Climate Change Defamation

[GannonFan]

Technically speaking, the Clinton campaign also had connections to Russia and Russia did interfere in the 2016 election (as they have in pretty much every election since 1917). I get it that Russia wanted Trump to win in 2016, but let's also be honest about the interactions that both campaigns had with Russian sources.

I don't disagree but the whole russia collusion HOAX argument is baloney.

• There were connections between the trump campaign and russia.
• russia did interfere in the 2016 election by hacking the Democrat's servers, releasing information, and spreading misinformation on social media.
• and while there is no charge for collusion, the charges of obstruction, lying, and cover-ups were real
• they just didn't have enough to prove prove criminal agreement/intent beyond a reasonable doubt
• the media and Democrats made a mountain out of a mole hill

So, saying it was absolutely nothing is a lie, misinformation, wrong, whatever you want to call it and I'm going to continue pointing it out when MAQA yahoos type Russia Collusion Hoax. That is part of their strategy - to rewrite the history of things like the Mueller investigation, January 6, etc. to make themselves both the victims and the heroes.

It's all good, but when the Clinton campaign solicited information on Trump from Russian sources and then fed that information, true or untrue, back through our own intelligence channels, it's strange to only focus on the Trump side of the collusion narrative. James Comey was far from a neutral player in all of this as well. Just a cluster all the way around back in 2016.

[UNI88]

I don't disagree but the whole russia collusion HOAX argument is baloney.

• There were connections between the trump campaign and russia.
• russia did interfere in the 2016 election by hacking the Democrat's servers, releasing information, and spreading misinformation on social media.
• and while there is no charge for collusion, the charges of obstruction, lying, and cover-ups were real
• they just didn't have enough to prove prove criminal agreement/intent beyond a reasonable doubt
• the media and Democrats made a mountain out of a mole hill

So, saying it was absolutely nothing is a lie, misinformation, wrong, whatever you want to call it and I'm going to continue pointing it out when MAQA yahoos type Russia Collusion Hoax. That is part of their strategy - to rewrite the history of things like the Mueller investigation, January 6, etc. to make themselves both the victims and the heroes.

It's all good, but when the Clinton campaign solicited information on Trump from Russian sources and then fed that information, true or untrue, back through our own intelligence channels, it's strange to only focus on the Trump side of the collusion narrative. James Comey was far from a neutral player in all of this as well. Just a cluster all the way around back in 2016.

Is it strange? The clintons are just as despicable as trump but neither one is currently president and they're no longer in the public eye (except for ties to Epstein). I also don't see clinton apologists on here trying to rewrite history and make them out to be both the victims and heroes. Why should I waste keystrokes pointing out their (or comey's) skeletons?

No argument from me on it being a cluster all the way around back in 2016. Unfortunately that cluster has continued to 2026.

[Caribbean Hen]

is

The CIA that was under Brennan? The same guy who signed onto the 51 "intelligence" officials declaring Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation? The same guy who is under federal investigation for the report you quoted?

As Cap'n Cat used to say. Go read up and educate yourself boy and then report back.

And the "CIA review of 2016 Russia election probe" that was released in July, 2025 (under the trump administration) found no major flaws.

I will ask the questions that you are ducking and dodging (like you do most serious questions that you don't like the answers to):
1) Did the trump campaign have any connections to russia?
2) Did russia interfere in the 2016 election?

What dirt did the Russians put out on Hillary?

Be specific

[UNI88]

is

And the "CIA review of 2016 Russia election probe" that was released in July, 2025 (under the trump administration) found no major flaws.

I will ask the questions that you are ducking and dodging (like you do most serious questions that you don't like the answers to):
1) Did the trump campaign have any connections to russia?
2) Did russia interfere in the 2016 election?

What dirt did the Russians put out on Hillary?

Be specific

Photos of her and trump caught in flagrante delicto.

Keep asking inane questions and I will continue to give you juvenile answers.

Or you could stop being lazy and use Google or another search tool to find answers yourself.

[Caribbean Hen]

It's all good, but when the Clinton campaign solicited information on Trump from Russian sources and then fed that information, true or untrue, back through our own intelligence channels, it's strange to only focus on the Trump side of the collusion narrative. James Comey was far from a neutral player in all of this as well. Just a cluster all the way around back in 2016.

Is it strange? The clintons are just as despicable as trump but neither one is currently president and they're no longer in the public eye (except for ties to Epstein). I also don't see clinton apologists on here trying to rewrite history and make them out to be both the victims and heroes. Why should I waste keystrokes pointing out their (or comey's) skeletons?

