All true. But given they are our options one has to ignore their personal shortcomings and, now that we’ve lived through 4 years of each as president, ask themselves under whom was the US more prosperous, the world safest, and our quality of life higher. Anyone who objectively considers those things should have no problem deciding who to vote for. Unless of course you’re an “asylum seeker” in which case things are really looking up for you…
I get the perspective and don't want to sink morality and want to restore it. However, the examples used have very different moral underpinnings. A father showering with his daughter is not only creepy it transcends the boundaries between a father and child. That is far different from having sex with a woman. The accuser for Biden in the assault reported it right away and was brushed off. For Trump there wasn't a similar allegation to authorities yet the media has put brush on. It is the same with documents. Biden was a VP and Trump a president. One had authority - though possibly abused - and the other none. I gave money to Biden's campaign thinking he would be sane. I then received an earful from someone whose family is from a country near Ukraine. He told me of the corruption which proved to be true but has been buried by the media. At some point, if your child's teacher repeatedly condemns the conduct of your student while turning a blind eye to the conduct of another student, you will rightly complain.
It is not my intent to assign some sort of moral equivalency to their respective charges, since no two people or actions are exactly the same. I was merely pointing out how, conceptually, we as a country are quick to turn a blind eye toward our "side's" transgressions, while acting holier than thou about the other side's.
I've made my choice based upon who I feel will be better for the country. But I wish the collective petty spitefulness wouldn't have prevented better choices from being available.
Honestly great article. I hate whataboutism (though I think I’m also guilty of doing it 😂😂)
But despite both being the same age, imo there’s a vast gulf between the health of the two men.
Then again, when Trump does his stadium speeches he might be full of uppers as well. He hides it better if he is.
Im from the uk and even my very left wing family are quietly saying they hope Trump wins to stop all this chaos. I laughed at them 😂😂. Oh how they’ve changed their tunes lol.
Neither of them is my guy, so whatever. This is just more reason not to support either legacy political party, but the fact is that Biden has done far worse in his 3+ years than Trump did in 4, by every objective metric. It doesn't mean I'll vote for Trump; it's more like noticing the sun usually rises in the east.
Whataboutism seems to be akin to or a result of doctrines of moral equivalence. The final argument of people who know they are wrong but won't change their mind is, "Everyone is entitled to their opinion and mine is as good as yours."
It's a mistake to characterize the objection as 'it's ok now because it was ok before.' The objection is to what Scott Alexander calls an isolated demand for rigor. When you ask someone to concede a point which is politically inconvenient, it is appropriate for that person to consider whether the same standard is used when the person demanding such rigor finds it politically inconvenient.
Examples to the contrary abound, but the most stark one recently was the difference between the treatment of the 2020 BLM riots and the J6 riot. When the left came howling for accountability regarding political violence in 2021, the right was correct to object that the standard was new, and in fact what they'd asked for the previous year and gotten nothing but derision. https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands-for-rigor/
Of course there are differences in severity (your example of the riot comparison is spot on), but that's also the point. We've left ourselves without other alternatives but to react to a fucked up set of new standards, and whether each side is being held equally to them, rather than simply judging merit and competence. And of course they aren't truly balanced, since no two events are the same. Our culture needs to go back to demanding accountability, whether it's politically convenient or not. I'm not holding my breath.
Great point of discussion. It is also, maybe obviously, a natural consequence of a two-party binary system. If one candidate has some problem with taxes, point to the other guy's problem with taxes. The American public, worn down, exasperated, will likely not follow up on the details; the moral equivalencies will not be inspected. "They both have some noise about tax problems" will be the take away. It will become a wash. Political Whataboutisms flourish inside the binary to start the conversation back at zero, thus reinforcing the "goodness" of the party itself.
As for double standards inside the party line, there exist infinite examples of hypocrisy.
You're right, Judson - making it a "wash" does indeed start the conversation back at zero, those at the top get away with their nonsense, and everyone else gets stuck with the results. We need a stronger 3rd party!
I hate the word 'whataboutism.' It drives me up the wall which I think was probably the original intended purpose. Yes, it is a way to justify tasteless and offensive behaviors. It upends the common phrase, "two wrongs don't make a right." But it's more than this. It goes much deeper. Using a 'whataboutism', in political discussion for example, is really a roundabout way of calling someone a hypocrite. How can one possibly support a politician in their own party but hold a different standard for one in the opposite party? You can't unless you're a true hypocrite. It is very much the double standard we see being applied to law in current ongoing cases. What's good for some is not good for the others. What some are held to account for, others having committed same actions are overlooked. This is a basic rundown of 'whataboutisms' and what they break down to.
