's doing in order to stay in President Trump's good graces. The second assumption assumes that he doesn't do any thinking of his own. The third assumption ignores the excitement, among the conservative base, who voted for Congressman Stauber.

Understand that this was the election that was supposed to give us a "blue wipeout" at all levels, including Congress. Many were expecting the Democrats to take the Senate, not just the House. So, it speaks volumes when a Republican wins a congressional race. 

As I mentioned above, the conservative base is excited about President Trump and is supportive of his policies. President Trump represents the conservative base. Turning against President Trump means turning against the conservative base.

This is a point that your side of the argument continues to be blind to.

Joe Jagunich: Pretty sad that our Representative is supporting a most-terrible, narcissistic excuse of a man! 

Sorry, but the terrible narcissist left the White House back in January 2017; replaced by someone who isn't a narcissist. President Trump is essentially doing this job "nearly for free". He's working long hours, etc., to fix the mess that he inherited from Obama. Not exactly what one would expect a narcissist to do. President Trump is clearly doing work to improve our situation, then turns around to donate his federal paycheck to one cause after another intending to help others out.

President Trump isn't a terrible president, he's a great president. He will go down in history as one of the greatest presidents we've had.

Joe Jagunich: Keep the pressure on John. 

What pressure? President Trump is facing hurricane-force headwinds from the leftist elites, from the movers and shakers in D.C. as well as from the establishment. That doesn't stop him from doing the great work that he's doing.

Joe Jagunich: Trump has gone after your religion, and labeled you as a person that 'doesn't understand' and 'is not loyal'. I am with you, John!

What President Trump actually said:

"I think any Jewish people that vote for a Democrat, I think it shows either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty," - President Trump

This is not an attack. He lists two reasons why Jewish people would vote Democrat. One of those reasons is "total lack of knowledge" and the other is "great disloyalty". Two possibilities.

This is a dead accurate statement. The Democratic Party is no friend to Israel. There are people that insist that "Israel" and "Jews" are separable and that opposition to Israel's policies is "not" opposition to Jews.

This clearly indicates a total lack of knowledge of what is happening in that area.

On a strategic level, Israel's enemies and adversaries want Israel gone. They want to replace Israel with an Islamic Palestine. They consider Israel and Jews as synonymous. They see Israel as an "unjustified Jewish occupation of Arab lands".

The radical elements among the Palestinians do not intend to live peacefully side by side with Israel. They consider the idea, of not having all of Israel as Palestine, as a total insult. The areas the Palestinians currently have is an insult to them and falls short of their main objective.

Their Israel related policies are intended to end Israel's existence. Israel is in a state of war. Large segments of the Israeli population are either on active duty with the military or are in a reserve status. They have to stay vigilant at a security level, and they had to fight back against the Pro Palestine anti-Israel United Nations resolutions.

The removal of Israel, as a country, would not be an "end state" for the radicals. For them, it would just be the "beginning". Why? Their radical elements fully intend to eliminate Jews. They also intend to eliminate Christians.

So, it doesn't matter that we have Democrats who want to separate "Jews" from "Israel". The radical elements waging a war against the West and against Israel do not see such distinction. To the radical Islamists, "Israel" = "Jew". That's the reality that we have to deal with.

So yes, it is a factual statement that Jewish support for Democrats is done through a lack of knowledge of what is really going on.

Debunking Joe Jagunich's anti-Trump Argument of August 2019 Part 2

Joe Jagunich: [Name redacted] I support the Office of the Presidency. 

If you supported the Office of the Presidency, you would not be basing your argument, against President Trump, on what others have said about his statements. Instead, you would read the actual transcripts of the statement in order to get it in context. A person supporting the Office of the Presidency would make every effort to understand the intent of the president's statement, comments, etc. Your argument indicates that you did not do that.

Joe Jagunich: It is tragic that you have the same message as Trump. His message: 'Like what I am doing, and how I am behaving, or leave the Country. Support me (Trump) or leave. That is just not an American attitude!

No, what is tragic is that your statement is not consistent with what the president actually said. If you read his actual tweet or the actual transcripts of the speech, you would see his statement's full context. 

