@Olivier5,
I have no idea of what you are writing about and I fully expect that neither do you.
Not surprisingly, you have twisted my reference to the fact that Obama interfered in an Israeli election into an attempt to minimize Putin's interference in our election when this isn't even remotely true. My point, as I think you actually know, was to illustrate the tribalism motivated hypocrisy of those who insist that the Russian attempt was substantively different than Obama's, and to mock the
born again, red-blooded patriotism of leftists who for the first time in 100 years have have found it profitable to assert that any deed or word that can be framed as representing an affinity with Russia reveals treasonous inclinations and intent...which of course they abhor.
Although I doubt it, perhaps you are too flat out dumb to understand that the argument that Putin did not and, indeed,
is not attempting
a hostile takeover of the White House is not the same as denying that Russians attempted to interfere in our election. If, as you and Cyclo claim, incontrovertible evidence of Trump being a Russian tool not only exists but has been presented in unassailable fashion in more than one American or foreign news outlet, why isn't it showing up on the front page of every newspaper throughout the world and why isn't CNN and MSNBC (not to mention NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, BBC et al) reporting it 24/7? Are they afraid they will repel consumers with repetition and an absence of variety?
The evidence may exist, and Mueller and his team may have found it, but until they present it in a truly unassailable fashion, Resistance zealots insisting that the case on Trump is closed, and his guilt already made clear, are simply blowing smoke from one or more of their orifices.
You and many others here are absolutely convinced that Trump colluded with the Russians in an effort to ensure his election; that he not only is prepared to do Putin's bidding (whether as his part of the 2016 Election bargain, or as the requirement for keeping the Kremlin silent about his illegal financial maneuvering and penchant of Russian prostitutes with full bladders), but is
already betraying his country by acting against its best interests to protect his own. No surprise here. You accept the veracity of any and every person or organization willing to make claims that cast doubt and aspersion on Trump, despite repeated demonstrations of the unreliability of
anonymous sources whose knowledge and expertise on a given matter is based solely on claimed "
familiarity with
the matter" What the hell does that even mean? Do we have any journalist or journalism students here who can enlighten us on the precise definition of these clearly technical terms?
No surprise either that you continue to frame the debate on the matter known in general as
Climate Change in terms that declare you and those who think like you to be
Junior T-Men (Agents of TheTruth!) while those who disagree with your are ignorant flat-earthers who would deny the sun was hot if it served their financial interests.
I don't deny climate change, but I do have a problem with
Climate Change as it is advocated by you and other devotees. I don't really see the point in restating my opinions on
Climate Change and in particular, the notion of
science settled by consensus, the extent of human contribution to the modeled trends, and the proposed "solutions." I've laid them out in numerous prior posts which I know you have read but which you nevertheless have concluded are informed by delusion and financial self-interest. To the extent a discussion of the topic ever transpired between us, I've no interest in pursuing it further.
