Don Surber: Democrats know they are in trouble: Target Early, a Democratic political data and data services firm, has bad news for Democrats. Early voting in battleground states is going t...
comment:
Looks like mostly big numbers for the GOP. After the early voting ends, there needs to be a follow up effort. That is where it might be won or lost.
"It's not over till it's over."
That may strike some people as negative, but the focusing on polls is misdirected energy. The polls may be useless right now. Early voting favors Republicans, but it usually does anyway. ( I could be mistaken about that. )
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Saturday, November 3, 2018
Friday, November 2, 2018
Don Surber: Liberals who want to kill the president
Don Surber: Liberals who want to kill the president: Never Trumpers now blame President Trump for one of their supporters shooting up a synagogue in Pittsburgh. The gunman murdered 11 Jewish ...
comment:
Well, I don't know if Never Trumpers and Liberals are exactly the same. However, for anybody to be blaming Trump for what happened in that shooting in Pittsburgh is like throwing a "hail Mary" pass for the endzone.
These type of tactics are desperate, and not likely to succeed, just like a Hail Mary pass in football.
Anybody who goes beyond the rhetoric, and merely looks at basic facts can see that the President is not an anti-Semite. If anything, the facts support the reverse--- it is the liberals who are anti-Semite.
Democrats might have a better chance in this election if they tried being honest for a change.
comment:
Well, I don't know if Never Trumpers and Liberals are exactly the same. However, for anybody to be blaming Trump for what happened in that shooting in Pittsburgh is like throwing a "hail Mary" pass for the endzone.
These type of tactics are desperate, and not likely to succeed, just like a Hail Mary pass in football.
Anybody who goes beyond the rhetoric, and merely looks at basic facts can see that the President is not an anti-Semite. If anything, the facts support the reverse--- it is the liberals who are anti-Semite.
Democrats might have a better chance in this election if they tried being honest for a change.
Steven Clifford: Straight white males should be banned from voting
Now here is a proposition for you to consider. If the Supreme Court someday said that this could be done, what do you think about that?
If the Constitution means anything, this cannot be done.
If you cannot discriminate upon race or sex, it means all races and both sexes. Otherwise, the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution would have been repealed. Not to mention that the process for changing the Constitution would have been overridden, and for all intents and purposes, the Constitution would be abolished.
Yet, how are we to know that the leftists would not try such a thing if they were to gain power? They have been saying that they want to pack the court when they get back into power. This is a real threat is the point.
Look at what they have been doing to conservative nominees such as Kavanaugh, this court packing scheme, and their judicial activism--- and you might see a danger brewing just ahead .
If the Constitution means anything, this cannot be done.
If you cannot discriminate upon race or sex, it means all races and both sexes. Otherwise, the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution would have been repealed. Not to mention that the process for changing the Constitution would have been overridden, and for all intents and purposes, the Constitution would be abolished.
Yet, how are we to know that the leftists would not try such a thing if they were to gain power? They have been saying that they want to pack the court when they get back into power. This is a real threat is the point.
Look at what they have been doing to conservative nominees such as Kavanaugh, this court packing scheme, and their judicial activism--- and you might see a danger brewing just ahead .
White media mogul Steven Clifford: Straight white males should be banned from voting https://t.co/4UKAjVp8Nt via @DrEowyn— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) November 2, 2018
Main Street GOP? It is not supposed to be that way.
But it is, under Trump.
More jobs being created at a fast clip. Good paying jobs, as payrolls exceed inflation. Low inflation.
Looks like it should be a landslide, but if you pay attention to polls, it is supposed to be close. Why would anybody be against this kind of news? That is the word--- "news". The news is so overwhelmingly negative, it may get people to vote against a record like this. To tell you the truth, I don't believe the news or the polls. Just get out and vote, and let the chips fall where they may.
More jobs being created at a fast clip. Good paying jobs, as payrolls exceed inflation. Low inflation.