What President Trump actually said:

"They're very unhappy, I'm watching them and all they do is complain. So all I'm saying is if they want to leave they can leave John, they can leave! I mean I look at the one, I look at the one I look at Omar, I don't know her, I never met her, I hear the way she talks about Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda has killed many Americans. She said you could hold your chest out, you can, what I think of America... huuuh... When I think of Al Qaeda I could hold my chest out... When she talked about the World Trade Center being knocked down, some people, do you remember..." -- President Trump

As you can see, there's an inconsistency between what you claimed he said, and what he actually said. If you read the actual transcript, or watch/listen to him make the speeches, you would notice that he is offering a conditional statement...

If you don't like it here, leave! By extension, if you like it, stay.

That's not him telling people to leave if they do not support him. That's nothing but pure propaganda that certain people fall for hook, line, and sinker.

People can't even use the tweets that he made. If you separate those tweets by sentences, you would get the context of what he was saying. He didn't tell them to "go back where you came from," He told them to go back to the "crime infested" places that they came from. "Crime infested" and "broken down" are descriptions that Conservatives use to describe Democrat districts that have voted Democrat for decades.

He was telling them to go back and fix their districts. He wasn't telling them to go back to "their" countries.

Debunking Joe Jagunich's anti-Trump Argument of August 2019 Part 3

Joe Jagunich: Randy Shipley Hi, Randy. Good to hear from you after so many years! No to both questions. If a Priest is accused of being a predator, he is removed. I'd like to see the same thing happen to Trump.

Based on what? Your side of the argument has colossally failed to prove your anti-Trump arguments to be "true". The cold hard reality is that President Trump is not guilty of what you guys claim him to be guilty of. So, President Trump is perfectly fine where he is at. Hopefully, he gets a second term and serves until January 2025.

Randy Shipley: Joe Jagunich good to hear from you as well! I have zero respect for Trump as a person or a leader 

Considering that your side of the argument has failed to prove your anti-Trump comments with a fact-based, reasoned, logical argument, this speaks volumes about you. President Trump has done a lot to earn respect as a person and as a leader. He is exactly what we need. Anybody that claims that he doesn't deserve respect is doing it for emotional reasons... Or they are doing it based on a lack of knowledge of what is going on... Not on fact.

Debunking Joe Jagunich's anti-Trump Argument of August 2019 Part 4

Joe Jagunich: [Name redacted] I am baffled at your statements. You articulate very well, but let's just say that I do not share your admiration for President Trump. 

I knew before I replied to you, that we would disagree with each other regarding President Trump. One reason for your being baffled is that your information sources have told you one thing about President Trump, and that has influenced your views about him.

You're not the only one that's baffled at my statements. This is a common reaction by others who don't think that the mainstream media has abdicated their journalistic responsibilities.

Joe Jagunich: He is NOT a good man. 

Your opinion isn't supported by what I've observed in him. If he weren't a good man, he wouldn't be donating his presidential salary. He has done other things that prove your statement wrong.

Joe Jagunich: He is a liar, a cheater, a racist, a narcissist, and has NO redeeming qualities.

I've lost count of how many times people claimed that President Trump "lied", just to find out that he was providing the facts. Likewise, women have come forward trying to claim that President Trump was a cheater, yet they haven't proven their claims.

A racist? President Trump hired people from all demographics. If he were a racist, he'd only hire white people. His actions around people from different demographics don't indicate someone that's a racist.

A narcissist? Are you talking about President Obama? The last president was a narcissist. It was about him big time. The current president is giving people a taste of their own medicine, that doesn't make him a narcissist. Likewise, the claims about his statements regarding "loyalty" and "getting out" are false claims. Hence, arguments about his being a narcissist fall flat on their faces.

He has plenty of redeeming qualities.

Joe Jagunich: That's why only despots and dictators support him. 

Actually, multiple world leaders support him. Other countries' leaderships are glad that someone is finally showing leadership. Yes, the U.S. economy was a topic point at the summit, and world leaders over there were supportive of his efforts with regards to the U.S. economy. They are going to have their differences on an international scale, but they have a lot of similarities and interests, which don't make it as much in the news.

Joe Jagunich: Most Democratic government world leaders have a very low opinion of Trump. 

That's one of the prices that you have to pay when you're in a leadership position. You're going to make decisions that many others aren't going to be happy with. I experienced that while in leadership positions during my military career.

However, the claim that most democratic government leaders "have a low opinion" on him could only be based on media hype and not on reality. The body language of the other leaders, in the same area as President Trump during their interactions with him, does not indicate that they have a low opinion of him.

