Here it is: The Mueller report is out.

[childeye 2]

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

A major difference between the carnal minded and the spiritual minded: A wise person receives instruction with joy, but a fool despises correction.

 

[bhsmte]

Facts: A wise person receives instruction with joy, but a fool despises correction.

Uh huh

 

[childeye 2]

Uh huh

You still see no difference? Do you still disagree?

 

[bhsmte]

You still see no difference? Do you still disagree?

Yep.

 

[TLK Valentine]

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.

Ever heard the phrase, "if it bleeds, it leads"?

So far, your mocking hasn't provided evidence of anything other than the fact you can't justify it.

I don't see the point attempting to justify the lack of praise for Donald for those who feel he needs more.

 

[childeye 2]

Yep.

You honestly see no difference between people who welcome information that would change their mind, and people who would reject information because it would change their mind?

 

[TLK Valentine]

This just in from Donald's Twitter account:

"Sun rose this morning. NO THANKS for me from FAKE NEWS #CNN #ABC or #NBC.
Only #FoxNews giving credit where due. Sad!"

 

[TLK Valentine]

A major difference between the carnal minded and the spiritual minded: A wise person receives instruction with joy, but a fool despises correction.

You don't seem to care much for being corrected.

 

[childeye 2]

You don't seem to care much for being corrected.

I love to be corrected. By all means add to me your view of why you would think and say this.

 

[Fantine]

Barr's pre-release press conference on the Mueller Report brings to mind the self-serving pleas for mercy that mothers and fathers will give at death penalty trials.

After all, the risk is high.

The evidence is overwhelming.

The Attorney General is as motivated to get Trump "acquitted" in the media as the heartbroken parents of a convicted criminal.

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

Yeah, but what about her e-mails?

In any case, the quality of a candidate has little to nothing to do with the facts surrounding a foreign power trying to influence the campaign against them.

 

[bhsmte]

Yeah, but what about her e-mails?

In any case, the quality of a candidate has little to nothing to do with the facts surrounding a foreign power trying to influence the campaign against them.

Clinton has a distinct pattern when running national elections which was my point. Obama upset her in 08 and bernie won key states no one expected him to. That issue, is independent of anything russia did.

Clinton is fine getting elected in NY, but there are a few other states.

 

[Kentonio]

Barr's pre-release press conference on the Mueller Report brings to mind the self-serving pleas for mercy that mothers and fathers will give at death penalty trials.

You think a parent trying to stop their child from being killed is 'self-serving'?!

 

[bhsmte]

You honestly see no difference between people who welcome information that would change their mind, and people who would reject information because it would change their mind?

Sure there is a difference. The trick is, objectively determining who falls in each category.

 

[TLK Valentine]

"I am completely and utterly perplexed by those who argue that perjury and obstruction of justice are not high crimes and misdemeanors." --Mitch McConnell.

Us too, Mitch... us too.

 

[bhsmte]

"I am completely and utterly perplexed by those who argue that perjury and obstruction of justice are not high crimes and misdemeanors." --Mitch McConnell.

Us too, Mitch... us too.

Politicians always say stuff that comes back to bite them later, dont they?

 

[childeye 2]

Sure there is a difference. The trick is, objectively determining who falls in each category.

Before I comment on this post, I would like to remind you that at one point you disagreed with me:
childeye 2 said:
This is true for the carnal minded but not true for the spiritually minded.
bhsmte said:
Disagree. It is true for most people, spiritual or not.

However I knew that we were not in any actual disagreement, but rather there was a misunderstanding occurring due to terminology. When this happened I also then realized that you describe yourself as an atheist which might explain that you may be simply disagreeing with my choice of terms. So at this point in our discourse I would like to make sure that you understand, that when I say carnal minded and spiritually minded, I am talking generally about two different and opposing ways of thinking, a distinction you also were alluding to in post#455. And also that part and parcel to these differing mindsets includes the description that the carnal one is blinded by vanity while the spiritual one speaks from humility.