One thing that is critical about 'whataboutisms' is that you better make damn sure your 'whataboutism' is accurate and that you haven't missed any relevant information that may render your 'whataboutism' nothing short of slander, liable or just plain propaganda. So, the key to using a 'whataboutism' is knowing what you're talking about. With that, I'm going to address accuracies in 'whataboutisms.'
Contrary to your assertion that we've left ourselves two bad choices for President, I will disagree. In fact, we have the best man for the job standing right there. That man is President Trump. Frankly, anyone who stood guilty of the many lies and propaganda that the left has thrown at Trump in their effort to overthrow him from day one (actually, before inauguration as they were cooking up an impeachment prior to his taking the reins), that person would be a truly horrible person. If you don't understand constitutional law, you end up spouting a bunch of nonsense, as seem here. The fact is, there are no 'whataboutisms' here. Also good to keep in mind, we're watching Joe Biden, a man who has spent literally his entire working life in government in some capacity, daring to accuse Trump for anything whatsoever. Facts to hold on to is that JB is a notorious liar who was booted from earlier presidential runs, JB is the man who sponsored the 1994 crine bill, JB is the man who speaks disparagingly about Indians working in 7-11s AND, JB owns, or did own, Water Island directly nextdoor to Jeffrey Epstein. Should I mention his real estate holdings in Ukraine and what special forces discovered underneath that property? (That's an entirely different conversation). There are no 'whataboutisms' here.
The left is going to be faced with some very big problems. Just as they cooked up Christine Blasey Ford, they too, cooked up E Jean Carroll, the woman who very candidly admitted to have never before been raped but when it became politically expedient, well, she came up with television program narrative to which there was no video, no witness, and no memory on her part on dates. Convenient! She will never see a penny of ill-gotten gains. Stormy Daniel's, also, very candidly denied ever having any type of relationship with Trump. Oh, but political expediency. A federal judge threw out her case and ordered that she reimburse Trump lost and wasted legal fees. Michael Avvenatti, democrats new favorite presidential hopeful, or was, is sitting in prison for 20 years for taking both Daniel's and Nike for a ride. What we know of Biden, we know through open testimony and very credible sources. No 'whataboutisms' here.
As President of the US, Trump had every legal right to possess classified documents. A vice president does mot have a legal right to possess classified documents. No 'whataboutisms' here.
On taxes, Trump very honestly and with integrity made it clear that he manages his taxes no different than Hillary or any of the many ultra wealthy democrats. Truth be known, with Trump's wealth, he is required to pay his taxes ahead of time quarterly. If there were a problem, it would have come up. And I don't mean by way of typical Democrat lies & propaganda. Worth noting, 9 of the top 10 most wealthy Americans are democrats. Trump isn't even on that list. No 'whataboutisms' here.
January 6th was an orchestrated attempt to create the illusion of an insurrection. We know different from video footage, and testimony. The entire thing was carried out by Democrats & the FBI along with capitol police and the DC Mayor. There was no insurrection. No 'whataboutism' here. Anyone is free to disagree with this but the facts are the facts.
Again, it is critically important to be well versed on what allegations are made when it cones to 'whataboutisms' because if they are used without good foreknowledge, whoever is using the 'whataboutism' doesn't really look all that informed and definitely carrying an agenda.
While I agree that there is no "moral equivalency" to their respective charges, and with the fact that there are plenty of other Biden malfeasances which go unreported, I also think Trump lacks the foresight to avoid many of his troubles which he has brought upon himself.
Given that we have two to choose from, I do feel he is better for our country. But we also can't ignore that where there's smoke, there's often fire. That doesn't discount the many ways in which there have been attempts to railroad him, which I acknowledge. But he hasn't exactly toed the line and minded his own business either.
One can support him and still see decisions/actions he's made which have not been beneficial. Moreover, my point is that as a people we can't seem to get past our pettiness to promote genuinely qualified candidates who will not embarrass us, because we're often too busy with selective vilification. The whole thing stinks, whether you like Trump or not.