Joe Jagunich: He can't even read, and can't speak in complete sentences. 

I've watched him speak in complete sentences, and he is capable of reading. His ability to speak and read is one of the reasons why he is a billionaire president. Keep that in mind when you insult him from your home office.

Joe Jagunich: He will never be re-elected.....thank God.

They said he would not win the election back in 2015 and 2016. They said it as if it were an empirical fact. They said that when he went up against career politicians during the primaries. They said that when he went against someone who was "supposed to have her turn."

I stand by what I stated earlier. I've been a news junkie since 1982. The last time I've seen this kind of excitement from the Republican base was in 1983 and 1984. It's like déjà vu again, down to the audience chanting, "USA, USA, USA."

I predict that with all other things being equal, President Trump will win re-election.

Debunking Joe Jagunich's anti-Trump Argument of August 2019 Part 5

Joe Jagunich: [Name Redacted] No, 

Yes, what I said in my previous post is correct, just like what I'm about to say here.

Joe Jagunich: other democratic world leaders used to be eager allies. Trump has made snide remarks about the leaders from Germany, France, UK, Mexico, Canada, many African countries, Puerto Rico; among others. 

Wrong.

First, they still want to be our allies. It would be a geostrategic disaster if they decided that they didn't want to be our allies. The alternative to the U.S. isn't pretty. Just ask the Asian countries surrounding China. Those countries are looking to the U.S. to counterbalance the Chinese. China's idea for their "national borders" extends deep into the South China Sea. Consequently, they have conflicting territorial claims... On islands closer to these countries than to China.

If you were to read their accounts about what's going on, you'd find that even Vietnam wants to politically ally with the U.S. against the Chinese. It speaks volumes when protesters in Hong Kong wave the American Flag and speak about President Trump in favorable terms.

Second, you ignore the fact that world leaders made remarks regarding President Trump and the United States. These were criticisms. Together with the mess that they have in their countries, that they are not effectively dealing with, it is just for President Trump firing back.

The Germans have a disaster on their hands with regards to migrants, as well as with their economic policy that makes them dependent on Russia. President Trump criticized them for these issues, and for the fact that they needed to be cattle prodded to meet their NATO obligations.

The French are dealing with similar problems, which reached the point that they've had demonstrations on their streets for multiple weekends.

The UK? Are you talking about the "stone-cold loser" London Mayor that attacked President Trump? Other UK politicians? Both their leaders and their talking heads, like to lecture the United States about topics like gun control. Yet, they have problems in that country that they are not effectively addressing... Like knife crimes.

Mexico? He hammered them hard for failing to enforce their own immigration policies. Result? The Mexicans are doing things now that they did not do during previous US administrations. They are effectively in the process of turning Mexico into an extension of "The Wall". If they were not eager to be our allies, they would not have gone through extensive measures to comply.

One of the purposes behind President Trump's remarks, regarding both Mexico and Canada, involves the fact that they were benefiting at our expense under NAFTA. During the negotiation process for the new trade agreement, he continued making those remarks regarding both countries and both leaders. Result? They ended up agreeing to a replacement trade agreement that's closer to being fair among the participating nations.

Those African countries whose leaders President Trump spoke against? They are still our allies. It would be suicide for them not to... Especially now that we are sending military advisory teams to their countries to advise and train them to deal with militant terrorists.

Puerto Rico? You do realize that Puerto Rico is an incorporated US territory, do you? As with the case with his criticisms of world leaders, his criticism of Puerto Rico is spot on. A generous amount of money was sent to Puerto Rico for them to deal with the hurricane's aftermath. Yet, Puerto Rico mismanaged the money. The help that this money could've brought about did not materialize. Where did the money go?

Legitimate corruption, within the Puerto Rican government, has come to light. Have you not noticed the fact that their previous governor stepped down? President Trump was dead right about these guys, just as he was about his criticisms of other countries' leadership.

Joe Jagunich: Almost none of these leaders can trust him. 

The recent G-7 summit counters that assumption. The mainstream media didn't accurately report what occurred during that summit, just as they failed to accurately report what happened in Iraq during the Iraq War.

The fact that they still would attend meetings like the G-7 meeting in France, with President Trump there, proves you wrong. These meetings aren't events where people just get together to watch slide show presentations. Many deals are made during these meetings.

