Here it is: The Mueller report is out.

[TLK Valentine]

Then becoming one of their reporters wouldn't take any real training.

I'll have to defer to your extensive experience on that one... Clearly you watch far more MSNBC than most people in order toto have such insider information.

 

[Aldebaran]

I don't think that anyone believes that it was intentional communication via campaign rally. Most likely, the Russians saw the statement and said "Hey, that sounds like a great idea!"

Regardless of intent though, you can't deny that it looks REALLY suspicious when you make a suggestion and that suggestion is carried out mere hours later.

Yeah, that's true. "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing." But did they actually find those emails that Hillary had destroyed, which is something that never seems to be asked about anymore?

 

[rjs330]

Well the Truth is that Russia interfered with the election in favor of Donald Trump through introducing massive amounts of propaganda to attack Clinton on social media. It would be falsehood to say that's equitable and not a crime.

You're projecting onto others your own carnal vanity. Therefore the above question is a loaded question built upon a false premise. If I answered either yes or no I would be accepting the false premise which apparently you do not see. So I will answer it this way. It's the right thing to do, to investigate Russia and it's interference because such interference makes them capable of undermining our elections. And it's also right to investigate why they were helping Trump and if the Trump campaign knew that Russia was helping them.

You have a lot of faith in Russia. Russia may have "attempted" to interfere. But there is no evidence that they were successful in their endeavors. Propaganda is hard to nail down as to whether or not it had an effect.

 

[TLK Valentine]

They claim he "blasted" someone when all he did was disagree with them in a very civil way. Are you claiming you don't see that?

Donald complained to the CEO of Twitter that he didn't have as many followers as he wanted, and claimed (without any evidence) that there was a political conspiracy behind it.

Not being there, I can't attest to Donald's "civility"... Although I do hope to see it someday.

You were there... you tell us how civil he was in his accusations.

Maybe something else you haven't noticed is when the evening news is broadcast, they used to report what the stock market numbers for the day were: The DOW industrial, the NASDAQ, the S&P. Now that Trump is in office and the economy is booming and the stock market is hitting new records, they stopped reporting it altogether. Trump did promise that the economy would grow to new highs, but since it started happening, the news reporting of it just doesn't seem to fit the negative narrative about Trump.

Ah... The big bad "They" allegedly aren't doing things solely to make Donald look bad...

Clearly their insufficient praise of his good works is proof that they are enemies of the American people...

 

[Aldebaran]

You have a lot of faith in Russia. Russia may have "attempted" to interfere. But there is no evidence that they were successful in their endeavors. Propaganda is hard to nail down as to whether or not it had an effect.

What amazes me is that some people are so worried that Russia could influence our elections, but at the same time don't think illegals in our own country have any real influence at all. 58,000 non-U.S. citizens may have voted in at least one election here, election official says

Perhaps it depends entirely on which party the influencers will benefit?

 

[Aldebaran]

Ah... The big bad "They" allegedly aren't doing things solely to make Donald look bad...

Clearly their insufficient praise of his good works is proof that they are enemies of the American people...

If you can come up with real reasons why they omit the good and focus only on the negative, I'm willing to hear it. So far, your mocking hasn't provided evidence of anything other than the fact you can't justify it.

 

[Speedwell]

If you can come up with real reasons why they omit the good and focus only on the negative, I'm willing to hear it. So far, your mocking hasn't provided evidence of anything other than the fact you can't justify it.

Perhaps because there is so much negative and precious little good.

 

[childeye 2]

You have a lot of faith in Russia. Russia may have "attempted" to interfere. But there is no evidence that they were successful in their endeavors. Propaganda is hard to nail down as to whether or not it had an effect.

Actually psychological manipulation has already been proven to be effective. For example try not to think of a brown cow.

 

[Aldebaran]

Perhaps because there is so much negative and precious little good.

The economy is better than ever right now, with record low unemployment. Is that too "little" of a thing to mention?

 

[Aldebaran]

Actually psychological manipulation has already been proven to be effective.

Most people who listen to mainstream news sources will never understand that.

 

[childeye 2]

They claim he "blasted" someone when all he did was disagree with them in a very civil way. Are you claiming you don't see that?

