Saturday, January 20, 2018

Lincoln Did Nothing Wrong

Many, including Newt Gingrich,  have noted the similarities between the reception Donald Trump has received in Washington and that of the first Republican president. Abraham Lincoln was called the "Original Gorilla" and was ridiculed for his appearance, for his speech, for the way he ate...everything was maliciously scrutinized. Sound familiar? There was no slander or slur that was too low to be levied at the new president. If you visit the Lincoln Presidential Library in Springfield, IL, as you wind through Lincoln's life there is a hallway dedicated to the insults he was subjected to. Many quotes are displayed on the walls as you pass, and some spoken over a speaker system. The intention is to convey some of the shock and disorientation Lincoln may have experienced at being exposed to such hateful lunacy.

It harkens back to yesterday's post, that although there seems to be plenty of cause for despair, none of this is a new problem. It seems to be the fundamental problem of humanity, one that ancient wise men well understood. To use their metaphor, there are a great many people who wish to regurgitate all the fruit they ever consumed from the Tree of Knowledge, and to return to a state of blissful ignorance in the walled garden. The desire to do so is understandable. Genesis lists just some of the costs man pays for the burden of knowledge. No one ever said being human was easy. If people wish to renounce the essence of their humanity and live in ignorance, I see no reason not to let them. But they can't then wield political influence. They can't be given a legitimate platform in the realm of rational debate, or to vote in elections. Their presence destroys those things, and we are all drug down into a pre-cognitive hell of pure emotion. We can't have rational spaces if we don't vigilantly exclude the deliberately irrational.

Lincoln is regarded as a national hero, but still there are many who despise him to this day, especially civil libertarians. There are two major issues people have with the man. First was his decision to preserve the union by force. Many feel the union should be a voluntary association of mutual benefit, not some Mafia-like enterprise where you're free to join, but you can't ever leave. We're told that America initially operated with the looming question hanging over it of whether states were free to leave, a question which Lincoln answered decisively in the negative. Because of Lincoln, his detractors tell us, we are forever to be subjected to federal tyranny.

I don't actually buy into this. I don't think Lincoln answered the question for all time. He answered the question in the context of his particular time and place. It probably made sense at that time to fight to preserve the unity of English colonies. That doesn't mean it would make sense to fight today to prevent, say, Calexit. California is white-minority, and increasingly so, and the populace and their elected leaders make every effort to refute America's people, her values, and her laws. (In the populous areas, anyway.) Why would we fight to keep that? It serves us no benefit to govern such a place. It would be more sensical, at this point, to invite them to leave, and to compel the rest of the ingrates within our borders to join them. I predict that, at the next tumultuous period of warfare that occurs, we won't see countries expanding to build vast empires, as in the last century, but consolidating to produce manageable ethnostates. It's hard to imagine the world would react any other way to a protracted era of multiculturalism, and there is plenty of historical precedent.

The other issue people have with Lincoln is his decision to imprison many journalists for war-time sedition. I agreed with this when I was younger. What is the point of defending American unity if you're going to discard all her ideals? Well, America is a nation, not an ideal, no matter what liberals like Lindsay Graham might tell you. And even then, the thing about ideals is that the devil is always in the details. It's easy to denounce Lincoln without understanding the context of the late 1860s. After watching the way our media has behaved these last couple years, I understand that they are completely seditious. I have not a doubt in my mind that Lincoln behaved properly in handling them, and probably with excessive undue restraint.

A lot of people won't ever be able to get past this. "The media has freedom of speech!" they shout. Thus the president can't shut them down for their words. The First Amendment really needs to be rewritten to state freedom of political expression, which is obviously the intended meaning. At no point ever was it taken to mean the freedom to say anything at all. There is all kinds of speech that is rightfully illegal. With the media, we give them license to print as they wish, under the assumption that they are making an attempt to disseminate the truth. There is a world of difference between a paper which tells truths that damage the government and a paper which tells lies that damage the government. The former is a vital process of exchanging truth in a political system where the free-flow of truthful information is absolutely critical. The latter is sedition. The major error made today is that so many falsely equate truthful media with lying media. It's sort of like comparing an investor who gets you a great return with one who takes all your life savings and flees the country. These are not comparable things.