What you seem to be missing is the fact that these guys are politicians. They will say things to garner support back home and to hopefully leverage things their way during these meetings. President Trump secured some agreements during this meeting. President Trump wouldn't have accomplished this if "none" of these leaders trusted him.

Joe Jagunich: He has alienated most of his self-appointed cabinet members, 

You mean, like how a supervisor would "alienate" a substandard performer for calling him out for his substandard performance? Like how a leader would "alienate" someone in the team who was not performing in a way that positively impacted the team's performance?

I put "alienate" in quotation marks, as these are examples of things that a leader would do. A leader has a goal to accomplish. If those under him refuse to support him or refuse to take the actions needed for him to accomplish his goals, then that leader has every right to provide constructive criticism.

That's what President Trump is doing. He's providing constructive criticism. If you've been in leadership positions during your career, you'd recognize this. I do; I've been in leadership positions in the military. 

Joe Jagunich: any and all political opponents.o 

Yet, no complaint on your part about his political opponents disparaging him first? This is the same pattern I see elsewhere. Certain "favored" people attack President Trump. He holds fire, and they continue to attack him. Then, "wham", President Trump hits back and he hits back hard.

Do those who attacked him get told, "That's what happens when you keep poking the bear!"? No, your side of the argument chooses to demonize President Trump and act like those that he fired back on were initially "innocent".

Up to 90% of the media coverage on him is negative. They amplify his opponents' and detractor's voices. They refuse to report accurately in situations involving President Trump. Do you honestly believe that President Trump would just sit there and take it? Negative. He will go to twitter. President Trump does and says things in a way that exposes his enemies and adversaries for who they really are.

Debunking Joe Jagunich's anti-Trump Argument of August 2019 Part 6

Joe Jagunich: He has paid off women so they don't 'talk'. 

The fact that he has paid money to certain people does not indicate guilt. If the accusers are so sure that they could win big in court, why even bother with a settlement that pays less? One reason is that the probability of getting something for less, in a settlement, is greater than the chances of getting more in court... A possibility that wouldn't even be a consideration if this were a "slam dunk" case.

The fact that they did not go to trial speaks volumes to the fact that the claims are nothing but BS. In fact, one of them tried to sue President Trump for statements about her. Her case got thrown out and she had to pay President Trump's legal fees.

We are innocent until proven guilty in our justice system. If you're willing to label President Trump as guilty in this case, with zero evidence to support such a label, then you are just as bad as the despots and dictators that your side of the argument lambastes.

Joe Jagunich: You, my friend, have been wrong on every point you've made. 

False. I've been correct with every point that I have made. This is true on this thread; this is true with everything I've said in the debate against the left over the past almost 16 years.

First, in order for me to engage in these kinds of debates, two criteria have to be met:

1. I have to have extensive first-hand experience and/or extensively studied/research experience on the topic.

2. The opposition clearly does not know what they are talking about, they are clearly wrong on the topic being debated.

Both of these criteria have been met on this thread. As you have seen with my rebuttals, it is you that is wrong. You and others that I've rebutted here have been wrong on every point. This is why I can easily dismantle your arguments. I easily dismantle your arguments on the topic as well as your arguments on what I am doing.

I dismantle your arguments, as well as that of others because you guys are wrong. If you guys were "right/correct", I wouldn't be able to reply to you guys the way I'm replying to you guys here. The more wrong you guys are, the longer my replies generally are.

Second, as with the others on this thread, you have consistently failed to prove your argument "correct". All you have done is to advance an opinion as well as advance a leftist set of talking points. Anybody could provide an opinion. However, there is one set of facts. Your replies lack the facts. They're absent from the opposition's replies. They're absent from the replies that I rebutted on this thread.

Joe Jagunich: Trump is a despicable man. 

Based on what? If you're simply going by the "orange man bad" mainstream media narrative, then that "would" seem to be the "case". However, when it comes to his actual actions, your statement is wrong.

The majority of people that work with him, for him, for his organizations, as well as those who came across him, described him as something else. Not as a despicable person, but as an actual leader who cares about the people that work in his organization.

Joe Jagunich: He has no empathy toward anybody.

False. President Trump can't help it if, in the execution of his leadership responsibilities as well as his enforcing the laws, if certain people are not going to benefit from it. His putting up walls to serve as a barrier that prevents people from coming in? Who are trying to escape certain conditions in their home countries?