Looks like it should be a landslide, but if you pay attention to polls, it is supposed to be close. Why would anybody be against this kind of news? That is the word--- "news". The news is so overwhelmingly negative, it may get people to vote against a record like this. To tell you the truth, I don't believe the news or the polls. Just get out and vote, and let the chips fall where they may.
The Main Street Engine is Fueled By MAGAnomic Policy... https://t.co/zMYbPfRfDV via @thelastrefuge2— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) November 2, 2018
Thursday, November 1, 2018
Betsy's Page: Cruising the Web
Betsy's Page: Cruising the Web: This is the news that the Republicans should be focusing on. Compensation for U.S. workers grew at an accelerating rate in the third quart...
comment:
Actually, this is a change in pace from what I have been reading lately. I have been critical of this blogger recently, but this is a welcome relief to read this post, I must say.
At this stage of the game, there is way too much talk about polls. In this election, polls may be of less use than usual because of the change that may be occurring in the electorate. If I am right, the poll models are wrong, and the results will surprise a lot of people next week.
We'll see.
comment:
Actually, this is a change in pace from what I have been reading lately. I have been critical of this blogger recently, but this is a welcome relief to read this post, I must say.
At this stage of the game, there is way too much talk about polls. In this election, polls may be of less use than usual because of the change that may be occurring in the electorate. If I am right, the poll models are wrong, and the results will surprise a lot of people next week.
We'll see.
Don Surber: Wall Street sees Republican win
Don Surber: Wall Street sees Republican win: CNBC reported, "Morgan Stanley's Mike Wilson attributes at least part of the recent stock market sell-off to some investors startin...
comment:
This kind of political reporting is junk.
I spent a lot of time trying to figure out how the market will move, and I was never able to do it. Maybe I am not smart enough. But I don't think the "market" gives a hoop about who wins elections. If the market was really that predictable, I would like to think I would have been able to figure it out. ( and get rich from it )
There isn't much to write about until this mania is over when the election is over.
comment:
This kind of political reporting is junk.
I spent a lot of time trying to figure out how the market will move, and I was never able to do it. Maybe I am not smart enough. But I don't think the "market" gives a hoop about who wins elections. If the market was really that predictable, I would like to think I would have been able to figure it out. ( and get rich from it )
There isn't much to write about until this mania is over when the election is over.
Wednesday, October 31, 2018
Shadow stats
This one is a shocker, considering all of the rosy scenario economic reporting going on lately.
It was all supposed to be so good, but this site says not so fast. Much of the growth was from inventories. Also, the trade figures are not that good either.
Anyway, as mentioned several times already, nobody knows what is going to happen. Pelosi is out there saying that the Dems will take the House for sure, but how would she know?
If the polls' modeling is wrong, then there is no way anybody is going to predict what is going to happen with certainty.
However, the unemployment rate is as low as it has been in the last 50 years. Now, that may mean something. Consumer confidence is also very high.
As for recessions, there has always been an inverted yield curve that precedes one. At this time, there in no such thing. In fact, before the last recession which was severe, the yield curve was inverted for quite some time. Since it hasn't been inverted for any time at all, it is most unlikely that the economy is headed for recession any time soon.
The Fed is raising rates, but be aware that the rates have been very low for a very long time. No one knows how this economy is going to do when that support is taken away. We are about to find out.
It was all supposed to be so good, but this site says not so fast. Much of the growth was from inventories. Also, the trade figures are not that good either.
Anyway, as mentioned several times already, nobody knows what is going to happen. Pelosi is out there saying that the Dems will take the House for sure, but how would she know?
If the polls' modeling is wrong, then there is no way anybody is going to predict what is going to happen with certainty.
However, the unemployment rate is as low as it has been in the last 50 years. Now, that may mean something. Consumer confidence is also very high.
As for recessions, there has always been an inverted yield curve that precedes one. At this time, there in no such thing. In fact, before the last recession which was severe, the yield curve was inverted for quite some time. Since it hasn't been inverted for any time at all, it is most unlikely that the economy is headed for recession any time soon.