Today's media do very little besides lie, and they lie to damage the elected government. They've done everything possible to bestow legitimacy upon a legal investigation against the president based on unsubstantiated "research" funded by his opponent. If that is not sedition, then the laws must be stricken from the books, because sedition does not exist. Check out this article, called 10 Of The Dumbest Questions Reporters Asked During Trump’s Health Press Conference. Look how desperate these reporters are to twist the medical report into something that will be damaging to the president. They accuse the doctor (appointed by Obama) of lying, by omitting details or providing a false body weight. This is exactly how we say they operate - they turn any reality into a negative against Trump - and here they are performing the act on camera in front of the American public! Realize that this is the process going on in every newsroom in America about every potential news story. "How can we contort the truth to damage the president?" That is sedition, not journalism.

If Trump followed Lincoln's lead and imprisoned the most egregious offenders, do you think that would be a net benefit to the country? I can't see how it wouldn't. These false slanderers are doing the devil's work. Who says the devil should be permitted to carry on his work unhindered? The moral dilemma that would arise is, if governments can imprison inconvenient lying journalists, what is to stop them in the future from imprisoning inconvenient truthful journalists, a favored tactic of dictators everywhere? Well, the difference is whether or not the journalist is truthful. Those who reject the fruit of knowledge can't possibly make the distinction. Only those who dedicate themselves to understanding the truth could make the correct determination. In America, the brainwashed masses are the decision makers and, since they could not possibly come to a proper assessment, we just treat all journalists the same, no matter their degree of honesty. No one has the right to distinguish between truth and lies.

We can't continue like this forever. We all know that eventually someone will have to do something about the lying press. Trump won't use state power to suppress them, as much as they pretend he is already doing so. He is doing his best to destroy them in the court of public opinion. I hope it works, but I retain ample pessimism. He may, like Lincoln, find that the only way to preserve the union is to force shut the spigot of chaos.

Friday, January 19, 2018

Age of Evil

There's something really disheartening going on here, which isn't something I've been dealing with so much as holding at bay. A lot of what gets written here is pointing out irrationality where it exists, ridiculing it a bit, and hopefully at least getting a couple laughs out of the deal. But much of this is just therapeutic exercise for the author (and I imagine many readers as well). To be honest, I am deeply disturbed to my core about all this rampant irrationality.

They say many people are traumatized when they grow up and realize that their parents and other adult figures in their lives are not exceptional; that they are just regular people. Children grow up sort of idolizing adults and revering them (or at least they used to). It's understandable how it could be a difficult perception shift. But what about growing up and realizing half of your fellow countrymen don't even rightfully deserve to called human? I know that dehumanizing your opponent is the hallmark of extremism, but how else do you describe people who dismiss their unique faculties that make them human? What is most alarming has not been the people who are not good at discerning truth, or even the people who easily fall for pleasant lies, but that people can have truth presented directly before them, and they carry on as if it never happened. How do you account for that in your worldview? How do you not become militant? The apparent solution seems to be, "we must take the world by force, because it won't be reasoned with."

Some examples, which you're all familiar with: The Project Veritas videos are damning. Not only do they show people on tape detailing the crimes they commit, they also prove that the media outlets and authorities aren't even trying to do proper investigative journalism. Liberals, over half of America, just pretend they don't exist! And if you really push them, they might say, "oh, they're fake." It's that easy! The same with the tens of thousands of leaked Democrat emails, which showed how they rigged their own primary, among other scandals (like pay-to-play). Totally dismissed by the left. But then the reversal, that those emails were the product of Trump colluding with Russia to rig the election, now that's a belief they can get behind! It makes your head spin, and we could go on recounting this like this forever. They're now to the point of literally saying "objective truth is racist."

So there are two dynamics here. One is that people will intentionally ignore truth so that they can embrace nontruth. But the other is that people are doing everything possible to spread lies. What dynamic does that sound like? I'm not a particularly religious person, but I was raised Catholic, and to me this sounds a lot like the forces of Satan, who was the slanderer, or spreader of lies and chaos. That is literally what is happening here. That may make things sound even worse, but it should actually grant a degree of re-assurance. This is nothing people haven't dealt with before; it's a battle as old as time! Writers like Brett Stevens, who is heavily influenced by Nietzsche, believe that we have long left the Age of Reason and now find ourselves in the Age of Ideology. I wonder if we aren't more rightly in the Age of Evil. I don't know if "ideology" quite conveys the predominant characteristic of outright rejection of presented truths. But then, maybe that's exactly what ideology means: a belief system that perpetuates despite all apparent reality.

