The economy is irrelevant to democrats.

Who us, ya he’s right!

VOTE TRUMP 2020

Well, Trump didn't create millions of new jobs in the USA. Obama did.
bea.gov bls.gov
Effects do not precede causes.

from what i heard, millions lost their jobs b/c of obamacare...

According to bls.gov, that's untrue. Look up the unemployment trend line between 2009 and 2016. It keeps going down.

well trump has been creating jobs in ghettos where lots of unemployed black ppl r... why ppl say he's racist is quite perplexing to me...

So a lot of black people live in China? Because that's where 💩's been creating the jobs. Obama created jobs in the United States for American citizens.

trump has been creating jobs in american ghettos... why don't ppl know about this stuff? b/c the fake news media doesn't talk about it.

That's because 💩 hasn't been creating jobs, although he has been creating ghettos. And I'm sure OAN and InfoWars, which are fake news sources, don't talk about it because they're more interested in fellating that steaming pile of Trump rather than actual journalism

Meanwhile, how about some evidence of 💩's racism?
Candidacy announcement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apjNfkysjbM
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/may/22/viral-image/donald-trump-has-faced-allegations-racism-decades/
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/jul/09/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-mexican-government-forces-many-b/
Racist rental policies: https://vault.fbi.gov/trump-management-company

& to respond to those three things, two of them are identical & one didn't even pull up. second, this is more proof that "racist" is just an insult instead of an issue these days...

You still haven't read them, have you? There are four things, and all of those links work.

O, if i read them i'd automatically agree w/ them? My gosh pls don't tell me u don't know there's a such thing as an unconvincing argument. I did read them; they were just presumptuous & unwarrantedly declared motives & i'm smart enough 2 c that.
But since that is the Article of Absolute Undisputed Truth, i'm sure coming 2 that conclusion is the same thing as lying & not reading them, i'm sure...

Yea i did read them.

You lied. You never read them.

if any of that is saying trump is racist against mexicans, that is just some garbage. Trump tried to befriend the Mexican president. The wall wasn't to keep Mexicans out, it was to keep out illegal immigrants who come here & kill ppl!!! wouldn't u like to live safer?

how does one exactly create a ghetto? you'd have to take down a good civilization & replace it with shacks w/ poor ppl who feel hopeless & want 2 steal from others. I've been in a ghetto b4... one person cannot create a ghetto. when u create a job in a ghetto, all the ppl who don't live in the ghetto won't want the jobs there b/c they can get jobs in nicer areas, so that automatically employs all the ppl in that ghetto. Doesn't this make sense? this is the entire conservative principle; create businesses & cause ppl from all finance lvls to earn income, instead of simply taking from the hard-working rich & giving to the poor so they won't be responsible.

You do realize CNN is a fake news source, right? & idk anything about OAN & InfoWars... that aint where i get info.

You don't get info from anywhere, you only reiterate the same debunked falsehoods, as in the first paragraph. "if any of that is saying trump is racist against mexicans, that is just some garbage. Trump tried to befriend the Mexican president." That's a false equivalence. And "keeping out illegal immigrants who come here and kill people?" The wall isn't even keeping out drug dealers. It's a useless boondoggle. I would like to live safer, but 💩 is doing everything to compromise national security.

Your second paragraph is completely based on fallacy, and has zero facts. It's just a flight of ideas meant to muddy the waters.

CNN may be biased, but at least it uses facts, and is not a fake news source. All you're doing is reiterating the same lies and attempts to poison the well. But you have proven that you don't get information...unless you think the FBI is fake news.

dude wtf???? where do i even start w/ this? 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

1st off, do u realize that 2 even cite that "fallacy" on someone is stinking fallacious? It basically says "i am right b/c i am right, & u are wrong b/c u are wrong." If what u said qualifies as "evidence," y can't what i said b taken in2 consideration? i can technically describe whatever opposes whatever i believe as "argumentum ex culo."

2nd, r u aware that just b/c something's reported doesn't mean it's true? i can create a report about how obama was racist; that doesn't mean it's true. & then i could say that if u oppose it, ur argument is "argumentum ex culo." i saw what u sent. i just don't trust that kind of stuff. + herschel walker said he felt like ppl need 2 know trump wasn't racist. plus, trump likes 2 work w/ ppl of different political stances & different races. that's why he does stuff w/ putin & kim jong un. racists don't do that.

rlly? i was in an argument w/ a democrat a few wks ago & they literally said CNN = the liberal Fox News. tbh, rlly the whole press is full of liars, but CNN is among the worst.

i didn't say that the ppl actually debunked something, i said that they just claim everything is debunked. There is a huge difference. i said they claim everything is "debunked" w/ NO proof, & that they tell u THAT stuff is debunked, not WHY or HOW.

i said ur last statement was a straw man b/c u basically said i don't know any info b/c i don't think CNN reports truth (which is rlly more fallacies than just straw man, but i won't get in2 that 4 space's sake). I don't believe the FBI is fake news; the FBI isn't even news. that's y i didn't even address it. it makes 0 sense.

i honestly have not seen an argument on here that is this horrifying since someone quoted the dang Urban Dictionary to prove a point. plus dyk the dictionary wouldn't put something as a media cover-up word, or it wouldn't be a cover-up word anymore? plus they may be in the dang bandwagon & believe their "debunkings." U expect them 2 know stuff behind the scenes & make definitions off of it, which no one can do except God.

plus, idt any journalist is freaking legit these days. everything reported has 2 have some dang political agenda... & most evidence presented is lousy or manipulated 2 mislead ppl. but u can keep on believing their lies. ik many situations where CNN flat out lied bout stuff, some even recently. Even newsy's biased.