Now concerning this post. I would submit that the criteria is already in plain view to those who are spiritually minded, but not to the carnal minded due to their blindness. Therefore the problem is not a lack of objective criteria to distinguish the two, but rather how to convince the carnal minded that they are the ones that don't see when they are too proud to look at the evidence of their own blindness.

For this reason I have oftentimes on this forum stated that any reasoning that is based on falsehood ends in a contradiction. And so it is like wise with the carnal mind because the carnal mind in it's blindness opposes it's own self. For the fool who will not learn because it makes them feel like a fool, is doomed to remain a fool. Hence all reasoning that ends in a contradiction also manifests hypocrisy and hypocritical judgment.

Therefore I submit that the post you wrote about Hillary being a bad candidate because she was an elitist/establishment politician is an indication that like yourself many Trump voters were easy targets for propaganda from Russia since they welcomed any messaging that reinforced their dislike for Hillary whom they saw disparagingly as an elitist and which also reflected their distrust of government.

 

[bhsmte]

Before I comment on this post, I would like to remind you that at one point you disagreed with me:
childeye 2 said:
This is true for the carnal minded but not true for the spiritually minded.
bhsmte said:
Disagree. It is true for most people, spiritual or not.

However I knew that we were not in any actual disagreement, but rather there was a misunderstanding occurring due to terminology. When this happened I also then realized that you describe yourself as an atheist which might explain that you may be simply disagreeing with my choice of terms. So at this point in our discourse I would like to make sure that you understand, that when I say carnal minded and spiritually minded, I am talking generally about two different and opposing ways of thinking, a distinction you also were alluding to in post#455. And also that part and parcel to these differing mindsets includes the description that the carnal one is blinded by vanity while the spiritual one speaks from humility.

Now concerning this post. I would submit that the criteria is already in plain view to those who are spiritually minded, but not to the carnal minded due to their blindness. Therefore the problem is not a lack of objective criteria to distinguish the two, but rather how to convince the carnal minded that they are the ones that don't see when they are too proud to look at the evidence of their own blindness.

For this reason I have oftentimes on this forum stated that any reasoning that is based on falsehood ends in a contradiction. And so it is like wise with the carnal mind because the carnal mind in it's blindness opposes it's own self. For the fool who will not learn because it makes them feel like a fool, is doomed to remain a fool. Hence all reasoning that ends in in a contradiction also manifests hypocrisy and hypocritical judgment.

Therefore I submit that the post you wrote about Hillary being a bad candidate because she was an elitist/establishment politician is an indication that like yourself many Trump voters were easy targets for propaganda from Russia since they welcomed any messaging that reinforced their dislike for Hillary whom they saw disparagingly as an elitist and which also reflected their distrust of government.

I didnt vote for trump.

 

[childeye 2]

I didnt vote for trump.

I wasn't sure you did, so I worded my statement to not say conclusively that you did or did not, which means that when I said "like many Trump voters", I was referring to the reasons you gave why Hillary was seen as a bad candidate.

 

[whatbogsends]

I wasn't sure you were, so I worded my statement to not say conclusively that you were or not, which means that when I said "like many Trump voters" I was referring to the reasons you gave why Hillary was seen as a bad candidate.

I'm staunchly opposed to Trump, and I believed, even before the last election began in earnest, that Hillary was a bad candidate. In addition to the reasons I dislike Hillary, from a "bad candidate" perspective, she isn't tremendously charismatic, and she comes off as aloof.

I don't dislike her because of Benghazi or the email scandal (both of which, were largely politically driven and given much more attention than they warranted), but because she is a corrupt establishment politician. I still (reluctantly) voted for her, because I knew that Trump would be far worse for America (while politicians tend to be corrupt, Trump's corruption is on a different scale altogether), and as election day approached, it seemed like it was going to be a very tight race. The fact that she was an establishment politician plays into why she was also a bad candidate in 2016, as, on both sides of the aisle, people were looking for an outsider. It was clear to me during 2016 that Bernie generated much more enthusiasm among Democrats than Hillary did, and he also didn't elicit the same level of hatred that the right had for Hillary - Hillary created more enthusiasm for the Republicans in their opposition to her than she did for Democrats in supporting her.