Election Aftermath – 5

b0a7ee87-8f4c-423f-ae98-d26b389ada68-2060x1236I mentioned in my second post in this seven-day The Aftermath series that I had purposely been consuming a bit more than my usual amount of daily media coverage in order to get a good feel for whatever post-election climate was developing. Now, after consuming that higher-than-usual share of media coverage for five post-election days, I’ll mention two more observations/conclusions to add to what I have shared in posts two, three and four.

The “Gimme” Mentality

First, in a conversation a good friend of mine and I had last Friday, he said something that has resonated with me in my daily mental “cataloging” of thoughts about content for upcoming posts to this blog. He said “One thing that stands out to me is how large the ‘gimme’ population is”. That remark has come to my mind several times since then as I’ve since seen pictures and video clips of demonstrators carrying signs and chanting “What do we want? (Whatever)!. When do we want it? Now!”.

Relating these demonstrations to other “anti this” and “pro that” demonstrations that go on all the time amplifies the underlying concept my friend was elucidating — too many people these days seem to believe that when they think something would be a good thing to have, “somebody” should “give” it to them — and that “they” should “give” it to them now. That is a very dangerous mentality, and it is contrary to the fundamental tenets of this country’s founding.

The mechanics of our democratic republic were not designed to provide instant gratification. In fact, they were intentionally designed to avoid changes that might, in the absence of safeguards built into them, fail to allow for the Law of Unintended Consequences — i.e., unforeseen new problems often caused by implementation of the “solution” to an existing problem. One example of these safeguards is the fact that there are two- [for Representatives], four- [for the President], and six- [for Senators] year terms, so there is never a single election in which all incumbents could be removed from office [although many people — at times, I must admit, including me — think that might not be such a bad idea!].  Another example is the President’s authority to veto legislation passed by the Legislature [which in most situations requires only a simple majority vote], and still another is the Legislature’s authority override a Presidential veto with a 2/3 vote in both the House and the Senate.

The mechanics of our democratic republic were designed, however, to empower citizens to do two things: 1) garner enough support among their fellow citizens to bring causes they believe to be important to the attention of their elected Legislators [with the goal of ultimately producing legislation furthering those causes]; and 2) run for office themselves and/or support and vote for candidates whose ideologies and/or modus operandi align with theirs. Neither of these two things provides instant gratification. They both require knowledge of and involvement in the mechanics of our governmental processes — and they both require dedication of time, often years.

Too Many People Have Too Much Time on Their Hands

The second observation/conclusion I’d offer in this post is that we have too many people with too much time on their hands. Although demonstrations are a right stemming from the First Amendment [and in my opinion have at times been a force for good in our history], I believe there is something we should learn from much of that activity going on now. First, and unfortunately, “real” unemployment [including people who have dropped out of the workforce altogether] is at an historically high level. I am among those who believe that the outcome of this election will result in improvement in the employment situation more rapidly than would have been the case under Democrat control, but large-scale improvement will not be immediate.  Essentially, through the election, we have done all we can do at the moment for that segment of people with too much time on their hands.

Another big segment of people with too much time on their hands is college students [many of the current demonstrations are on college campuses or are dominated by college students even though they are occurring in the streets of the cities where those colleges are located].  There has been a huge shift over the past few decades in the general mentality of college students.  When I was in college, we had a “soap box” area where people could voice their opinions about issues of the time. At most times on any given day, somebody was on the “soapbox” doing exactly that, and there was usually a small crowd around whoever was speaking. But most students simply did not have the time to be involved in demonstrations requiring them to be away from their classes most of a day or their study time at night.

I earned about half my college expenses for my first two years, and more than 75% of them during my last two years. I was in an Engineering program, which at that time required 143 semester hours for graduation [fewer than half of Engineering students were getting that done in four years]. I didn’t get it done in four years on my intelligence, but on my perseverance and determination. My wife was a year younger, and with equal perseverance and determination, condensed her academic schedule in Education to three years so we could graduate together.