The Fed is raising rates, but be aware that the rates have been very low for a very long time. No one knows how this economy is going to do when that support is taken away. We are about to find out.
Yakking it up
Bird brains are said to be dumb, but these birds can talk. ( a little )
Clearly, the birds are saying "what are you doing?", and some other stuff.
Clearly, the birds are saying "what are you doing?", and some other stuff.
Holy guacomole, Batman!
Don Surber says that Brazil has "draconian" gun control. Did you know that Brazil also has amongst the most dangerous cities in the world???
Proof positive, if Surber is right, that gun control doesn't work. I am astonished that Brazil has draconian gun control. I didn't know that. Maybe Mexico does too, but that doesn't make Mexico safe.
It won't make us safer, either.
Just goes to show you that the media is hiding the truth from all of us. How many people would fall for more gun control laws when they know for a fact that gun control does not work.
If strict gun control doesn't stop violence in Brazil, why should it stop it here?
Proof positive, if Surber is right, that gun control doesn't work. I am astonished that Brazil has draconian gun control. I didn't know that. Maybe Mexico does too, but that doesn't make Mexico safe.
It won't make us safer, either.
Just goes to show you that the media is hiding the truth from all of us. How many people would fall for more gun control laws when they know for a fact that gun control does not work.
If strict gun control doesn't stop violence in Brazil, why should it stop it here?
Anchor babies
Does anyone really want to solve the problem?
As usual, the answer is probably "no".
Pres. Trump signed an executive order ending the practice, but it is controversial because of the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.
How does the amendment read? It is a lengthy amendment, so there's a lot there that is irrelevant to this discussion. The relevant part is the first section---
The child born to a foreign national appears to be lawfully granted full citizenship. However, this does not grant anything more than that.
The problem is what to do with the foreign national, not the child. The child goes with the parents, so if the parents are here illegally, they do not have the right to stay just because of the child.
The baby is not of age in which it can "sponsor" its parents. The kid can stay, the parents must go. All you have to do is follow the Constitution, but I suppose that is too hard.
There is no comment on Trump's exec. order. It is probably legal if the law provides for it. It is also in the amendment that the Congress can make law on the subject, so the POTUS can't unmake the law.
If the law says the parents can stay, that's it. Trump can't do a thing.
None of this means that I like it, nor that the law such as it is, is worth a damn. Just saying that the law is the law.
As usual, the answer is probably "no".
Pres. Trump signed an executive order ending the practice, but it is controversial because of the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.
How does the amendment read? It is a lengthy amendment, so there's a lot there that is irrelevant to this discussion. The relevant part is the first section---
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The child born to a foreign national appears to be lawfully granted full citizenship. However, this does not grant anything more than that.
The problem is what to do with the foreign national, not the child. The child goes with the parents, so if the parents are here illegally, they do not have the right to stay just because of the child.
The baby is not of age in which it can "sponsor" its parents. The kid can stay, the parents must go. All you have to do is follow the Constitution, but I suppose that is too hard.
There is no comment on Trump's exec. order. It is probably legal if the law provides for it. It is also in the amendment that the Congress can make law on the subject, so the POTUS can't unmake the law.
If the law says the parents can stay, that's it. Trump can't do a thing.
None of this means that I like it, nor that the law such as it is, is worth a damn. Just saying that the law is the law.
Tuesday, October 30, 2018
Don Surber: Hey pollsters, don't call us, we'll call you
Don Surber: Hey pollsters, don't call us, we'll call you: A reader pointed out this line from a Power Line post: "I find it interesting that the Times/Siena had to call nearly 38,000 people to ...
comment:
Polls may not be accurate for a number of reasons. One reason is this one provided by this post. If people aren't answering the pollsters, then what validity can the polls have?
Moreover, if the polls' methodology is incorrect, the poll is meaningless. The pollsters have to have models that accurate reflect the populations in which they are working. What good are they if they fail to do this accurately?
comment:
Polls may not be accurate for a number of reasons. One reason is this one provided by this post. If people aren't answering the pollsters, then what validity can the polls have?