Thank you for your cordial and tactful response. And thank you for supporting President Trump. I was anticipating the typical lashing or having to clarify that there is not a 'my truth' or 'your truth', but that there is only THE truth. Unfortunately, to really have just a tiny grasp of what's underway today, it requires a virtually constant immersion into the political arena - to not be reanders one almost completely uninformed and likely very badly propagandized by the very system that was intentionally designed to ensure that they remain so. There are few who have a real grasp of this entire picture - I am certainly not one of them, my grasp is little and likely flawed but I feel that I have a general idea - perhaps the future will prove to be enlightening as I expect that it will be.
I think that the decision that President Trump made to lead our nation - optically at least - was one that will long go far too underappreciated. I would add that one thing that Trump did, of many, was NOT toe the line. That's been a huge problem in our government. Far too many simply toe the line and are controlled by other unseen forces behind the curtain, never able to carry out an agenda fully separate and autonomous from those 'powers that be'. I agree that where there's smoke, there's usually fire but I also believe that when one man along with military intelligence go up against an enemy that has become what it is today over a century's time, it is absolutely possible to position as many people as necessary so as to create every last lie and smear piece in an attempt to destroy the man who is literally bringing this enemy down, one brick at a time. And I believe that this 'where's there's smoke there's fire' narrative and belief that Trump is some crazed looney-bin who doesn't know how to choose good people is born out in the fact that Trump intentionally staffed his cabinet with corrupt people from the get-go. But if it isn't understood that the purpose of doing this was 1) to weed out the corrupt and 2) to allow the corrupt to be corrupt and do corrupt things so that they could be fired amd indefinitely barred from US government work then it just appears Trump is a poor choice of character. Couple this with the fact that sufficient payouts and threats of long prison terms will move people to 'flip' when their life and freedom are on the line. The deep state can and has ensured that completely innocent people are jailed and stuffed away to be forever forgotten if it forwards their agendas. Trump's former attorney, Michael Cohen, is a great example of this. Cohen went in honest, was convicted for tax improprieties and lying to congress. When threatened with 150 years prison, he said whatever they wanted to spare his life. Really shifty because had he been honest, he would gave been pardoned without a doubt, of course, that would have been dependent on Trump retaining office and that the status quo didn't win it all.
I'll quit rambling now but it should be obvious today that when Trump declassified everything, he meant everything. We are learning a lot of new things today that we have been lied to about for our entire lives. Everything from Russia to history to science to our world and our very existence. It should be a very exciting time for most people - certainly while our economy implodes in the background and we are returned back to our rightful and constitutionally appropriate economic system, backed by gold and no longer a bottomless free for all bearing neverending sums of cash for evil & corrupt politicians and the like, to play with at the expense of our necessary exposure to high inflation and payback terms. Thank you again for being cordial. I just look forward to the day when all people, or at least most recognize what is truth and what is not truth when it comes to Trump. He is literally the one stop gap measure between us and those who want us all dead. I think there's something to be said there. 👍👍
There IS something to be said there - we have reached an unfortunate impasse where many feel that a personality like Trump's, who giveth not a single shit, is what's necessary to combat the other side's acquiescence to their extremes taking over their policy points. And it may well be true. The difference (as I have experienced it in my admittedly limited way) is seen in your response, where you are able to acknowledge "your guy's" shortcomings (like "poor choice of character") despite supporting him. Most Republicans (of course some extremists abound) seem capable of doing this - they just feel that he's our best option, warts and all. But most Democrats I know look at Biden like the cult at Jonestown looked at Jim Jones, completely blind to his issues after drinking the Kool-Aid.
We can't be thinking for ourselves, and claiming to be free, if we can't see an entire picture. The only way out is to find candidates who don't require us to constantly defend them. Maybe by 2028, when these two are out of the running, we'll start getting back to that.
All true. But given they are our options one has to ignore their personal shortcomings and, now that we’ve lived through 4 years of each as president, ask themselves under whom was the US more prosperous, the world safest, and our quality of life higher. Anyone who objectively considers those things should have no problem deciding who to vote for. Unless of course you’re an “asylum seeker” in which case things are really looking up for you…
I agree, and given the choices we have, I know which way I will vote. But I still wish we had better choices..
ZL
Hard to believe out of 330m people this is the best we can come up with.
Yep.
