thinking tactically is short term, thinking strategically is long-term, especially with the "plan ahead" in the title

nothing about the test described in the article implies that horses are capable of doing that though

it looks like somebody in this story doesn't understand the difference between strategy and tactics, which definitely seems like quite an important distinction in this case

the booth is constructed around them and then raised into the air with a crane, and the support built below

f35 is like a bee if you tell it it can't fly it will drop out of the sky

what about the winter games?

mueller released the report in 2 volumes, one talking about russian interference and collusion, and one talking about obstruction

it seems pretty clear from the quote and rest of the source that he's not talking about obstruction there

the memory hole

But, the report said, “because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct.

i presume you're pulling that from volume 2 of the report, since you didn't link anything

volume 1 deals with election interference

volume 2 deals with obstruction of justice

or in other words, your quote isn't relevant to evidence for conspiracy with russia

the investigation established multiple links between Trump Campaign officials and individuals tied to the Russian government. Those links included Russia offers of assistance to the Campaign.

"establishing multiple links" isn't the same thing as concluding they conspired, but even if it was, the second line of my initial comment addresses this:

Even if the report had concluded they conspired, concluding they conspired isn't the same thing as having "sufficient evidence to seek criminal charges"

Investigators “found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations.”

this is talking about obstruction again, not collusion

your linked article doesn't support the statement "mueller found enough evidence to convict trump" at any point, which means the journalist was correct

RFK determined to win

we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.

from here

maybe he did but that's the only definitive statement i can find from him on the matter

Concluding that Russia interfered with an election to Trump's benefit isn't the same thing as concluding that Trump conspired with the Russians

Even if the report had concluded they conspired, concluding they conspired isn't the same thing as having "sufficient evidence to seek criminal charges"

you actually have seen the second one, because it's somehow the same movie as the first one but wetter