Debbie Wasserman Shultz, disgraced ex-chairwoman of the DNC and connoisseur of political corruption, is once again battling tidal waves of truth with political "us vs. them" rhetoric. A staffer working for Wasserman Shultz is being charged with fraudulent bank dealings and physical theft from House of Representatives members' offices.
Wasserman Shultz is now defending the staffer, Imran Awan, after he was caught, after previous charges were filed, attempting to flee the country to his home nation of Pakistan with thousands of dollars of cash in hand. Although the charges against Awan seem entirely legitimate, to say the least, Wasserman Shultz now not only defending the former employee, but has attributed his legal troubles to islomophobic law enforcement.
Debbie is no stranger to deserved defamation, and it's hard to imagine her reputation or credibility slipping any lower, but there are still many that will jump to defend her and Awan, regardless of the truth. The fact that Wasserman Shultz is not, in this case, being entirely discounted out-of-hand is evidence that many would rather defend a political side than the truth.
The political climate in America is no longer conducive of the rational, or even the obvious. The poison hanging around our civil discourse is one that divides to conquer. The nature of the illness is to infect and corrupt all of a host's opinions, simplifying the- often good-natured or well-meaning- positions of a person to basic right vs. wrong dichotomies based solely on political lines.
Last year, as a nation, we were treated to the most absurd election in generations and, as a side effect, our nation dropped off the cliff at the end of the slippery slope of ideocracy. Many libertarians are privy to the angst of being mislabeled as red or blue while pointing out the painful inconsistencies in either of 2016's candidates. Even mention Hillary's emails or Trump's rhetoric and you might as well be a Russian spy or a globalist anti-american. The same goes for any of either's cronies.