I get the perspective and don't want to sink morality and want to restore it. However, the examples used have very different moral underpinnings. A father showering with his daughter is not only creepy it transcends the boundaries between a father and child. That is far different from having sex with a woman. The accuser for Biden in the assault reported it right away and was brushed off. For Trump there wasn't a similar allegation to authorities yet the media has put brush on. It is the same with documents. Biden was a VP and Trump a president. One had authority - though possibly abused - and the other none. I gave money to Biden's campaign thinking he would be sane. I then received an earful from someone whose family is from a country near Ukraine. He told me of the corruption which proved to be true but has been buried by the media. At some point, if your child's teacher repeatedly condemns the conduct of your student while turning a blind eye to the conduct of another student, you will rightly complain.
Absolutely true.
It is not my intent to assign some sort of moral equivalency to their respective charges, since no two people or actions are exactly the same. I was merely pointing out how, conceptually, we as a country are quick to turn a blind eye toward our "side's" transgressions, while acting holier than thou about the other side's.
I've made my choice based upon who I feel will be better for the country. But I wish the collective petty spitefulness wouldn't have prevented better choices from being available.
Thanks for commenting, K.E.
ZL
The question is if you had to leave your kids with one of them to babysit. Who would you choose?
I know who I would.
Sad but true 🥺
Honestly great article. I hate whataboutism (though I think I’m also guilty of doing it 😂😂)
But despite both being the same age, imo there’s a vast gulf between the health of the two men.
Then again, when Trump does his stadium speeches he might be full of uppers as well. He hides it better if he is.
Im from the uk and even my very left wing family are quietly saying they hope Trump wins to stop all this chaos. I laughed at them 😂😂. Oh how they’ve changed their tunes lol.
Neither of them is my guy, so whatever. This is just more reason not to support either legacy political party, but the fact is that Biden has done far worse in his 3+ years than Trump did in 4, by every objective metric. It doesn't mean I'll vote for Trump; it's more like noticing the sun usually rises in the east.
Ain't life in a declining empire fun?
Agreed, and I've covered my issues with the 2-party system before, here:
https://www.wrongspeakpublishing.com/p/why-do-we-allow-ourselves-to-be-slaves?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
and here:
https://www.wrongspeakpublishing.com/p/forcing-the-hand-of-political-cooperation?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
Thanks for reading, Barbarian! ZL
Whataboutism seems to be akin to or a result of doctrines of moral equivalence. The final argument of people who know they are wrong but won't change their mind is, "Everyone is entitled to their opinion and mine is as good as yours."
Those people are always leftists.
Well I don't know about ALWAYS. But I've seen it much more than from the right, I'll give you that. Thanks for commenting. ZL
It's a mistake to characterize the objection as 'it's ok now because it was ok before.' The objection is to what Scott Alexander calls an isolated demand for rigor. When you ask someone to concede a point which is politically inconvenient, it is appropriate for that person to consider whether the same standard is used when the person demanding such rigor finds it politically inconvenient.
Examples to the contrary abound, but the most stark one recently was the difference between the treatment of the 2020 BLM riots and the J6 riot. When the left came howling for accountability regarding political violence in 2021, the right was correct to object that the standard was new, and in fact what they'd asked for the previous year and gotten nothing but derision. https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands-for-rigor/
Of course there are differences in severity (your example of the riot comparison is spot on), but that's also the point. We've left ourselves without other alternatives but to react to a fucked up set of new standards, and whether each side is being held equally to them, rather than simply judging merit and competence. And of course they aren't truly balanced, since no two events are the same. Our culture needs to go back to demanding accountability, whether it's politically convenient or not. I'm not holding my breath.
Thanks for your comments. ZL
Great point of discussion. It is also, maybe obviously, a natural consequence of a two-party binary system. If one candidate has some problem with taxes, point to the other guy's problem with taxes. The American public, worn down, exasperated, will likely not follow up on the details; the moral equivalencies will not be inspected. "They both have some noise about tax problems" will be the take away. It will become a wash. Political Whataboutisms flourish inside the binary to start the conversation back at zero, thus reinforcing the "goodness" of the party itself.
As for double standards inside the party line, there exist infinite examples of hypocrisy.
You're right, Judson - making it a "wash" does indeed start the conversation back at zero, those at the top get away with their nonsense, and everyone else gets stuck with the results. We need a stronger 3rd party!