Moreover, if the polls' methodology is incorrect, the poll is meaningless. The pollsters have to have models that accurate reflect the populations in which they are working. What good are they if they fail to do this accurately?
Gab: An alternative to Twitter
Don't recall ever hearing of Gab until a few minutes ago.
Gab is being censored for the shooter's acts, and the fact that the Pittsburgh shooter had a page on Gab.
The discussion, at the article linked above, mentions how the same shooter had a Twitter account, but was not banned.
This kind of thing is likely to draw continued protests from those who want our media to be held more accountable to the truth.
The best way to hold a company accountable is to stop buying their products. But in order to buy their products, another product has to be available. There is an effort to keep others from providing that product to the information consumer.
One thing I know: that the media leaves a great deal to be desired. Let's hope that Gab gets back up and running soon.
I found the mention of Gab on Whatfinger, which is an alternative to Drudge. Drudge is not reliable anymore. The mention more specifically came through Fellowship of the Minds blog, which is what Whatfinger mentions. In other words, I am finding alternative means of getting information.
After reading their "about page", Fellowship of the Minds was also shut down recently. They are only getting back online.
Clearly, an attempt at censorship is taking place.
Gab is being censored for the shooter's acts, and the fact that the Pittsburgh shooter had a page on Gab.
The discussion, at the article linked above, mentions how the same shooter had a Twitter account, but was not banned.
This kind of thing is likely to draw continued protests from those who want our media to be held more accountable to the truth.
The best way to hold a company accountable is to stop buying their products. But in order to buy their products, another product has to be available. There is an effort to keep others from providing that product to the information consumer.
One thing I know: that the media leaves a great deal to be desired. Let's hope that Gab gets back up and running soon.
I found the mention of Gab on Whatfinger, which is an alternative to Drudge. Drudge is not reliable anymore. The mention more specifically came through Fellowship of the Minds blog, which is what Whatfinger mentions. In other words, I am finding alternative means of getting information.
After reading their "about page", Fellowship of the Minds was also shut down recently. They are only getting back online.
Clearly, an attempt at censorship is taking place.
Pat Buchanan: This isn't 1968 Redux, at least, not yet
He quotes some statistics to back it up.
Note: the title is not a quote from his op-ed. I made up the title myself. It was paraphrased from his reading his piece.
Is This Worse Than ’68? https://t.co/QSjDzkiZML— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) October 30, 2018
comment:
With all the talk of "war", this may be what these people are talking about. Evidently, the left seems to think that this paid off for them back then, so they may well attempt it in this era.
To put things in perspective even more, this country reached some heights back then that have not been reached since. For example, the first trip around the moon and back occurred in 1968. Also, the gdp in terms of gold has never been equaled nor surpassed since about that time.
Actor James Cromwell warns of 'revolution': 'There will be blood in the streets' if Democrats lose
Washington Times via Free Republic
Based upon incomplete information, the impression this guy is leaving seems like a threat.
What is the difference in meaning between the words "threat" and "warning"?
A threat seems boorish, whereas a warning sounds less boorish. It is boorish to demand something that you must comply with, or face violence. A warning may be vague, or it may be specific. However, if it is specific as to consequences, then that is fair enough.
But, all the same-- warning or threatening violence sounds like they want something to which they are not entitled. Nobody is entitled to overthrow the government. So, this is a warning from me to those like this guy--- if unwarranted and unjustifiable attempts to encroach upon anything to which I have a stake and hold valuable, I will definitely be willing to fight.
If Trump wins, there is no excuse for political violence. None of the sort should be accepted. That's regardless of who wins. However, the majority does not have the right to disregard the Constitution. The Constitution is sovereign. Nobody can hold power and remain legitimate without remaining in compliance with this fundamental law.
If the liberals win, they may attempt to do things that the law forbids. That is to say, if the law actually means anything to anybody anymore in this country. In such a case as that, you should be prepared to make it plain to these people that no such move shall be undertaken.
