Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
This is the CONCLUSION from your link:
From your link:
Even though we find no evidence that Russian trolls polarized the political attitudes and behaviors of partisan Twitter users in late 2017, these null effects should not diminish concern about foreign influence campaigns on social media because our analysis was limited to 1 population at a single point in time. We were unable to systematically determine whether IRA trolls influenced public attitudes or behavior during the 2016 presidential election, which is widely regarded as a critical juncture for misinformation campaigns. It is also possible that the Russian government’s campaign has evolved to become more impactful since the late-2017 period upon which we focused.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...89#post3373689
Now, let's take apart your response piece by piece:
1. There were more than just five facebook posts.
Of course there were. As when Democrats pretend there are Klansmen lurking behind every shadow and I respond with, "Yes, all five of them," I'm not literally asserting that the exact count is five Klansmen alive in the U.S...I'm pointing out that they are a trivial fraction of the population being wildly exaggerated by demagogues fear-mongering about non-existent "white supremacy." Similarly, there were tiny number of Facebook posts. Thanks for being so unnecessarily obtuse as to necessitate explaining out the readily obvious.
View attachment 12976
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
2. As it was explained time and again, Mueller was NOT investigating "collusion", as there is no legal precedent or reference for such an investigation. Mueller reported that there was insufficient evidence that Trump had first hand knowledge or involvement with the Russian interference. However, Mueller did go out of his way to point out that Trump's conduct warranted investigation by Congress. Observe:
https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-...418-story.html
Which is splitting hairs over a non-existent distinction. They weren't looking for collusion, but for a "criminal conspiracy"...a conspiracy of collusion.
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
As for the recent impeachment hearings, you obviously didn't observe the FIRST HAND testimonies of Cooper, Hill, Yovanovitch, Holmes, Sandy, and Vindman. Either that, or you're just in denial.
I was about to say exactly the same thing to you. Every cherry-picked, coached Democrat "witness" produced literally zero evidence. Each claim was third and fourth-person hearsay, conjecture, and personal guesswork and opinions about the non-crime of asking for an investigation into Biden's obvious and documented crimes and corruption (which only Democrats absurdly insist is worse than Biden actually BEING corrupt). It produced ZERO evidence of anything remotely scandalous and came NOWHERE NEAR establishing that any law had been violated. The issue here is not with the thinking adults watching or not watching the entire show trial...but with the left's unwillingness/inability to think past CNN's spoon-fed scandal-mongering propaganda enough to comprehend that literally nothing was proven...except that Democrats are the sorest losers in history.
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
3. The very subject title of this thread tries to do so, as YOU implied that accusations of theft occurred. I previously challenged you to produce a quote that states just so in no uncertain terms. If you can't, that makes you a liar. Carry on.
Again you fail to comprehend what you read, even when it is painstakingly spelled out for you. Shall I use crayons this time? "The very subject title of this thread" says nothing about Mueller. It correctly identifies DEMOCRATS as the people peddling this idiot conspiracy theory that the election was stolen. As usual, this is not about me lying, but about Democrats being semi-literate.
Try again.