In the last few years I've taken the time to read at least the major dystopian future novels, and they seem to have all missed the ability of people to just discard unpleasant truth like rain off of windshield wipers. 1984's Doublethink is similar but doesn't capture the phenomenon. In doublethink a person can hold two contradicting ideas at the same time. But the reality is there aren't two contradicting ideas; they've routed out the annoying contradiction completely. [There needs to be a new dystopian novel written to describe this.] I tested this on my facebook some time ago. A liberal was preaching abut Trump not disavowing right-wing violence at Charlottesville. I wrote, "Trump should have said something like this," and then pasted the relevant text of Trump's speech. He took my bait, and asked why Trump didn't say something like that. Then I closed the trap, and told him it actually was Trump's actual comment. He never commented after that, and I knew why. If he commented, it would mean he'd have to acknowledge he read it. By ignoring it, he could pretend he'd never read it and flush the incident away; it didn't happen. It was amusing to see a few months later he again posted something similar. This was his cognitive dissonance. He had surely washed our encounter from his mind, but there was something somewhere bugging him, so he posted the claim again to reassure himself.

You can easily see this in the Biblical metaphor. These people don't want to have to deal with truth. They'd way rather hear the pleasant lies of Satan. When Satan has his way, civilization crumbles, and that is exactly what is happening. I mean this guy is a freaking math professor, and he refuses to know what words the president really spoke, which is easily verified, because he wants to fuel the hate in his heart. If math professors can throw away all logic, what hope does anyone else have?

I think this is the great failure of direct democracy. Evil forces tell whatever lies they can to the public to get their votes, which is the key to power. The people are so overwhelmed with lies they can't rationally tell them apart, so they stick to whatever makes them feel the best. Whoever sells the best emotions gets the prize. Thus democracy doesn't do the one thing it pretends to do, which is to distribute decision-making to ensure some rationality. In fact, it ensures that rationale decisions are unlikely! And in addition, everyone is miserable because they're saturated with lies. Everything becomes fake and debauchery takes hold. Good people won't pick the right side, because they just assume everyone is equally lying. So even when you have a compelling case, it doesn't matter. No one trusts that you're not just making up a sweet-sounding lie, like everyone else.

I've got no positive silver-lining to finish with. These are dark times, and there is no easy way out. Ultimately, we're not going to reason our way out of this. We aren't going to "wake up" enough people and set things right. Deception is inherent to our political system. We're only going to change things by force, or we just wait around long enough until the thing collapses on itself, and see what we can do there. So our options are war or societal collapse. Surely there must be a good third option. Does the good book actually give a precedent for defeating overwhelming evil?

Thursday, January 18, 2018

Krugman: High Priest of Economics

On Nov 9, 2016, Paul Krugman - the media's leading economist - wrote his initial response to the presidential election. He stated that the markets were "plunging" and would "never" recover. He predicted the onset of a "global recession, with no end in sight."

This prediction was met with acceptance by the mainstream media. No one ever countered Krugman's dire forecast with something like, "No, the American economy will actually soar for the next year thanks to trends set by Obama." No one made that prediction, or anything close to that. On Nov 9, 2016, the media pundits agreed that this was now Trump's economy, and it would be a nightmare from which we might never wake up.

Over a year later and the economy has had its best year, ever. The markets had a record year. Unemployment is at record lows for minorities. Everyone is getting bonuses, businesses are expanding. Suddenly we're being told that actually this in fact IS Obama's economy after all. Trump is riding the wave the Obama created. Krugman himself put forth the theory just this month that, in fact, the economy WAS suppressed under Obama's adept leadership due to "Republican opposition" to stimulus. (Krugman doesn't attempt the obvious follow-on question: why then did the economy roar to life under Trump, without stimulus?)

After months of gloom-and-doom and Trump's economy, it has finally become inescapable that the economy has been 10/10. So now suddenly it's to Obama's credit. Whatever your opinions, consistency must be maintained. If liberals believe this economy is somehow attributable to the previous administration, then they must acknowledge Krugman was not just wrong, but as wrong as an economist could possibly be. How is that marginally acceptable? Krugman certainly does not deserve the position of world's most prominent economist if he's going to call a global recession right before a record-smashing bull run, all because he can't control his hatred for the man elected. As long as the left does not unseat Krugman, the game they're playing can only be this: everything good is thanks to Obama, everything bad is because of evil Trump. It's just religious superstition. (All good comes from God, all evil comes from the devil.) Krugman is merely a high priest in a belief system that so far has been unable to make a single accurate prediction.

Wednesday, January 17, 2018

The Unfalsifiable Left

There is only one real requirement that any hypothesis must have: it must be testable. It must make some predictions about the world, which can then be compared against reality. If the predictions match the observations, then the hypothesis is supported. If they contradict, then the hypothesis must be reworked or abandoned.

