When there is a plan set up to be fair and equal and one side gets tired of losing, impeaches their leader (Clinton) on the other side and he still wins the next election, then they discover or simply decide to stoop to anything in order to win, at any or all costs to themselves, or to anyone, and when they do begin to win, does it not make the once fair and equal plan if nothing else, unequal. If not outright broken? Then to soothe their disheveled egos they merely point away and blame the other side for actions they themselves initiated and prefer time and again.
So how is the other side to adjust?
Stoop to underhanded, and similar even at times illegal means, or try to regain the upper hand through the old and accepted, that is, once considered honest methods?
Even when those methods no longer seem to function?
And what do you say when the ideology of the other side was so warped that it made their opponents appear at least to them, skewed, dishonest, untenable? Even those most of the rest of the entire world disagrees with them?
IF they then decide out of, if nothing else, sheer frustration to stoop to the actions of their now no longer opponents but simple enemies, then what is there left for everyone?
Anarchy and winner take all? That is what the first side chose.
Does that mean that now everyone has to live by their unfair and untenable rules? In a once fair and equal plan now no longer functional?
For then all those between and all those beneath will really be the true losers.
But how in such a post-truth society, does the more fair and honest side even attempt to try to restore equilibrium? When their actions will decrease the other side unfairly winning, who will then blame the fairer side for using underhanded means? When they are merely trying to restore a functioning system and a fair plan where merit should win and the powerful should have their place?
Is then restoring sanity and fairness, equality even if it had been unequal, to be again functional, even possible any longer?
Or, was that the unfair side's point in the first place? To break, to end, to raise up a new aristocracy, a new autocracy, a new kleptocracy that is openly vain and greedy, and accepted first by their supporters knowledgeable in their complicity, then by their supporters ignorant of their having cast the weight into those had always had been their enemies, until finally accepted eventually by all in simply no longer having any other choice?
What exactly do we really want to be?