That is why so-called conservatives should be organizing, but they are not. All this talk about having weapons means nothing if the government has the authority. Government power will over-match individual powers. It is wishful thinking and possibly disingenuous to say otherwise.
Who does this guy speak for, anyway? He has no such standing, unless some entity elects him for something.
More circuses? Possibly. He cannot execute any such threat.
More info.... He is the son of a director who was blacklisted during the McCarthy period. Is he a communist? To threaten revolution over a lost election is not necessarily evidence of communism, but this guy is over the top.
Based upon incomplete information, the impression this guy is leaving seems like a threat.
What is the difference in meaning between the words "threat" and "warning"?
A threat seems boorish, whereas a warning sounds less boorish. It is boorish to demand something that you must comply with, or face violence. A warning may be vague, or it may be specific. However, if it is specific as to consequences, then that is fair enough.
But, all the same-- warning or threatening violence sounds like they want something to which they are not entitled. Nobody is entitled to overthrow the government. So, this is a warning from me to those like this guy--- if unwarranted and unjustifiable attempts to encroach upon anything to which I have a stake and hold valuable, I will definitely be willing to fight.
If Trump wins, there is no excuse for political violence. None of the sort should be accepted. That's regardless of who wins. However, the majority does not have the right to disregard the Constitution. The Constitution is sovereign. Nobody can hold power and remain legitimate without remaining in compliance with this fundamental law.
If the liberals win, they may attempt to do things that the law forbids. That is to say, if the law actually means anything to anybody anymore in this country. In such a case as that, you should be prepared to make it plain to these people that no such move shall be undertaken.
That is why so-called conservatives should be organizing, but they are not. All this talk about having weapons means nothing if the government has the authority. Government power will over-match individual powers. It is wishful thinking and possibly disingenuous to say otherwise.
Who does this guy speak for, anyway? He has no such standing, unless some entity elects him for something.
More circuses? Possibly. He cannot execute any such threat.
More info.... He is the son of a director who was blacklisted during the McCarthy period. Is he a communist? To threaten revolution over a lost election is not necessarily evidence of communism, but this guy is over the top.
When you would rather be in another line of business
Updated:
10.30.18:
Same feeling this morning. Actually, I think it is a reason why I cannot find anything to write about. The stuff that is worth writing about gathers little attention. Everything that gathers the attention of the public is this stupid stuff that the media fastens onto every day.
It is almost like try to live on cotton candy as your only food. If you feed your mind with this cotton candy, you will get sick and die. Such is the case with our culture. This garbage is not good for us.
There are a few "nuggets of gold" out there. The gold metaphor is apt, because this other stuff is junk. The junk is what you have to "pan out" in order to get the nuggets. You know what I mean, Vern?
10.29.18:
Good thing I don't get paid for this. The reason is that you have to put up content every single day, and there's some days that it is really hard to do that.
What do you say about a mass murder? It follows the same pattern that has been followed again and again. The response is the same old thing, too.
We don't focus on the solutions. Nope. It is always the conflict that brings people to the fore. If you solved this kind of problem, you would get a lot of bored people.
Yes, I have written about conflict versus solutions before. Not that this gets any attention and serious consideration. It isn't entertaining enough. People would rather suffer and die than to actually roll up their sleeves and solve a problem.
Bread and circuses. That's the ticket. You cannot argue against the reality of things. The reality is that people simply will not focus on how to solve problems like this, or any other problem for that matter.
10.30.18:
Same feeling this morning. Actually, I think it is a reason why I cannot find anything to write about. The stuff that is worth writing about gathers little attention. Everything that gathers the attention of the public is this stupid stuff that the media fastens onto every day.
It is almost like try to live on cotton candy as your only food. If you feed your mind with this cotton candy, you will get sick and die. Such is the case with our culture. This garbage is not good for us.