No argument from me on it being a cluster all the way around back in 2016. Unfortunately that cluster has continued to 2026.

So now you’re claiming Trump is not the president…

Maybe you should take a little road trip to clear your head

[UNI88]

Is it strange? The clintons are just as despicable as trump but neither one is currently president and they're no longer in the public eye (except for ties to Epstein). I also don't see clinton apologists on here trying to rewrite history and make them out to be both the victims and heroes. Why should I waste keystrokes pointing out their (or comey's) skeletons?

No argument from me on it being a cluster all the way around back in 2016. Unfortunately that cluster has continued to 2026.

So now you’re claiming Trump is not the president…

Maybe you should take a little road trip to clear your head

I thought about responding to this post with ridicule/mockery but decided to let the idiocy of it stand on it's own.

[Caribbean Hen]

So now you’re claiming Trump is not the president…

Maybe you should take a little road trip to clear your head

I thought about responding to this post with ridicule/mockery but decided to let the idiocy of it stand on it's own.

Hillary was the President's left hand. Kind of like Chang and Eng are one or two people

[Caribbean Hen]

The New Federal Reference Manual On Scientific Evidence: All The Smartest People Get Hoodwinked By The Climate Charlatans


January 31, 2026/ Francis Menton
It is truly remarkable how easy it is to fool the smartest people. And especially when you tell them they are helping to save the world.


https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blo ... charlatans

[UNI88]

The New Federal Reference Manual On Scientific Evidence: All The Smartest People Get Hoodwinked By The Climate Charlatans

January 31, 2026/ Francis Menton
It is truly remarkable how easy it is to fool the smartest people. And especially when you tell them they are helping to save the world.

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blo ... charlatans

That opinion piece isn’t science—it twists the manual, oversimplifies climate, throws around insults, and treats a legal fight like proof the science is fake.

[Caribbean Hen]

The New Federal Reference Manual On Scientific Evidence: All The Smartest People Get Hoodwinked By The Climate Charlatans

January 31, 2026/ Francis Menton
It is truly remarkable how easy it is to fool the smartest people. And especially when you tell them they are helping to save the world.

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blo ... charlatans

That opinion piece isn’t science—it twists the manual, oversimplifies climate, throws around insults, and treats a legal fight like proof the science is fake.

The manual is a complete waste of time, not convincing at all

[Caribbean Hen]

https://clintel.org/dutch-climate-skept ... ng-battle/

More evidence on how data is manipulated to get the desired results

[Caribbean Hen]

“The U.S. Energy Department recently published a comprehensive report digging into these scientific questions and uncertainties. One of the chief authors included Steven Koonin, a scientist who led the Energy Department under the Obama administration. He recently chastised the climate science community for not accurately representing the situation, noting “the climate crisis was exaggerated with the consequence of society running down a rabbit hole of rapid decarbonization.”

https://www.westernjournal.com/gunaseka ... -industry/

[GannonFan]

“The U.S. Energy Department recently published a comprehensive report digging into these scientific questions and uncertainties. One of the chief authors included Steven Koonin, a scientist who led the Energy Department under the Obama administration. He recently chastised the climate science community for not accurately representing the situation, noting “the climate crisis was exaggerated with the consequence of society running down a rabbit hole of rapid decarbonization.”

https://www.westernjournal.com/gunaseka ... -industry/

Hard to disagree with that. There's always been too much focus on unlikely and improbable Earth devastation and the need then for rapid decarbonization. Not nearly enough focus and work on incremental carbon reduction while also putting the work in on how to deal with the reality of the changing situation. And although talked about, the reality of the developing world vastly increasing their contribution to the carbon load was always overlooked - the US has drastically cut emissions, for instance, and it doesn't matter worldwide since it gets overwhelmed by increases elsewhere. Another poster was right, though, in that we're taking the steps and while it would be great to just jump to the end goal, i.e. zero emissions, there has been a lot of good work moving towards that goal and we should be realistic that huge jumps in technology don't really happen, they're almost always incremental shifts over time. We'll get there, and the world isn't going to end because of this either.

[SeattleGriz]

is

What dirt did the Russians put out on Hillary?

Be specific

Photos of her and trump caught in flagrante delicto.

Keep asking inane questions and I will continue to give you juvenile answers.

Or you could stop being lazy and use Google or another search tool to find answers yourself.

Because you don't know of any real, supported by fact examples. Just like your claims of 26+ women and Trump. Broken record with no facts to back up your nutjob claims.