I said I saw it. It's just that I've also read many tweets where he castigates people like Comey and judges that don't agree with him.

Maybe something else you haven't noticed is when the evening news is broadcast, they used to report what the stock market numbers for the day were: The DOW industrial, the NASDAQ, the S&P. Now that Trump is in office and the economy is booming and the stock market is hitting new records, they stopped reporting it altogether. Trump did promise that the economy would grow to new highs, but since it started happening, the news reporting of it just doesn't seem to fit the negative narrative about Trump.

I don't see that. I personally see it reported everyday all day.

 

[bhsmte]

Actually psychological manipulation has already been proven to be effective. For example try not to think of a brown cow.

What russia did, may have impacted votes and may not have, we will never know for sure.

What we do know, is hilary was a horrible national candidate and she proved this, by getting beat by obama in 2008 and trump in 2016, when she was heavily favored in both. Also, trump beat about a dozen established republican candidates to win the nomination, before beating hilary. Furthermore, sanders beat hilary in some of the key midwestern states, which were all clues, hilary was the perfect candidate for trump to go up against and people in general, grew tired of elitest/establishment politicians.

 

[bhsmte]

Most people who listen to mainstream news sources will never understand that.

What do you consider mainstream news sources?

 

[childeye 2]

Most people who listen to mainstream news sources will never understand that.

My point was that people can't help but be moved by certain thoughts presented in words or pictures. Certain beliefs can even be placed in the subconscious without people even being consciously aware of it. For example, your loaded question which contained a premise which I would have subconsciously accepted had I not noticed it and answered the question.

 

[bhsmte]

My point was that people can't help but be moved by certain thoughts presented in words or pictures. Certain beliefs can even be placed in the subconscious without people even being consciously aware of it. For example, your loaded question which contained a premise which I would have subconsciously accepted had I not noticed it and answered the question.

Most people, seek information, that already fits their personal ideology and will reject information that goes against the same.

 

[childeye 2]

What russia did, may have impacted votes and may not have, we will never know for sure.

What we do know, is hilary was a horrible national candidate and she proved this, by getting beat by obama in 2008 and trump in 2016, when she was heavily favored in both. Also, trump beat about a dozen established republican candidates to win the nomination, before beating hilary. Furthermore, sanders beat hilary in some of the key midwestern states, which were all clues, hilary was the perfect candidate for trump to go up against and people in general, grew tired of elitest/establishment politicians.

Respectfully, you can't say these things about Hillary without me wondering where you hear them. An elitist has nothing to do with establishment politicians and there's nothing even wrong with being an establishment politician. Do you actually believe that Trump believes he is not elite?

 

[childeye 2]

Most people, seek information, that already fits their personal ideology and will reject information that goes against the same.

This is true for the carnal minded but not true for the spiritually minded.

 

[bhsmte]

Respectfully, you can't say these things about Hillary without me wondering where you hear them. An elitist has nothing to do with establishment politicians and there's nothing even wrong with being an establishment politician. Do you actually believe that Trump believes he is not elite?

Clearly, you have not paid attention to what impacted voters. And, the approval ratings of congress in general, have been horrible for over a decade.

Trump came into the game with no political background and he beat a slew of established politicians. If you cant connect the dots, i cant help you.

 

[bhsmte]

This is true for the carnal minded but not true for the spiritually minded.

Disagree. It is true for most people, spiritual or not.

 

[childeye 2]

Clearly, you have not paid attention to what impacted voters. And, the approval ratings of congress in general, have been horrible for over a decade.

Trump came into the game with no political background and he beat a slew of established politicians. If you cant connect the dots, i cant help you.

I evaluated the dots you put forth and I thought I had pointed out the error of their foundation. If I may elaborate further; a good politician is one who is convincing in their messaging whether it be true or false.

Hence you may have a good and dedicated public servant lose an election because they simply are not a very good politician, while a good used car salesman with no experience in public service and who would make a terrible public servant can easily be a good politician and win an election. This is because much of the electorate is carnal minded, cynical of government in general, and ruled by darkness.

If I hear a candidate with a message that appeals to carnal vanity I don't vote for that person.