There are a few "nuggets of gold" out there. The gold metaphor is apt, because this other stuff is junk. The junk is what you have to "pan out" in order to get the nuggets. You know what I mean, Vern?
10.29.18:
Good thing I don't get paid for this. The reason is that you have to put up content every single day, and there's some days that it is really hard to do that.
What do you say about a mass murder? It follows the same pattern that has been followed again and again. The response is the same old thing, too.
We don't focus on the solutions. Nope. It is always the conflict that brings people to the fore. If you solved this kind of problem, you would get a lot of bored people.
Yes, I have written about conflict versus solutions before. Not that this gets any attention and serious consideration. It isn't entertaining enough. People would rather suffer and die than to actually roll up their sleeves and solve a problem.
Bread and circuses. That's the ticket. You cannot argue against the reality of things. The reality is that people simply will not focus on how to solve problems like this, or any other problem for that matter.
Monday, October 29, 2018
Lite posting.
I'm in beautiful downtown Irving Texas for my follow up MRI.
Those things are a pain in the butt.
Be back soon youse guys.
Update @ sundown:
Back again. This is a lot like work. One good thing about it. I get to get away from the bugs. As soon as I got back, I was greeted by a swarm of bugs.
Bugs gotta bug.
Those things are a pain in the butt.
Be back soon youse guys.
Update @ sundown:
Back again. This is a lot like work. One good thing about it. I get to get away from the bugs. As soon as I got back, I was greeted by a swarm of bugs.
Bugs gotta bug.
Spidey-Senses.
Sundance has spidey senses.
Be sure not to get splattered my friend, cuz spiders are scary to some people.
Be sure not to get splattered my friend, cuz spiders are scary to some people.
Spidey-Senses... https://t.co/Y4ih5WAFWY via @thelastrefuge2— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) October 29, 2018
Sunday, October 28, 2018
Who do you believe?
This has got the problem of the ages. Who do you trust to give you the truth?
Do you trust Conservatives? Liberals? Middle of the road types? Libertarians? Or, Fascists? Communists? Catholics? Protestants?
In short, who do you trust to tell it like it is?
No matter what group you follow, they all have a bias in their own favor. That is the unavoidable fact. Yes, I'd say Christians too, even though they are not supposed to.
Can you think of someone who was less biased in his own behalf than Jesus of Nazareth? He didn't save himself from the cross. It would have been so easy to do so.
Now, the question remains: who do you trust? Maybe you could trust Jesus of Nazareth, but that was 2000 years ago, and it didn't help him at all. It doesn't help when those who say they honor him do not.
See what I mean? Maybe you cannot trust anybody. But that isn't an option either. You have to trust somebody, but nobody seems to be worthy of it.
It is a problem.
The assumption is that people want the truth. Leave aside the truth, then it becomes what do you want to believe? Ultimately, for many people today, truth is whatever you want to believe. That is a subjective approach to the subject. It conflicts with the objective approach. The objective truth is what is true regardless of how you feel about it.
If objectivity isn't desired, then truth isn't desired. Because the truth is independent of desire. It matters not what you want if you want truth. You would have to set aside your desires, and accept the truth for what it is. People are not likely to want to do that these days. In fact, it appears that the culture is training people to see truth as whatever they want it to be.
The alternative is acceptance. Fighting the truth is only going to make things worse.
Once you are prepared to accept the truth, then you have to be prepared to seek it. Otherwise, it is meaningless to accept what you do not wish to know.
You have to decide then who to believe, even though everybody seems to be pushing their own biases in their own favor.
You can believe someone who does not have anything to gain from what they claim to be true. How do you determine that? You have to do some work to get at it. Getting the truth is not necessarily easy when there are those who are standing in the way of having it revealed.
The person who stands in the way of truth should not be readily believed.
Now why write all this?
It seems that people are falling for too much stuff that cannot be true. For somebody has to be right, and somebody has to be wrong. But nobody wants to admit that they are wrong, for they may have something to lose if they were to make such an admission. Conflicting stories cannot both be true.