There is a legal way of coming to the US. It's not done by simply crossing into our border uninvited and without authority. They made the decision to cross. They and they alone bear the responsibility and risks of such a decision.

Going after the people who don't have America's best interests at heart? That does not make President Trump someone who "lacks empathy". What I see, with regards to his actions? Things that need to be done to improve our situation. His actions make sense economically, strategically, and politically.

As with your prior point, his actions do not show the actions of someone who "lacks empathy". Don't mistake his refusal to be a doormat, or his refusal to abandon his position in relation to the opposition, as his "lack of empathy". It isn't.

Joe Jagunich: He doesn't read his briefings and reports; 

And you say this based on what? I highly doubt that you are in the room with President Trump when he received these briefings and reports. In fact:

Are you in the same room as President Trump every time he receives his briefings and reports? YES [   ] NO [   ]

Copy and paste this question, and the yes/no options to your reply. Place an "X" in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional explanation that you would want to provide related to this question. I will be looking for this in your response. If you do not answer this question per the parameters that I set, I will ask it again in my counter rebuttal.

Otherwise, you are not in a position to say, with certainty, whether he reads his briefings and reports or not.

Joe Jagunich: has discontinued daily press conferences, 

As he should. The mainstream media has abdicated its journalistic responsibilities. The job of the journalist is to gather information. Not just the information that favors their argument, but relevant information. Their job is to provide us with actual news, not to choose what the audience receives for the purpose of deceiving the audience to reach a specific conclusion.

These daily press conferences have become a joke. "Journalists" are acting more like pundits serving an audience sharing a specific opinion. This isn't how journalists should behave in situations like this. If they're going to use it as a platform to attack the president, and not focus on actual issues, then there is no reason to why these press conferences should be held.

They do nothing constructive, especially when we have access to information not related to what the press corps could provide us. If they're going to take him out of context, instead of reporting what happened, the President isn't obligated to give them a platform.

Note: This response, as with the rest of the Joe Jagunich posts in this series, occurred during the summer of 2019. Notice how the press reacted to the daily COVID-19 briefings this year. One of their arguments was that these briefings should discontinue. This is a contradiction to Joe Jagunich's argument. It would not surprise me if he concurred with the latter argument. 

Debunking Joe Jagunich's anti-Trump Argument of August 2019 Part 7

Joe Jagunich: and has only visited war zone troops once in his term. 

As someone who has combat deployed to Iraq, this is irrelevant. I didn't see any politician, let alone the last president when I was deployed. And, this isn't something that is on our minds when we are out there.

It doesn't matter if someone makes multiple trips to the combat theater or not. If they don't do their jobs that we expect them to do as commander-in-chief, that is what we are going to be focusing on.

Understand that when word goes out, among the military community, that President Trump is coming to speak on the base, many military personnel want to be there. This was also the case when Bush Jr. was president. When Barack Obama was in office? Leadership eventually had to "scrape every nook and cranny" to get servicemembers out to become an audience.

You could tell, by the looks on the faces of the service members at these speeches, that they were happy to be hearing President Trump first hand. When President Obama was speaking? They didn't look like they wanted to be there.

The troops have a rapport with President Trump. They had one with George Bush. It wasn't always there with Barack Obama. Let that sink in. This is what matters, not the number of times they've visited the combat theater.

Joe Jagunich: He has criticized Gold Star Moms and Dads (you should be aware of this). 

First, yes, I am aware of this and good on him for doing so. The father, Khizr Khan, attacked Donald Trump with a straw man argument.

Then Candidate Trump argued for a solution to help secure the United States with regards to radical terrorism. This included putting a halt to immigration from certain Islamic countries until a better vetting system is in place. This made sense considering the problems that Europeans are facing dealing with people escaping from Syria.

However, instead of focusing on that one topic, Khan made it about the Constitution and people's freedom of movement. That wasn't the point or intention of Donald Trump's recommended solution. Khan's argument deliberately missed the point.

Naturally, Donald Trump fired back. Khan's status as a Goldstar parent does not make him immune to criticism.

This is a big complaint that the mainstream media has. The left tries to roll out certain people that, if we criticize them or fight back, we are given one sort of label or another. They had these two individuals up on stage in an attempt to argue against Donald Trump.

