A social media campaign is not "interfering" in the election. There is also still doubt that the DNC got "hacked". Where is the evidence? Oh that's right, the FBI depended on a 3rd party CrowdStrike to tell them what the "evidence" is. There was no first hand investigation by any of our "intelligence" agencies. The DNC actually denied a request by the FBI to investigate their servers. CrowdStrike's investigative work has been disputed before and shown to be inaccurate also.

Mueller has a conflict of interest with the president of, and another ex-FBI employee at CrowdStrike, CrowdStrike has a conflict of interest with Hillary Clinton and the DNC, along with Alperovitch the co-founder of CrowdStrike and a senior member of The Atlantic Council which is an anti-Russian think tank, along with Google. The Atlantic Council is also funded by a Ukrainian oligarch that has given millions in donations to the Clinton Foundation.

If you can't see a problem with all that then I don't know what to tell you.

@Piece2YourPuzzle

Yes, a concerted effort in social media, by another country, with the intention of influencing an election is interfering.

The DNC servers weren’t hacked? Really? I guess they just gave their email to WikiLeaks? Not hacked is a laughable assertion. [google.com]

Mueller’s “conflict” with the President is not a conflict of interest according to the lawyers that reviewed the possibility. [factcheck.org]

CrowdStrike was a contractor. Why would anyone challenge their own contractor. Conspiracy theorist, on the other hand try to challenge anything that moves. I’m aware of assertions to the contrary but they are assertions. You choose to believe one source, I another. That’s your choice. As it is, I see no credible media sources for your claims of conflict. If you would care to provide one from a credible source...

@Rob1948 How is it interfering in an actual election? Everyone would be guilty of it. There are hundreds of examples we can give of actual interference, but a social media campaign is NOT one of them!

Maybe you were just quick to express your biased view, but the conflict is with the president OF CROWDSTRIKE, not THE president. I don't think you were deliberately presenting a strawman when you posted the cite you did for Mueller's conflict of interest, but nonetheless it's not the conflict I was talking about.

@Rob1948 I know you won't agree with me.

[agnostic.com]

@Piece2YourPuzzle you’re right. I don’t believe in conspiracy theories.

@Rob1948 All you have are insults and no counter argument. No criticism of anything I presented. It's because you can't come up with an intelligent refutation to any of the conflicts of interest instead to say it's a "conspiracy theory". Yet you accept so readily anything the government tells you without enough evidence or proof.

@Piece2YourPuzzle if laughing and saying I don’t agree with you is an insult... well, I’m going to have to adjust my standards. Please, how did I insult you?

@powder Does not mean it’s wrong either. You believe your biased blogs and tabloids all you want. I prefer valid media sources with minimal biases and a history of being right. Like I told you, we will not agree.

@Rob1948 that statement right there tells everyone who thinks outside of the box you've been conditioned to except only the rhetoric that the establishment and MSM provide for you. It's called, perception management. You used the very weapon they started that program with, using the media against the public, on a member of your own society who is attempting to educate you. The DNC wasn't hacked! The data was downloaded on a thumbs drive by someone inside the DNC. All extensive exploration into the information released was debunked by X intelligence and military people and other outside experts, and they concluded the hack narrative was not possible. The rate of transfer of the data could not be possible over the internet! It had to be done from a DNC server at the rate of speed in which the transfer was done.

@Rob1948 the article provided links to the VIPS work on their investigation into the alleged hacks. If you were to have used them then you could have used the information within to build a debate of intellect. Using the facts you believe in. But that would be hard to do being you've provided no facts of yet anyways. You're only giving us establishment rhetoric and opinion with no substance. Which is the very type of insult Pieces might be referring to. I'll refer to. You're in the wrong group Rob to use troll like methods of using conditioning rhetoric. For one, as the creator of this group, I'm fairly informed on that in which I post. Pieces is obvious well informed also who uses fact base debate skills. Power can hold his own also. All you're doing is making yourself out to looking like a troll without the ability to conduct an intelligent debate. We hear everything you have said on MSM and from the establishment. In case you missed it, that's what this group works from! So those that make comments here are more geared to combat that useless rhetoric of their delusional reality that you seem to live in.

Feel free to add some substance at anytime though. I personally will not waste anymore time on someone who can't provide a meaningful debate without substance.

@William_Mary proof of your conspiracy theory please? And, please, make sure it’s believable and reliable and not some third rate sensationalist blog. Not something only the writer, talking someone who knows someone...

Here’s a hint: the vast majority of conspiracy theories are wrong. Their explanations relying on too many moving parts and too many people who keep things secret. They just aren’t believable because of it.

@William_Mary Anyone can argue made up fact because it’s difficult to refute made up fact. Further, what’s the point, if I have to use your links to argue non-sense, there is no point. And, if I use my facts, you’ve already said you don’t believe them. I don’t have a life to waste running in circles to the tune of some bloggers false jig.

@Rob1948 , Trump supporters believe in alternative 'facts'. SMH

@Rob1948 It's not an insult to just glibly dismiss someone's argument and call someone a conspiracy theorist? Especially when they actually present an argument with evidence and all you do is poo poo it without refuting ANYTHING? You also said to produce a "credible" source, but said before that that you choose to believe a different source than I. So how can any source I produce for you satisfy you if it's opposite your bias? It can't. Even if it was mainstream media you would shoot it down. It's not like I provided sources from Alex Jones. You don't even care to vet the information. You accept the narrative from our government without hardly any proof from them, yet you're calling ME a conspiracy theorist lol. Ok. Have fun with that!

