Right wing conspiracy versus witch hunt

Politics
1

Years ago, we had Ken Starr. Now, we have Robert Mueller. Years ago, it was real estate. Now, it was about collusion. Years ago, democrats defended Clinton while Republicans impeached him. Now, republicans defend Trump, while democrats say, impeach him.

If we say a blue dress was a huge departure from Whitewater, as it was said then. Is it ok to say that paying for silence, is a huge departure from Russian collusion? Some say it now. What bothers me is how the standards have changed. How partisan perspectives have changed. The compass is spinning. It was not ok then, nor is it ok now.

Neither Trump or Clinton should have been elected president. Regardless of the economy, these men are cut from the same cloth. Both think power is an antidote to personal misconduct. Whether power is derived from office, or money, it corrupted both of the men. Hell, they even travelled together.

What is worse is that we elected them. So, we have ourselves to blame. I can say I voted for neither of them. We could blame it on the media, but we watch it.

We have petty leaders because we are petty people. Some call Trump divisive, they also support attacking income distribution. The media does both. Is the media wrong for promoting narratives, or are we so petty and partisan we support the narratives they give us? The elites lead the discourse and the 99% cluelessly follow.

Could the media editorialize a melting pot full of economic opportunity? They can selectively promote the opposite. In a trial, the jury is presented opposing viewpoints of the same evidence. One side is a prosecutor the other the defense attorney. Through the jury selection process, bias is intended to be removed. The judge makes sure each side follows the rules of evidence. The jury is instructed to look at the evidence, and render a verdict.

There is evidence that we are not fit to serve on a jury, in most political issues. There is evidence that we are biased and refuse to look at the evidence, even on this forum. There is evidence of discrimination in how we view the facts, or choose to ignore them.

The arguments for and against, used by different people, concerning similar situations should disturb us all. IF it is wrong to persecute Trump it was wrong to persecute Clinton. If it is correct, then it is correct in both cases. In either case, right or wrong, we do not need biased punditry.

Looks like Trump and Clinton lied about cheating on their wives. If so, then they do not need defending. Publish the data, all of it. Then let the ill-informed vote again for their own petty interests. They are both new kinds of democrats. Both do not deserve the office. Both won it, because of us.

Whether it be Giuliani or Davis, it is the swamp. It does not have to be illegal to be wrong. Say it is wrong and then focus on something that matters. But at least apply the same standards to both sides, mine and yours.

2

The BIG difference is that Clinton was a competent President while Trump is a dumpster fire. Clinton had total command of the issues. Trump is an ignorant buffoon.

3

and I just asked for objectivity, or evidence, so tell us how Clinton knew everything and Trump knows nothing.

4

This is a good thread. It exemplifies the sort of self-reflection everyone needs to engage in when we move into the post-Trump era. Some thoughts:

The tendency of partisans attacking or defending based on which side their party falls on is nothing new. In terms of standards, what’s changed is that at one time Americans wanted their political leaders to exhibit intelligence, diplomacy, and decorum, or at least be able to fake it. At one time the right went absolutely berserk at the sexual escapades of Clinton, and (over and above the legal aspects of his lying about it) went on countless jeremiads explaining that his behavior was just one example of a larger societal moral malaise. Now a segment of the population considers intelligence, diplomacy, and decorum the mark of effeminate establishment elitists, and they celebrate leaders who talk like them, pander to their thinking, and exhibit a low character that justifies their own (or makes it look elevated by comparison).

Yes. We get the leaders and the media we expect and deserve.

We don’t need it, but Lord do we crave it. Bias confirmation is a helluva drug. But asking someone to forego in favor of media that makes a concerted effort at comprehensive objectivity like asking a kid to eschew ice cream in favor of broccoli.

Harsh, but hard to argue. People love banality and triviality in their entertainment, and that has now spilled over into our politics.

When Donald is gone from public office and there’s no longer the need to reflexively defend him from criticism I’ve no doubt there will be calls on the right for a return to Real Conservatism (however that’s defined). The left would do well to engage in some navel gazing of its own, and promote policies that are based on more than just “Wow, the GOP candidate is a deplorable train wreck” (which is true, but you can’t build a party platform on that foundation). It has to start at the individual level. I try myself, however imperfect and inconsistent I may be.

The media will report what sells, and the politicians will promote whatever increases their chances of job security. They can’t be relied on to push for change, it’s too risky for both. Integrity and the demand for something better has to start with the citizenry, and that means we have to demand more from both.

5

Awesome thoughtful reply