>>>I can (and have) substantiate - but that means nothing if the other party will not accept the facts. Lost cause at that point. Move along John...
>
>I'm willing to give it one more try to explain.
>
>When it comes to Trump: I say that "facts" consist of
>
>1) His actual words, and
>2) The context in which he said them.
>
>Leave out either of those, and I say it's not a fact.
>
>This means no editorializations, for reasons laid out below. No paraphrases. No appeals to authority or popularity or ad hominem or any other sort of fallacy. Just words, and context.
>
>Yesterday you produced a pick list of paraphrases and summaries that you said were facts.
>
>The actual words were not present and when I asked for them, you couldn't provide any- except a clip in a citation about Trump's words about Mexicans when he was justifying his wall. I'll come back to that one.
>
>In a previous exercise when you produced lists of paraphrases, I did go to the trouble of dissecting and was taken aback at what seemed to be misrepresentation.
>
>Not just once, either. And as they say in the military: once may be coincidence, but twice is enemy action.
>
>By this military maxim, your lists of "facts" and your use of them, is enemy action.
>
>The only rational response is to refuse to heed lists of paraphrases or editorianlzations that historically represent enemy action. I am no fool, give me the facts rather than enemy action, and I will decide for myself.
>
>In the meantime, Trump gets more than the benefit of the doubt- because sleazy misrepresentation by his detractors is not the behavior of somebody who has truth on their side.
>
>I'm not talking about you there: we're all subject to a relentless stream of propaganda that gets into the chinks of the best armor.
>
>Returning to the Mexican comments: I call it lying any time somebody hides the context so they can attack Trump.
>
>I know you like yes or no answers, so here's an easy one: does Trump's wall keep out legal immigrants?
>
>The honest answer is no, in which case the hundreds of rebuttals based on how well legal immigrants may be doing, are dishonest and a betrayal not just of the MSM's general audience, but of Mexican legals who come to think Trump is hostile to them.
>
>It wasn't until I re-watched the clip yesterday- for which I thak you- that I realized that I myself had been sucked in by this relentless propaganda, forgetting that he was talking about illegal immigrants who undeniably are committing crimes that no sensible legal resident should shrug off!
>
>So there's my latest explanation.
>
>Sorry if it seems personal- but if you're true to form, you'll now use the "racist" term and fail to engage with a single part of the above argument, instead falsely attributing bad logic so you can shake your head and act superior.
>
>Victor, wake up. Bill is not the source of the daily enemy action here. And it's flowing around the world, reducing US stature and teaching people it's clever to attack POTUS and US morality. That's a huge loss for a country that not so long ago was seen by much of the free world as a stern but loving big brother.

The POTUS is not a dictator that isn't supposed to be questioned. It appears like you've fallen for his baseless (and dangerous) attacks on the free press and have chosen to ignore all evidence of his racism. I will put the fact-record of what ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNC, BCC, The New York Times, Washington Post, etc say against Trump's record any day.