@Rob1948, @freeofgod I'm not a Trump supporter. Try again.

@Piece2YourPuzzle , then you missed your calling because you sound just like one.

@Piece2YourPuzzle I think he just admitted to being a troll. If all we have to offer here is fake news, why stay? He obviously isn't using the articles to advance his knowledge or intelligence. What else do I call this type of interaction?

@Piece2YourPuzzle I’m not obligated to confirm what you say. Nor am I obligated to agree with you on a set of facts. And, if I choose to “poo poo” them, that is my option as well. You don’t control that and you certainly can’t control how I respond or to what I respond, if I respond at all.

I gave you my opinion. If fine with it if you disagree. And, you have been polite, even if you have been dismissive of my opinion and choice of sources. That’s fine too.

Being dismissive May not be the best tactic if one wants to conduct a discussion. I don’t want to. And, I assume you may not as you have been dismissive as well. But, being dismissive, while not overly courteous is not an insult. If you think it is, you might want to work on that.

And, just so you know, I would have insulted you had I called you boy, nut job, idiot or any of a number if words that are less nice. But, I did not do that. So, no! No insults.

@Piece2YourPuzzle my apologies. That is good to know.

@William_Mary Yawn!

@freeofgod Since when do I have to do nothing but bash Trump to not be a supporter of his? That's a ridiculous notion.

@Rob1948 So you're saying what I posted about conflicts of interest is no conflict of interest at all then? You aren't obligated to agree with me on a set of facts? What? Lol The whole thing about facts is that they are facts and it matters not if you don't agree with them.

I was dismissive of your source because it had nothing to do with the conflict of interest I was talking about. Why would I accept a source talking about something completely different than what I was talking about? It makes no sense. Why can't you see that your response and cite had nothing to do with the topic? I posted the conflicts of interest and you still stand by your completely wrong response.

...and just so you know, I would have insulted you had I called you an arrogant buffoon establishment boot licker that has no mind of his own that presented a strawman argument, but I did not. Nope, no insults indeed! See, no offense to either of us then.

@William_Mary you ought to take your comedy act on the road.

@Piece2YourPuzzle Don’t put words in my mouth. When Trump and so many others use what they claim to be facts, but are, to use Conways’s ever so quaint pronouncement to explain Spicer’s remarks stating that the Trump inauguration was bigger than Obama’s, the idea of having one’s own set of alternative facts, has come into focus. It’s my experience, in dealing with conspiracy theories (in general and not necessarily yours), that those theories tend to have their own facts. Those facts being used to support their theories.

Unlike you, I used certain words to point out what could be used as insults and not to insult you. Unlike your thinly veiled attempt to actually insult me.

@Rob1948 How am I putting words in your mouth? Maybe in a conversation you could actually answer questions instead of ignoring them. Then people might know what you are actually saying.

Why even mention those insult words? You know damn well what you were doing. You could use 100 different words that you think are "more valid" insults, but it doesn't mean that the one you used before wasn't an insult. Calling someone a conspiracy theorist is a great way to try to ridicule someone and to have them not be taken seriously or have their words dismissed immediately without even having to see the content of their argument or even to not have the accuser form a counter argument. You know, like you did.

With those things considered, it seems there is not much sense in talking with you further. You don't answer questions. You don't evaluate any information presented to you. You don't have any counter arguments. What's the point? Just to troll or hear yourself?

@Piece2YourPuzzle putting words in my mouth: “So you're saying what I posted about conflicts of interest is no conflict of interest at all then?”

Why give example of “insult word?” Unlike your usage, I was contrating insults as opposed to what you claimed was how I insulted you earlier.

As for the rest. That would be your opinion.

@Rob1948 Again, how is that putting words in your mouth? It's a question, not a statement of what I think you said. A question you still haven't answered upon numerous different opportunities to answer.

@Piece2YourPuzzle I did answer you. I said being dismissive is not an insult.

@Rob1948 You don't even know what's being talked about. This is at least the second time this has happened. Besides, I never said you being dismissive was an insult. Holy shit! I said calling someone a conspiracy theorist is an insult. I'm not explaining it again.

This is you claiming I'm putting words in your mouth:

It's a QUESTION! One that you still haven't answered to clear any doubt. I won't hold my breath.

@Piece2YourPuzzle Quoting you: “All you have are insults and no counter argument.“ I have never insulted you. I told you that no one believes there is a conflict of interest about Mueller. I told you I did not believe the conflict of interest with Clinton and Crowdstrike was credible. I find it interesting that you want to separate the president of crowdstrike and crowdstrike the company as if Clinton could have a conflict with the president that is separate from the other without that also being a factor in dealing with the company. But, as I said, I found no credible conflict.

The fact that you choose not to accept my answer is your problem. Not mine. The fact that you continue to insult me is your problem also. Says a lot about you actually, given that you continue to strike out at me.

@Rob1948 Yeah, I'm done with this conversation.

@Piece2YourPuzzle I was done with it awhile ago, once you started attacking me.