By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Kandiss Taylor, a MAGA congressional candidate, sparked controversy after spreading conspiracy theories about the deadly flash floods in Texas, calling the weather “fake” on X. Her posts, made while authorities searched for dozens of missing individuals and confirmed at least 30 deaths, including nine children, drew immediate backlash. Critics, including former Rep. Adam Kinzinger and other commentators, condemned her remarks as insensitive and harmful. Despite the criticism, Taylor defended her statements, asserting she was not “walking back” anything, and continued to promote the idea of manipulation and geoengineering causing the tragic events.
Read the original article here
MAGA Congressional Candidate Calls Texas Floods ‘Fake’: It’s ‘Murder’ | Kandiss Taylor, a candidate for Congress in 2026, has made some seriously eyebrow-raising statements about the recent floods in Texas.
It seems like the core of the issue is that Kandiss Taylor is suggesting that the Texas floods are not a natural occurrence but rather the result of weather manipulation, and that this manipulation constitutes “murder.” This idea, that someone is intentionally altering the weather, is a pretty big claim and raises a lot of questions. It also seems to be a way to downplay or deny the severity of the events or to shift the blame onto some kind of unseen enemy. The underlying tone, as seen from her tweets, is one of distrust in established science and institutions.
The connection to “climate change” is also significant. She seemingly accepts that humans can manipulate weather but believes that it’s a conspiracy by “others.” Many people in the political sphere are still questioning the reality or the severity of climate change or whether it is human-caused. The floods, and the potential for climate change as their cause, are somehow being dismissed as part of a hidden agenda. This is a classic example of misinformation and the rejection of scientific consensus. She also seems to ignore the overwhelming body of evidence that supports the science behind climate change.
The accusations point the finger at different groups, from the “others” to specific political parties, which highlights the divisive nature of the issue. This is then used to criticize others and build a following. It’s pretty easy to see how such claims could be really appealing to people who already distrust the government, science, and the media, making it very important to question the source of information and to think critically about what is being claimed.
It’s not hard to see how someone might find these kinds of claims alarming. The idea that a candidate for Congress would attribute a natural disaster to some kind of intentional manipulation, and then label it as murder, is definitely extreme. The implication is that there are unseen forces at work, actively harming people. The fact that she is willing to make such statements really shows how far apart people can be on these kinds of issues.
There’s a historical context to consider here. The idea of weather manipulation, and the use of weather as a weapon, is something that has been around for a while. But it also ties into various conspiracy theories, which tend to thrive on distrust and a sense of being persecuted. The idea that powerful, secret forces are controlling events can be extremely appealing to people who feel powerless or disenfranchised.
The discussion shifts to the idea of political responsibility. If elected officials deny the reality of climate change and undermine efforts to address it, are they contributing to the problem? Are those officials, who make decisions that have consequences, responsible for those consequences? This is the very heart of the matter.
The discussion further raises the issue of the impact of disinformation. The claims about weather manipulation, like any false information, have a real potential to make people distrust established institutions and to make it harder to address real problems. The constant barrage of misinformation and conspiracy theories can also make it harder to have a constructive dialogue about important issues.
It is also important to consider the ways this kind of rhetoric can affect the political process. When candidates make outlandish claims, it can polarize the public, distract from real issues, and erode the public’s trust in the political process.
We should also examine how the political environment has changed over time. It seems like there’s a rising trend to promote outrageous claims, which raises many questions about the future of politics and the ability of people to have constructive discussions. It also creates an environment where people are more likely to fall prey to misinformation, which undermines the public’s ability to think critically and make good decisions.
The impact of the previous administration on climate change and weather forecasting is also important to consider. The reports of cuts to NOAA and other agencies, as well as the lack of support for climate change initiatives, are all documented. This raises questions about the responsibility of the government to protect its citizens and how well it is doing so.
The tone of the conversation is not only one of concern but also of frustration and disbelief. There is a sense that these kinds of claims are damaging and that they are gaining traction. This is very important to remember as you decide how to respond to this kind of rhetoric.