Jump to content

Mueller report finds no evidence that Trump campaign colluded with Russia - U.S. Justice Department


Recommended Posts

Posted
13 minutes ago, JimmyJ said:

"The Illusory Truth Effect: How Millions Were Duped By Russiagate"

 

"The rather uncreatively-named illusory truth effect describes the way people are more likely to believe something is true after hearing it said many times."

 - Caitlin Johnstone

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/the-illusory-truth-effect-how-millions-were-duped-by-russiagate-61199bfbe325

 

That explains why so many people think the deep state is a real thing.

  • Heart-broken 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted

Posts violating Fair use Policy as well as other troll posts and replies have been removed.

 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Tug said:

We would like to see the report please we want to judge for ourselves not what Donald wants us to see

Errrrm , who are you asking ?

Who are you talking to ?

  • Like 1
Posted
39 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Errrrm , who are you asking ?

Who are you talking to ?

Errrr why all of you trump supporters errrr we would like to judge for ourselves what mr muller found 

Posted
2 hours ago, JimmyJ said:

"Beyond BuzzFeed: The 10 Worst, Most Embarrassing U.S. Media Failures on the Trump-Russia Story"

- Glenn Greenwald

 

https://theintercept.com/2019/01/20/beyond-buzzfeed-the-10-worst-most-embarrassing-u-s-media-failures-on-the-trumprussia-story/

I replied to this post earlier.    https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1091389-mueller-report-finds-no-evidence-that-trump-campaign-colluded-with-russia-us-justice-department/?do=findComment&comment=13981031

 

Ten acknowledged errors over the last two years do not invalidate the the largely reliable reporting done by the news organizations.

 

You failed to answer my question regarding your infallible news source.

  • Haha 1
Posted

Trump will do anything to insure that he dominates the news cycle.  Now it's Repeal Obama care and replace it with nothing", not even a free box of band aides!

Posted
1 hour ago, beechguy said:

Where do you get 10 over two years? I saw that many or more on a daily basis.

From the title of your link.

 

You still haven't answered the question about your infallible news sources.

Posted
3 hours ago, heybruce said:

I replied to this post earlier.    https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1091389-mueller-report-finds-no-evidence-that-trump-campaign-colluded-with-russia-us-justice-department/?do=findComment&comment=13981031

 

Ten acknowledged errors over the last two years do not invalidate the the largely reliable reporting done by the news organizations.

 

You failed to answer my question regarding your infallible news source.

 

Your post is re: my post # 256:

""Beyond BuzzFeed: The 10 Worst, Most Embarrassing U.S. Media Failures on the Trump-Russia Story"

 

 

Another perceptive comment from "heybruce", since the article is titled "The only 10  errors over the last 2 years of RussiaGate".

 

Now if the article had been titled something like "The 10 Worst, Most Embarrassing U.S. Media Failures on the Trump-Russia Story", with no reference to how frequently these occurred (one would have to actually read the article to get a sense of this) then your comment would be foolish and asking "Where are infallible news sources" would be seen as classic Strawman diversion, totally irrelevant, and off topic.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, ShortTimed said:

 

I thought this was a campaign promise that helped get him elected?

 

To return the previous health insurance model of the preceding 50 years or more.

 

The problem is there is no such thing as a “free” box of band-aids.

No, he promised to replace it with something much better and cheaper.  However he hasn't come up with a replacement.  No surprise, he also promised Mexico would pay for his wall.

  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

From the title of your link.

 

You still haven't answered the question about your infallible news sources.

I didn't post a link, but if you want to see examples, take your pick, CNN,ABC,CBS.NBC,MSNBC, etc.

  • Like 2
Posted
1 minute ago, JimmyJ said:

 

Your comment is re: my post # 256:

""Beyond BuzzFeed: The 10 Worst, Most Embarrassing U.S. Media Failures on the Trump-Russia Story"

 

 

Another perceptive comment from "heybruce", since the article is titled "The only 10  errors over the last 2 years of RussiaGate".

 

Now if the article had been titled something like "The 10 Worst, Most Embarrassing U.S. Media Failures on the Trump-Russia Story", with no reference to how frequently these occurred (one would have to actually read the article to get a sense of this) then your comment would be foolish and asking "Where are infallible news sources" would be seen as classic Strawman diversion, totally irrelevant, and off topic.

Much like Trump on healthcare, you are asking people to abandon what they have and offering nothing in return.  Intelligent people say no. 

 

Established news sources make mistakes, but those are infrequent relative to the amount of stories they report.  Until you provide a better source of information, I'm sticking with what is usually correct.

Posted
1 minute ago, beechguy said:

I didn't post a link, but if you want to see examples, take your pick, CNN,ABC,CBS.NBC,MSNBC, etc.

These are the news sources JimmyJ maintains can't be trusted.  He won't tell us what news he considers reliable.  Makes one wonder.

Posted
1 minute ago, heybruce said:

Much like Trump on healthcare, you are asking people to abandon what they have and offering nothing in return.  Intelligent people say no. 

 

Established news sources make mistakes, but those are infrequent relative to the amount of stories they report.  Until you provide a better source of information, I'm sticking with what is usually correct.

 

Even you'd have to admit that cable news outlets are hardly investigative journalists. The great bulk of their programming is roundtable punditry.

  • Like 1
Posted
No, he promised to replace it with something much better and cheaper.  However he hasn't come up with a replacement.  No surprise, he also promised Mexico would pay for his wall.

 

The old healthcare system was much better & cheaper for the vast majority of Americans and employers and federal coffers.

 

ACA has cost billions and the only ones who benefit are those on subsidies.

 

I have had several friends in US say they thought they were voting for Nationalized Healthcare like us in Canada but what they got was nothing of the sort.

 

This is way off topic and no further comment from me.

Posted
6 hours ago, heybruce said:

"In the United States, the term "deep state" is used in political messaging to describe the theory[1][2][3] that there is "a hybrid association of elements of government and parts of top-level finance and industry that is effectively able to govern the United States without reference to the consent of the governed as expressed through the formal political process".[4][5]

The term was originally coined in a somewhat pejorative sense to refer to similar relatively invisible state apparatus in Turkey "composed of high-level elements within the intelligence services, military, security, judiciary, and organized crime" and similar networks in other countries including Egypt, Ukraine, Spain, Colombia, Italy, and Israel, and many others."   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_state_in_the_United_States

 

The term originally was used to describe the Military/Intelligence alliances in countries such as Pakistan and Egypt that occasionally allowed a semblance of democracy but called all the shots and deposed inconvenient leaders at will.  It was adopted by right-wing conspiracy theorists in the US who prefer paranoia to reason.

 

In the US the CIA answers to, and takes order from, the elected government in accordance with US law.  It is not a deep state organization.

You really need to step back and get a better understanding of how agencies like the CIA work.  They are "clandestine".  The majority of the time very few elected politicians have any idea how they work.  The idea they are conforming to law and reporting like any other agency is silly. 

 

The response is so biased it should immediately raise red flags. " It was adopted by right-wing conspiracy theorists in the US who prefer paranoia to reason." LOL.  Ridiculous assertion with nothing to back it up.

 

Do you understand how wikipedia works?  It is not unbiased.  Any Joe can make contributions and it is constantly edited. It is open to abuse.  Wikipedia is a grade B or C source and is not accepted in legitimate academic articles.  People use it because it is easy and don't know any better.

  • Like 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...