If there are no possible observations that could contradict a hypothesis, then it is unusable, because it is untestable. Superstring theory was all the rage for a time in the physics world, but has been mostly tabled because no one knows how they could actually test it. Belief in aliens would fit the bill. How do you disprove their existence? Believers can always just claim they've shrouded themselves with some super-advanced technology that we can't fathom. It's possible, but since we can't test the hypothesis, it's best that we focus our energy on other testable hypotheses which can expand human knowledge. It's also the reason that we don't have to prove our innocence to an accuser. It is often very difficult to prove one didn't do something, so the burden of proof falls on the accuser.

Someone might still support a hypothesis that is unfalsifiable, but such support must be called a belief. They believe the notion, even though it is outside the realm of empirical judgement. At the very least, these beliefs should be personally held and not imposed onto others.

It seems that the platform of the modern left consists entirely of unfalsifiable hypotheses. It's not that there are no observations that could reasonably invalidate the theories, it's that there are no observations that could convince the holders of the belief to invalidate it. Here's a tool you can use if you're ever in a debate with a liberal (heaven forbid) on nearly any subject. Once you find out their irrational belief (they'll let you know!), work in the question: what evidence would cause you to change your mind? There's a good chance they won't be able to provide any, and may even admit that they will never change their mind, no matter how much evidence. Certainly they will have never thought of questioning their beliefs this way, and if they do manage some ad hoc answer it will be easily fielded.

Let's look at just a few examples of unfalsifiable hypotheses of the left.

Global warming. Their theory of manmade global warming cannot be debunked. Hot weather is proof. Cold weather is proof. Hurricanes are proof (even when they come after a notably long dry spell). There are no observations that would dissuade the believers. If the earth glaciated from pole to pole they'd blame it on carbon emissions.

Russia. What evidence would dissuade liberals from believing Trump teamed up with Russia to rig the election? (By, of course, revealing the evidence that Hillary rigged the primaries.) The fact that the witch hunt was triggered by an absurd Democrat-funded PeePee dossier doesn't phase them, nor that the investigation has turned up nothing. The thing is, they've already flipped this on its head. They're forcing the accused to prove his innocence. Even after the kangaroo court has run its course, they'll still believe it happened, Trump just got away with it. Look a how the responded to Comey. First, Trump keeping him on was proof the Trump was protecting his buddy Comey. After Comey was canned, it was proof of obstruction of justice! There was no acceptable action possible.

Trump fitness. After a bunch of squawking that Trump is not psychologically fit for office, Trump had his doctor perform a cognitive screening during his physical. The chorus from the left was predictable. "Just because a person is sharp doesn't mean he's fit for office." "Well it didn't test psychological disorders." "The doctor is a military officer who answers to Trump. We must investigate!" (Never mind that the doctor was appointed by Obama.) There is nothing in this world that will convince these people Trump is fit for office. He needn't have bothered with the screening. The same goes from their belief he is a racist and so on. No possible evidence in the world will change their minds. These are beliefs. You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

Socialism. How many times has it been tried? How many times has it led to disaster? It doesn't matter, because they weren't "real" socialism. Socialism could rise a million times and kill a million people each time and they'd still say, "hey man, it's time we try socialism for once!"

Those are just a few examples. No reason to go very deep, because the real question I have is, what liberal beliefs are not unfalsifiable hypotheses?

Tuesday, January 16, 2018

Lindsay Graham Plays the Lib Card

It seems I have picked up this flu that's going around, so the economics posts will just have to be delayed for a while.

I was reading this article from the Hill, where another lawmaker has refuted that Trump made the shithole comments which has been all the media rage. That's all interesting enough, but what really jumped out was the quote from Lindsay Graham at the very bottom of the page.
"I've always believed that America is an idea, not defined by its people but by its ideals," Graham said.
This is Graham outdoing himself to declare allegiance to The Cult. "I believe America is a proposition nation. Please please please...just don't call me a racist." To some extent, America is a proposition nation. To what extent it is has been debated since the beginning. Benjamin Franklin questioned the number of Germans who were settling in Pennsylvania, as they differed culturally from the predominately Anglo colonists. It was still assumed that America was a white, European-descended nation until 1965, when Congress decided to prefer non-white immigrants.