You have to decide who to believe and who to trust. Hopefully, the choice will be the correct one.
Republicans or Democrats? Gonna have to choose.
I choose Republican. But I am of that inclination anyway. If you are of a Democrat inclination, then why would you believe me? I think the Republicans tend more toward the objective than the Democrats. The Democrats are quite open about their desires to push the subjective buttons. I don't trust them.
But I don't trust the GOP either. One thing I believe though. That they cannot afford to betray their stated principles, and as long as Trump doesn't betray those, they cannot impeach him. Their credibility is at stake.
I don't believe that Trump should be forced out. Furthermore, I don't think there has been probable cause for the Mueller investigation. I suspect the investigation is being pursued for political reasons by those who have something to gain or lose. This is an abuse of power. The fault then lies with those who impeach the president, and not the president himself.
There are a lot of distractions out there, and I won't comment upon those. This matter of credibility is the central issue for me. The rest pales in comparison.
Do you trust Conservatives? Liberals? Middle of the road types? Libertarians? Or, Fascists? Communists? Catholics? Protestants?
In short, who do you trust to tell it like it is?
No matter what group you follow, they all have a bias in their own favor. That is the unavoidable fact. Yes, I'd say Christians too, even though they are not supposed to.
Can you think of someone who was less biased in his own behalf than Jesus of Nazareth? He didn't save himself from the cross. It would have been so easy to do so.
Now, the question remains: who do you trust? Maybe you could trust Jesus of Nazareth, but that was 2000 years ago, and it didn't help him at all. It doesn't help when those who say they honor him do not.
See what I mean? Maybe you cannot trust anybody. But that isn't an option either. You have to trust somebody, but nobody seems to be worthy of it.
It is a problem.
The assumption is that people want the truth. Leave aside the truth, then it becomes what do you want to believe? Ultimately, for many people today, truth is whatever you want to believe. That is a subjective approach to the subject. It conflicts with the objective approach. The objective truth is what is true regardless of how you feel about it.
If objectivity isn't desired, then truth isn't desired. Because the truth is independent of desire. It matters not what you want if you want truth. You would have to set aside your desires, and accept the truth for what it is. People are not likely to want to do that these days. In fact, it appears that the culture is training people to see truth as whatever they want it to be.
The alternative is acceptance. Fighting the truth is only going to make things worse.
Once you are prepared to accept the truth, then you have to be prepared to seek it. Otherwise, it is meaningless to accept what you do not wish to know.
You have to decide then who to believe, even though everybody seems to be pushing their own biases in their own favor.
You can believe someone who does not have anything to gain from what they claim to be true. How do you determine that? You have to do some work to get at it. Getting the truth is not necessarily easy when there are those who are standing in the way of having it revealed.
The person who stands in the way of truth should not be readily believed.
Now why write all this?
It seems that people are falling for too much stuff that cannot be true. For somebody has to be right, and somebody has to be wrong. But nobody wants to admit that they are wrong, for they may have something to lose if they were to make such an admission. Conflicting stories cannot both be true.
You have to decide who to believe and who to trust. Hopefully, the choice will be the correct one.
Republicans or Democrats? Gonna have to choose.
I choose Republican. But I am of that inclination anyway. If you are of a Democrat inclination, then why would you believe me? I think the Republicans tend more toward the objective than the Democrats. The Democrats are quite open about their desires to push the subjective buttons. I don't trust them.
But I don't trust the GOP either. One thing I believe though. That they cannot afford to betray their stated principles, and as long as Trump doesn't betray those, they cannot impeach him. Their credibility is at stake.
I don't believe that Trump should be forced out. Furthermore, I don't think there has been probable cause for the Mueller investigation. I suspect the investigation is being pursued for political reasons by those who have something to gain or lose. This is an abuse of power. The fault then lies with those who impeach the president, and not the president himself.
There are a lot of distractions out there, and I won't comment upon those. This matter of credibility is the central issue for me. The rest pales in comparison.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)