I could write an entire article in responding, but im out of space.

Spare me your reiterated falsehoods. I am aware that reports must be backed with facts and evidence, and that's what I look for. I prefer a vetted news information service like Reuters or AP. And you'll notice that I did cite proof in my arguments.

But I'm sure my statements of fact are horrifying to you because they are, after all, based in objective reality.

the wall isn't even finished yet. & if trump was racist against mexicans, why would he do that? i certainly wouldn't try 2 make friends w/ a ppl group i despised.

umm how is the second paragraph based on fallacy? the idea of creating jobs in a ghetto is genius & i explained why. i don't see how that's a fallacy. & unless u're constructing in new areas, creating ghettos would take exactly what i said.

yes CNN is fake news. they take stuff out of context routinely, use fallacies of presumption & clarity by assuming what ppl mean when they do stuff (conservatives always have malicious and villainous intents & liberals always have selfless and considerate intents, no matter what they do). there are plenty more things they do wrong.
the last sentence is more than one fallacy but the one i can name right now is the straw man. if i believe something then i must believe something completely dumb.

i happened to notice u used the word "debunked." dyk that's the news media's cover-up word 4 any subject they don't like 2 discuss? Every legit point that contradicts their stance just is "debunked" with no proof whatsoever. They don't tell u why or how it's debunked, just that it's debunked. That is a fallacy in and of itself.

So you haven't scrolled up and read the evidence I presented. I already proved that 💩 is racist, not only against Mexicans, but against other nonwhite races. Sure, he may engage in tokenism for PR, but that's about it.

Your fallacy is argumentum ex culo, in which you try to make an argument using falsified information. 💩 created maybe 700 jobs with his tariffs, at the cost of close to 700,000 jobs. While it would make sense to create jobs where people in low-income areas could then obtain a living wage, that isn't what 💩 is doing. Another example of this fallacy is where you attempt to prove that CNN is "fake news" by describing things that Fox "News" does routinely.

No, I did not create a straw man. The last sentence in my previous post was an accurate statement, and your posts provide the evidence which proves its validity.

And as far as your dictionary fallacy goes:

de·bunk
/dēˈbəNGk/
verb
past tense: debunked; past participle: debunked

expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief)

Nowhere in that definition is there a reference to a use as a "media cover-up word." No, legitimate journalists must present evidence debunking a falsehood, or refer to a previous debunking.

Where did i insult u?
U lashed out & dismissed actual evidence. Just b/c something is in the news doesn't make it true.
I played the victim? Wow. Except everything i said that u misinterpreted that way was true. If the dems want equality, there's where it should start.
U used no fallacies? U must not know logic very well, b/c ur argument was replete w/ them. & u constantly use presumption fallacies if none else. & don't 4get the "ex culo" claim, which is fallacious 2 even bring up, especially in the presumptuous way u did.
Second, who do u think u r? The repository of all knowledge? Since i don't concede 2 ur arguments (which btw, if i were dumb enough 2 fall 4, i'd've believed this nonsense years ago, & that would b shameful), but since i don't bend the knee 2 ur all-knowing ill logic, i can't handle objective reality & don't acknowledge facts? U aren't behind the scenes. U don't know a thing past what u read or hear about. I have nvr met a conservative outlandish & regretlessly arrogant enough 2 say this kind of stuff. Ur proof is what "they say." Well "they said" a lot of things proven untrue.
I'll b very honest w/ u, tho. What's going on w/ u & lot of other ppl is that our "information sources" fill ur heads w/ rage, which is based off of pride. Both make ppl deaf & ridiculous.

Clearly u don't know that things that claim to be vetted can lose credibility? Have u heard of fact checks? They used 2 b objective at first, but they jumped on the leftist-biased bandwagon when they got popular. Obviously u can't tell the difference between decent evidence & garbage evidence.

So you're one of those dems who just use fallacies of presumption and verbal abuse to bully ppl into shutting up or losing it. You use high-falutin terms to put a mask of intelligence on, and come to arguments assuming the other prsn doesn't know what they're talking about b/c they have a different opinion than u have. If you know so much about "objective reality," why don't u run for president? Then u'll c what rlly happens. If u're a dem, u'll have no responsibilty. See, Dems stand 4 responsibility; the difference between them and Republicans is that Republicans want it 4 everyone & the Dems only hold the Republicans accountable. & they fault conservatives 4 dumb reasons, 4 example, they made a career off trump's twitter typos but nvr mentioned obama saying there were 57 states. You, b/c u're democrat, would get favortism & forgiveness while the Republican would get mud slung on them 4 every mistake they made.

"But I'm sure my statements of fact are horrifying to you because they are, after all, based in objective reality."

This is the same condescending bullcrap i get irl when i don't agree w/ ppl. It has no bearing on what objective reality is, & it's a lot closer to the "personal truth" bandwagon. It's based on multiple fallacies. It's a straw man and an ad hominem circumstancial at least. Ik how to deal w/ propoganda & other stuff b/c i'm surrounded by it. U don't know how to refute an argument, so u resort to fallacious irrelevant stuff like "I know b/c I know" & "if you don't agree with me, you just don't like reality." Give me a break. Pls tell me the world isn't this illogical now...

Like b4, I have a lot more to say, but I don't have much time.

So because you can't handle objective reality, you lash out with insults and fabrications. That is despicable, and you should be ashamed of yourself. I used no fallacies. You dismissed actual evidence and play the victim instead of acknowledging the facts.