We can reasonably accommodate the claim that America is a proposition nation. Even though many of us are becoming increasingly convinced that this won't work out in the long-run, we can at least admit America is a proposition nation, to some degree. Graham doesn't grant any sort of that nuance in his statement. America is not defined by its people. These statements are incredible enough when we hear radical lefties spouting them off, but Graham is a tenured Republican senator from South Carolina! According to Graham, it doesn't matter who makes up the populace. As long as they believe in the idea of America, then nothing will change! So we could move all the white people out, replace them with sub-70 IQ immigrants from places like Haiti, Somalia, and Sudan, and everything would be just the same as it was, save for a trivial change in skin tone. This is absolute fantasy, and flies in the face of all observable reality.

To the extent America is a proposition nation, the proposition is something like this: Each American enjoys certain inalienable rights, and great liberty to live as he wishes, so long as he does not infringe on the inalienable rights of others. That certainly is an important description of the American experiment. But is it sufficient that it alone defines the country, to the point the actual people can be ignored? Of course not. If anything, it gives even more reason for the direction of the country to be shaped by its people. The more liberty a government grants, the more its direction and success depends on the nature of its people. If we imagine a very strict government, where people have very little freedom (say, Communism), then the attributes of the people might be less important. The people will just have to do as they're ordered in any case. But in the US, where people are given a lot of license, we are absolutely dependent on the quality and attributes of our fellow countrymen. You cannot have a liberal democracy coupled to a population that is not intelligent, informed, and moral. The left believes that a liberal democratic state can just be assumed as a default condition. This betrays a very insulated worldview.

Graham doesn't consider any of these thoughts before he runs his mouth. He just recites the liberal slogans he knows will help keep the media from calling him mean names. He is a coward, he is not a leader, and he is a liberal. Most liberals are just people who are afraid to be torched for heresy, so they've adopted the right beliefs and convinced themselves they are sincerely held. Graham is one of them.


Not to be outdone, here is a recent Tweet from Mittens, America's favorite virtue-signaling anti-Trumper.

If the race and poverty of an immigrant are irrelevant, then what is relevant? Well, only their willingness to embrace the "American proposition," I guess. The problem here is that no evidence supports any of this. For instance, statistical analysis shows that a person's income is correlated to the average IQ of the country six times higher than his own IQ. National poverty levels are very telling as to the quality of immigrants from a certain country. Race is highly correlated to IQ as well, and to culture. To say that racial and national attributes of a source country are irrelevant means we really don't have any way to judge immigrants from one country over another. To rational people, that would indicate we should not bring immigrants from anywhere, as we have no way of knowing who is good and who is bad. But to liberals like Romney and Graham, it means we should take all the world's people, because nations don't matter, cultures don't matter, IQs don't matter, morality doesn't matter, genetics don't matter...nothing matters. These people are dealers of degeneracy, and they are even more dangerous than the Democratic lefties because a lot of people think they are actually conservatives! What is it, you must ask yourself, that they are actually trying to conserve?

Saturday, January 13, 2018

Oprah, Mother to the World

Another day bedridden, another day picking some low-hanging fruit. This article, linked on Reddit, describes Oprah's long-term relationship of 30 years with Stedman Graham, and why she has neither gotten married nor born children.

Let's start off here:
“When people were pressuring me to get married and have children, I knew I was not going to be a person that ever regretted having them, because I feel like I am a mother to the world’s children,” Winfrey told Good Housekeeping UK in early 2017.
These are the kinds of attitudes that we in dissident right accuse liberals of having, but no one outside of our own little circle gives it much credit. And why should they? Anyone can offer a nonsense psychoanalysis and make it sound plausible. They do it all the time. Look at their "analyses" of Trump, who, despite how he affects their feelings, keeps beating them over and over in the real world. We believe our particular psychoanalyses are supported by evidence, and here we have the queen bee of the left stating it clearly in plain English. What else is there to argue about?

This kind of attitude, outside of being rich with narcissism and grandeur, is very dangerous, and I would say it's the opposite of our core fundamental principle. The core principle of the left is equality (described in increasingly unrealistic definitions), which they have made into an ideology. The core principle of the right is - and I don't know the proper term for this - solving problems at the lowest level. Conservatives are federalists. They are states-rights activists. They are, largely, skeptical of the federal government. They like to solve problems at the lowest the family level, if possible.

Oprah's statement is the complete opposite. She wants to solve problems at the highest possible level. You can't go any higher than "mother to the world." That's the problem with ideology, it seeks a monolithic top-level control structure. Such things aren't natural in the real world. In software development, the major activity is to abstract out the problem space and find the best level to solve a given problem. Software written monolithically is destined for catastrophe. (Witness the Toyota embedded braking software, or the Obamacare rollout website for examples.) The only way this kind of software can compete on the market is to be a monopoly. Which explains the left's deep desire to disarm the right and suppress them in public discourse in any way possible. Their proposed ideologies can't survive in the face of robust competition.

