>No thanks- you need to "prove" that barking causes the collapse rather than just saying "voila" because you don't like the dog.

He ignores facts, boasts about things he barely knows about, and then he gets the deserved check, with an exaggerated fallout. Cause and effect.
Your quoting numbers showing negativity is meaningless as long as it doesn't attempt to explain why it is so? It is in the study that you cited that the author provided context to numbers, whether you agree with it or not. He did provide his opinion, and I quoted it just because your quoting numbers doesn't mean anything without it. The only fact in this story is that context was provided, but you chose to ignore it in your first post.
I happen to agree with his thoughts. I understand you disagree, but then you need to provide your own conclusion.

>
>>>But, here is a shorter, more compelling list for the first 100 days.
>>>http://www.factcheck.org/2017/04/100-days-whoppers/
>A fact checking citation with "100-days-whoppers" in its url. I know what the slant will be without even looking, which is the bed the MSM is making for itself.

They are whoppers, or whatever you want to call them. I included the link because you asked. Didn't expect you to dismiss it that easily.
*