ZL
I hate the word 'whataboutism.' It drives me up the wall which I think was probably the original intended purpose. Yes, it is a way to justify tasteless and offensive behaviors. It upends the common phrase, "two wrongs don't make a right." But it's more than this. It goes much deeper. Using a 'whataboutism', in political discussion for example, is really a roundabout way of calling someone a hypocrite. How can one possibly support a politician in their own party but hold a different standard for one in the opposite party? You can't unless you're a true hypocrite. It is very much the double standard we see being applied to law in current ongoing cases. What's good for some is not good for the others. What some are held to account for, others having committed same actions are overlooked. This is a basic rundown of 'whataboutisms' and what they break down to.
One thing that is critical about 'whataboutisms' is that you better make damn sure your 'whataboutism' is accurate and that you haven't missed any relevant information that may render your 'whataboutism' nothing short of slander, liable or just plain propaganda. So, the key to using a 'whataboutism' is knowing what you're talking about. With that, I'm going to address accuracies in 'whataboutisms.'
Contrary to your assertion that we've left ourselves two bad choices for President, I will disagree. In fact, we have the best man for the job standing right there. That man is President Trump. Frankly, anyone who stood guilty of the many lies and propaganda that the left has thrown at Trump in their effort to overthrow him from day one (actually, before inauguration as they were cooking up an impeachment prior to his taking the reins), that person would be a truly horrible person. If you don't understand constitutional law, you end up spouting a bunch of nonsense, as seem here. The fact is, there are no 'whataboutisms' here. Also good to keep in mind, we're watching Joe Biden, a man who has spent literally his entire working life in government in some capacity, daring to accuse Trump for anything whatsoever. Facts to hold on to is that JB is a notorious liar who was booted from earlier presidential runs, JB is the man who sponsored the 1994 crine bill, JB is the man who speaks disparagingly about Indians working in 7-11s AND, JB owns, or did own, Water Island directly nextdoor to Jeffrey Epstein. Should I mention his real estate holdings in Ukraine and what special forces discovered underneath that property? (That's an entirely different conversation). There are no 'whataboutisms' here.
The left is going to be faced with some very big problems. Just as they cooked up Christine Blasey Ford, they too, cooked up E Jean Carroll, the woman who very candidly admitted to have never before been raped but when it became politically expedient, well, she came up with television program narrative to which there was no video, no witness, and no memory on her part on dates. Convenient! She will never see a penny of ill-gotten gains. Stormy Daniel's, also, very candidly denied ever having any type of relationship with Trump. Oh, but political expediency. A federal judge threw out her case and ordered that she reimburse Trump lost and wasted legal fees. Michael Avvenatti, democrats new favorite presidential hopeful, or was, is sitting in prison for 20 years for taking both Daniel's and Nike for a ride. What we know of Biden, we know through open testimony and very credible sources. No 'whataboutisms' here.
As President of the US, Trump had every legal right to possess classified documents. A vice president does mot have a legal right to possess classified documents. No 'whataboutisms' here.
On taxes, Trump very honestly and with integrity made it clear that he manages his taxes no different than Hillary or any of the many ultra wealthy democrats. Truth be known, with Trump's wealth, he is required to pay his taxes ahead of time quarterly. If there were a problem, it would have come up. And I don't mean by way of typical Democrat lies & propaganda. Worth noting, 9 of the top 10 most wealthy Americans are democrats. Trump isn't even on that list. No 'whataboutisms' here.
January 6th was an orchestrated attempt to create the illusion of an insurrection. We know different from video footage, and testimony. The entire thing was carried out by Democrats & the FBI along with capitol police and the DC Mayor. There was no insurrection. No 'whataboutism' here. Anyone is free to disagree with this but the facts are the facts.
Again, it is critically important to be well versed on what allegations are made when it cones to 'whataboutisms' because if they are used without good foreknowledge, whoever is using the 'whataboutism' doesn't really look all that informed and definitely carrying an agenda.
'Whataboutisms' are annoying!
Strong stance, Aaron.
While I agree that there is no "moral equivalency" to their respective charges, and with the fact that there are plenty of other Biden malfeasances which go unreported, I also think Trump lacks the foresight to avoid many of his troubles which he has brought upon himself.