Much of the article is dedicated to rationalizing why the long-term intimate relationship never transitioned into a family. If we listen to the text of the article, it was largely a matter of circumstance. Her partner even proposed to her, but with the timing of her busy career, it just never panned out. But, as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. This article contains two pictures of the couple, and much less than a thousand words.

You don't have to be a body-language expert for this. Here we have two different shots, which appear to have been taken on the same day. In both photos Mr. Graham is leaned into Miss Winfrey, while she is leaned out. In both photos her body is pointed towards the camera, while he is turned towards her. And finally, the caption shows she refers to him as HoneyGraham. (Luckily my current illness does not include nausea.)

His body language makes him the lesser of the two. And woman do not like to marry their lessers. It's why things can actually be quite difficult for women who rise to the top of the pack. Men don't necessarily date up or down. They're looking for a hot young thing, hopefully one that won't drive them mad. Women want to date up, so that tends to set the dynamic. Oprah doesn't want to marry Graham because she doesn't properly respect him, but she doesn't want to dedicate time to try dating again, plus she must have some inclination as to how that would work out for her.

Imagine the postures of these images were reversed: if he was standing upright (or slightly distanced) and she was leaned and oriented towards him. Do you think she would have rebuked his proposal? I doubt it. She may have even born him children. Then her maternal instincts would be directed more naturally towards her children, rather than at "the world." A lot of people on the alt-right think feminization is destroying the west. The voting habits of unattached women and soy boys would sure seem to corroborate that suspicion. On the other hand, her we see the exemplar of liberalism, the queen bee of the mainstream left, and she's only been able to live life on "her terms" because there exists a man who is happy to let her, and takes whatever deal she gives him.

Friday, January 12, 2018


I'm taking a little break from the economics posts since I'm home sick. I don't think my head could handle thinking about monetary theory right now. So instead today I'll engage in a favorite hobby that takes very little cognitive effort: demonstrating how liberals are dumb.

The big news of the now from the left seems to be ShitholeGate. If you haven't heard, apparently Trump is reported (by an anonymous source) to have called Haiti a shithole in a private meeting about immigration. Then the story was altered that Trump hadn't called Haiti a shithole but had rejected additional immigration from the country, and had used the term shithole in reference to a couple of unspecified African countries. There are three possible scenarios here, each of them ridiculous.

First scenario: Trump didn't call any country a shithole. I mean, we don't really know. The left want to believe a story from the NYT based on an anonymous source. How many times have they been burned by that? It would be just delightful if a transcript or recording surfaces that shows the phrase wasn't even uttered. There is also proof of insane bias in the media, if we needed more. The media never gave any attention to sources who claimed Hillary Clinton said terrible things behind closed doors. If they are only willing to engage in these kinds of speculative spectacles for Trump, well it just further proves that the media primarily is partisan propaganda.

Second scenario: Trump said it. What if he did? What if he called two African counties shitholes? Does the media really want to take the stance that there are not two shitholes in Africa? How much more absurd could they be? Everyone knows most African countries are shitholes. Haiti is as well and, guess what, Haitians loathe Hillary Clinton because her family embezzled so much of the disaster relief funds after their major earthquake. In other words, Hillary Clinton is a major reason Haiti is a shithole. What about Africa...isn't Libya a shithole? Didn't Hillary Clinton play a pivotal in transforming Libya from a success (by African standards) into a lawless hellhole where slaves are sold in open-air markets? This is not the only African country to be graced by the Clintons. The documentary Clinton Cash showed how they sold their political clout to grant legitimacy to violent African dictators. This family has played a significant role in these countries' continued shithole status, but it's Trump that gets all the heat for making the obvious observation? I was wrong before, all this absurdity actually does hurt my head.

Third scenario: Trump said it and he had it leaked. Very possible this is true. He's a master of making statements worded in such a way that the media will jump all over it, but the message is one the majority of Americans agree with. Of course most Americans think Haiti and Africa are shitholes. It's another example of a "controversy" where Trump gets tons of attention saying things that most Americans say themselves. Also, this sends a loud message to Trump's base, that he is out their fighting for the foremost issue that got him elected: immigration. This whole thing only hurts him with the people who already despise him, and we aren't primarily concerned with those lunatics anyway.