Russia vs. Bengazi

by Glenn Littrell

Sometimes it is very disheartening to see how some peoples thought processes work. How we process information and make judgments, and form opinion reveals how we use and apply critical thought and how we apply critical thought usually shows whether or not we are hypocritical or consistent in how we make judgments, form opinions, lead our lives, raise our children, etc.

Do we have consistent moral codes, creeds, and behaviors? Do we form opinions based on thought out and tested methods? Do we practice or espouse rules of life to our children that stand up in all situations and make consistent sense across the board in real life? Are our rules for life well thought out and consistent rules that are tempered with compassion and foresight.

OR,

Do we pick our morality from a hodgepodge of situations? Are our rules for life, justice, and behavior varied by the whim of what pleases us at the moment, serves our emotional feeling, or our own pleasure? Are our rules for life based on situational ethics that falter or grow with our emotional and personal whim or fancy?

Concerning the issue of Russian meddling post on Facebook:

I would like to hope your question is rhetorical or that you're just trying to stir the pot.

If you truly believe that the meddling is no big deal because it didn't actually change the outcome of the election then I suppose that you feel drunk driving is only a problem when it results in injury? (No harm, no foul)

If you believe the outcome of the election was inevitable, that he would have won anyway, then I suppose you feel the rule of law only applies when it is applied to support your opinion or change the outcome in your favor? (The end justifies the means)

If you believe that 'everybody does it' makes it right I suppose things like date rape, theft, drugs, perjury, etc., are OK if they're common, or perceived to be common events? (If your friends jumped off a cliff would you?)

So your moral code, sense of right and wrong, the lessons you teach your children through words or deeds are:

• No harm, no foul.
• The end justifies the means.
• If your friends jumped off a cliff, it alright if you do.

Now you continue your use of 'situational ethics' when you choose to ignore the fact that it was your saintly Trump who raised the issue of election meddling (until he won) and threatened criminal action and investigation before the election. A master of loose and inconsistent ethics.

The irony of calling for the stop of the investigation, not a conclusion, because it has drawn on for 'so long':

• After we endured 4 years and 10 investigations over Benghazi with what results?
• Before that, the Republican'ts spent 40 million over 4 years to prove a man would lie about having an affair. (Bill Clinton).

I don't recall one of the people now calling for an end to the current investigation registering the same complaint before 2016.

NOTE: Since Nixon the Republicans have controlled the Presidency a year and a half longer than the Democrats, yet the Republicans constantly complain about the Democrats ruining America as if they were never in power to change or fix things. Whether you consider the Republicans blameless or not you should to consider that:

• The Republicans have succeeded in little by their own account.
• If it doesn’t concern defense contracts or tax cuts for the wealthy there are few Republican accomplishments in regard to successful legislation.

As an independent bleeding-moderate I tend to vote left-of-center on most issues not by party, but by issues as I’ve never belonged to either party. It is my observation that Democrats tend to campaign for things… change and progress, and Republicans tend to campaign against things, only citing their policy’s and not their accomplishments, which are few.