Given that we have two to choose from, I do feel he is better for our country. But we also can't ignore that where there's smoke, there's often fire. That doesn't discount the many ways in which there have been attempts to railroad him, which I acknowledge. But he hasn't exactly toed the line and minded his own business either.
One can support him and still see decisions/actions he's made which have not been beneficial. Moreover, my point is that as a people we can't seem to get past our pettiness to promote genuinely qualified candidates who will not embarrass us, because we're often too busy with selective vilification. The whole thing stinks, whether you like Trump or not.
Thanks for responding. ZL
Thank you for your cordial and tactful response. And thank you for supporting President Trump. I was anticipating the typical lashing or having to clarify that there is not a 'my truth' or 'your truth', but that there is only THE truth. Unfortunately, to really have just a tiny grasp of what's underway today, it requires a virtually constant immersion into the political arena - to not be reanders one almost completely uninformed and likely very badly propagandized by the very system that was intentionally designed to ensure that they remain so. There are few who have a real grasp of this entire picture - I am certainly not one of them, my grasp is little and likely flawed but I feel that I have a general idea - perhaps the future will prove to be enlightening as I expect that it will be.
I think that the decision that President Trump made to lead our nation - optically at least - was one that will long go far too underappreciated. I would add that one thing that Trump did, of many, was NOT toe the line. That's been a huge problem in our government. Far too many simply toe the line and are controlled by other unseen forces behind the curtain, never able to carry out an agenda fully separate and autonomous from those 'powers that be'. I agree that where there's smoke, there's usually fire but I also believe that when one man along with military intelligence go up against an enemy that has become what it is today over a century's time, it is absolutely possible to position as many people as necessary so as to create every last lie and smear piece in an attempt to destroy the man who is literally bringing this enemy down, one brick at a time. And I believe that this 'where's there's smoke there's fire' narrative and belief that Trump is some crazed looney-bin who doesn't know how to choose good people is born out in the fact that Trump intentionally staffed his cabinet with corrupt people from the get-go. But if it isn't understood that the purpose of doing this was 1) to weed out the corrupt and 2) to allow the corrupt to be corrupt and do corrupt things so that they could be fired amd indefinitely barred from US government work then it just appears Trump is a poor choice of character. Couple this with the fact that sufficient payouts and threats of long prison terms will move people to 'flip' when their life and freedom are on the line. The deep state can and has ensured that completely innocent people are jailed and stuffed away to be forever forgotten if it forwards their agendas. Trump's former attorney, Michael Cohen, is a great example of this. Cohen went in honest, was convicted for tax improprieties and lying to congress. When threatened with 150 years prison, he said whatever they wanted to spare his life. Really shifty because had he been honest, he would gave been pardoned without a doubt, of course, that would have been dependent on Trump retaining office and that the status quo didn't win it all.
I'll quit rambling now but it should be obvious today that when Trump declassified everything, he meant everything. We are learning a lot of new things today that we have been lied to about for our entire lives. Everything from Russia to history to science to our world and our very existence. It should be a very exciting time for most people - certainly while our economy implodes in the background and we are returned back to our rightful and constitutionally appropriate economic system, backed by gold and no longer a bottomless free for all bearing neverending sums of cash for evil & corrupt politicians and the like, to play with at the expense of our necessary exposure to high inflation and payback terms. Thank you again for being cordial. I just look forward to the day when all people, or at least most recognize what is truth and what is not truth when it comes to Trump. He is literally the one stop gap measure between us and those who want us all dead. I think there's something to be said there. 👍👍
There IS something to be said there - we have reached an unfortunate impasse where many feel that a personality like Trump's, who giveth not a single shit, is what's necessary to combat the other side's acquiescence to their extremes taking over their policy points. And it may well be true. The difference (as I have experienced it in my admittedly limited way) is seen in your response, where you are able to acknowledge "your guy's" shortcomings (like "poor choice of character") despite supporting him. Most Republicans (of course some extremists abound) seem capable of doing this - they just feel that he's our best option, warts and all. But most Democrats I know look at Biden like the cult at Jonestown looked at Jim Jones, completely blind to his issues after drinking the Kool-Aid.
We can't be thinking for ourselves, and claiming to be free, if we can't see an entire picture. The only way out is to find candidates who don't require us to constantly defend them. Maybe by 2028, when these two are out of the running, we'll start getting back to that.
Hey, I can dream, can't I?