As with the conservative base, he did not buy into that "speaker immunity" nonsense. It's one of the things that the left does to make up for the fact that they can't win an argument based on fact, reason, and logic. The guy was clearly wrong, and Donald Trump called him out for it. The mainstream media went overboard with their anti-Trump propaganda.

Despite accusations of how he approached other Goldstar parents, Goldstar parents have stepped forward and described how President Trump actually is when interacting with them. Nothing like how the media portrayed him.

When I was in Iraq, I told family and friends that if I were to die there, anybody that used my situation in an argument against the Iraq War, would not only be arguing against something that I strongly believe in but would be considered as disowned.

My requirements were clear. I strongly believed in what I was doing (still do), I knew what I was getting into, and if I die doing it, anybody that attempts to use that as an argument against what I believe in was to consider themselves "disowned."

Debunking Joe Jagunich's anti-Trump Argument of August 2019 Part 8

Joe Jagunich: You say you're a news junkie? Every point you've made is from the far-right news sources. Even Fox News reports lately are more critical of him, and have done polls that show his support among voters to be around 40%.....not good news for Trump. Your newsgathering efforts need to be more inclusive.

Yes, I am a news junkie. No, I do not watch Fox News. They have drifted from what they did that attracted me to them in the first place. If I tune in, it would only be for specific hosts. Likewise, I have not watched either cable or network news.

Heck, I don't even watch TV.

As with others who have made assumptions about me, you are wrong about where I get my news and with regards to where I need to get my news.

My "reading of the news" involves Internet searches surrounding specific topics and issues. The Paris Climate Accord? I didn't just go by the reports that I came across. I downloaded the text of the treaty and read it for myself. Collusion? I downloaded the Mueller Report and went through it. I didn't just go by what the media said. Climate change? I go straight to the websites that track raw data. I also went straight to the studies.

In every instance where I come across a study or the text of a treaty, it didn't support the media narrative that talked about that study or treaty.

The information that I argued above is based on this extensive research. I look for information that could be substantiated. I don't just trust what people say at face value. I go straight for "Tier 1" information sources.

The conclusions that I come to are based on that research. If it happens that my points are consistent with what you identify as "far-right news", then that is just a situation where two different people made the same or similar conclusions based on a review of the same information.

Also, given the track record of the polling of the 2016 presidential race, do you honest to God think that I will trust polling data that you throw around? Remember, Donald Trump was supposed to lose in 2016. This was based on polling and on pundit analysis. He was polling poorly, even into election night. That night, he started with a high probability of losing the election.

Well, we know how that turned out, don't we?

Don't make an assumption about what I'm doing with regards to information gathering, and what I'm not doing. I've yet to have someone make a negative assumption about me and be correct. They've always been wrong.

Contrary to your erroneous assumption, my news gathering is extensive and includes far more sources than what you assume I'm using. If by being "inclusive", you want me to include the propagandist sources of information that you follow, I would say, "No thanks."

Let's take CNN and MSNBC for example. They hammered the drum hard about Russian Collusion. I downloaded the Mueller Report and went through it. Nowhere, in that report, did it say that President Trump knowingly colluded with the Russians. Nowhere in that report did it say that anybody involved with the Trump campaign knowingly colluded with the Russians.

Yet, far left/radical left/leftwing news sources like CNN and MSNBC pushed that narrative as if "there was" collusion. The report disagreed with their hyped narrative, and it disagreed with the "obstruction" nonsense that these media sources were peddling.

The 97% "consensus" on climate change? I downloaded that study and went through it. It turned out that this "97%" is based on 32% of the papers downloaded out of over 11,000 papers downloaded. They focused on the abstracts. I'm sorry, but "97%" of "32%" does not constitute a "consensus" among the scientific community.

But wait! There's more! They only read the abstracts for these papers. The meat and potatoes are actually in the paper, after the abstract, not in the abstract. This was a sham study that disregarded scientific research principles. Yet, the leftist propaganda media harped this "consensus" as if they were quoting the Bible.

These are the information sources that you want me to "be inclusive of". I'm sorry, but I will reject propaganda. My primary MOS in the Army is Psychological Operations (PSYOP). One of PSYOP's duties, while combat deployed, is to counter enemy propaganda. A look at leftwing news like CNN, MSNBC, New York Times et al. shows an example of textbook propaganda.