Culture of corruption

Remember that phrase?  It must have been invented by Nancy Pelosi back in 2006 or so.  The corruption, such as it was, is still with us.  In my opinion, it is far greater amongst Democrats than Republicans, especially since this email thing with the Clintons.

It may also explain why the GOP really doesn't oppose this administration.  The corruption is throughout the political class.  They both have a conflict of interest in doing anything to clean up the corruption because they both benefit from it, in my opinion.

Hence, nothing will ever be done about the email scandal, even though it should be clear that Hillary broke the law.  The so-called political divide gives both parties cover so that they won't be held accountable.  Politics gets the blame, but the blame is very convenient for both parties.  As it works out generally, nobody ever gets held accountable, unless it is a lower official like Scooter Libbey.

The point here is that Trump, by being an outsider, gives the voters the opportunity to hold the politicians accountable.  It is important, in my opinion, that the voters understand this, and vote accordingly.   People should stop letting themselves be fooled by the politicians into believing that all the troubles are due to politics.  Our problems are solvable, but won't be until those who are at the point of the problem are removed from positions of authority and power.  Once they are gone, needed reforms can take place.

If it all gets reduced to politics as usual, then nothing will change.

Obligatory, 9.17.16

Well, this is a first.  It has been several days now since I last posted.
The reason was that the battery ran dead while I was still in Houston,
and I couldn't post while still there.  I came back to the new place on
Thurs, but the internet availability problem is yet to be solved.  There
are possibilities in order to improve upon the situation, but as of yet,
there are no quick solutions.

I have lost track of the news, too.  The presidential race might well have
had another twist and turn for all I know.

This new place is an hour's drive from a major city in Texas.  The exact
location will not be disclosed here.

It is a pain in the neck to discover that certain items are here, but
other items remain in storage in Houston.  How that happened is hard
to figure, but it did.  I need to make a list of things that I need from
storage, and to retrieve them and bring them back here on the next trip.
Once I get better organized, I will get back on track.  Still in process,
though.

Obama IS a muslim

Just watched a bit of MSNBC.   They defended the "basket of deplorables" comment by saying that more than half of Trump supporters believe that Obama is a muslim.  But if the MSNBC types do not see a problem with somebody being muslim, then what's wrong with being called that?  How is the belief that Obama is a muslim a problem?  Shouldn't they be saying "so what?"  According to them, being a muslim is not a problem, but believing that Obama is a muslim is a problem.  How do you square those two beliefs?

You cannot.  They know that if the general public saw Obama as a muslim that it would be a problem for them politically.  But every political problem gets turned into a "deplorable" problem, you see.

The point is this: if you can't win the argument, just start calling people names.

Obama is a muslim because his father was one.  That's how muslims figure it.  If Obama isn't a muslim, then he is an apostate.  Since he clearly sympathizes with muslims, it is hard to see how he is an apostate.

"Basket of deplorables"

The left says to Hillary:  don't back down.  No, she cannot back down because that is the premise of their existence.  The premise is that this has always been a "bad" country, and needs to change into a "good" country.  The problem though, is this:  who gets to define what's good or bad?

Robert Ringer once described liberals as masters at intimidation, as he defined it.  But what did Ringer mean?  In a general context, these "intimidators" manage to get you to believe to step aside for them and to give up your self interests in favor of theirs.  For if you do not, then you are a "bad" person.  Hence, if you prefer your own race to other races, then you are a "racist".  If you prefer your own gender to the other gender, then you are "sexist".  And so forth.  The problem is that these people are not acting any differently than the "haters" are.  They "hate" just as much.  The object of hatred is directed at those with whom they disagree, not on any basis of fact.  This is how they intimidate you.  They make you back down in the face of their disapproval for being a "bad" person for not giving them preference over your own self interests.

That's how liberals "win through intimidation".  They cannot back down now, or they will definitely be exposed for the fakes that they are.

That is how all political discussion gets reduced to being "hatred", or else one is forced into agreeing with liberal premises.  If you disagree, then you must be a bad person.

If you challenge them, then you are illegitimate because you are not a moral person.  Never mind the facts of the situation.  It is their power that cannot be challenged.  They cannot allow it.  Therefore, there can be no Trump, who challenges political correctness.

After all, isn't that what political correctness is?  It is censorship in favor of the "good" over the "bad", and the liberals get to decide what is good or bad.  It isn't based upon facts nor reason.

The deeper you dig into liberalism, the emptier it appears.  The "basket" is as empty as the left is itself.