My point is not an attempt at self-aggrandizement, and I know that there are many college students today who have similar stories, but this kind of focus does not seem to be the dominant mentality on college campuses these days. There seems to be less focus on what college is supposed to be [preparation for a productive career] and more on the social and avocational elements of college life.

It is my sincere hope that changes in the underlying causes of both of these sources of idle time will wane as our economy improves, and that the reasons for the demonstrations will diminish as well. I believe the outcome of this election will result in a climate in which both of these things will happen.

Thanks!

img_7026 img_7043

Charles M. Jones

Election Aftermath – 4


Media coverage of demonstrations [which are fine if peaceful] and riotous tantrums seems to indicate that they are waning.  I hope that is true, and that the orderly transition almost [see below]  all of our leaders, both Democrat and Republican, say is what we need now that the election is behind us.

So why did I say “almost” all leaders? It seems a fitting exit for Harry Reid [who is not seeking re-election] that he would be the exception. I am looking forward to no longer seeing him stand almost completely motionless at podiums as he reads speeches written for him like he’s afraid some of his handlers might chastise him if he misses a single word or makes one minute deviation from the script. Speaking in precise monotones, he interrupts his completely motionless state maybe once or twice, glancing up in an attempt to present the illusion that he is conscious.

I would not cheapen this post by actually providing a link to Reid’s letter, but will simply say that that phraseology used by a United States Senator, particularly the second highest person in its leadership, grossly diminishes the little respect that a small minority of our citizens still have for the Senate as an institution, and confirm my rationale for already thinking that by blocking practically everything Republicans tried to do, he has probably been an even worse Senate minority [previously majority] leader than Barack Obama was a President. He could easily have gotten his points across with less derogatory terminology and at least some respect for the office if not the person.

I sincerely appreciated West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin [technically an Independent, but essentially a Democrat since he caucuses with (and almost 100% of the time votes with) them] denouncing Reid’s remarks. … “Senator Harry Reid’s statement today attacking President-elect Trump is wrong! It is an absolute embarrassment to the Senate as an institution, our Democratic party, and the nation. I want to be very clear, he does not speak for me”.

Most Democrats are about as far removed philosophically from me as would be possible, but I respect all but this one [Reid] of their leaders who [as far as I’m aware] have shown at least perfunctory respect for President Elect Trump by publicly stating their desire for an orderly and peaceful transition.

Shame on Senator Reid, and thanks to Senator Manchin for openly rebuking his Minority Leader for such crass and disrespectful remarks.  … And thanks to other Democrat leaders who have been much more gracious in articulating their thoughts about the events of this week.

img_7026 img_7043

Charles M. Jones

Election Aftermath – 3

Out of respect for our veterans on this day that we honor them each year, I’ll make this post short and to the point. The rights of all citizens of this nation exist because our founding fathers were willing to step up to the challenges and risks of forming this nation and for these rights say “We sacrifice our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor”. These rights have been preserved and defended by thousands of brave men and women who have fought and died to protect them — and they are still being protected today by the finest military forces on the planet.

It is appalling to me to see the hatred and vitriol on display after the 11/8/16 election. It dishonors the people who gave these very protestors their right to protest. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. set the bar for peaceful, non-violent protests as a way to raise the country’s consciousness of issues.  People ostensibly representing both “the Clinton side” and “the Trump side” are passing so far under that bar that they don’t even see that it’s there.

I hope and pray that all of this is just “flash in the pan” temper tantrums being thrown by those who feel they lost and unwarranted gloating by those who feel they won, and that it will subside quickly as all of them realize how foolish they look. All of them need to realize that they are first Americans, and then members of whatever constituency(ies) they identify with. Without that attitude, this nation will not survive in the long run.

Thanks to our veterans, living and dead, and thanks to the men and women currently serving in all branches of the military today. We appreciate what you do, and we respect you for your willingness to protect the freedoms we all enjoy. People in the streets who are holding vitriolic signs and shouting hateful and profane threats and destroying property are not rising to the bar set by Dr. King, are they are not representative of the massive numbers of Americans who will not see this post but who I am certain would join me in saying what I’ve said here.

Thank you!

img_7026 img_7043

Charles M. Jones

Election Aftermath – 2

poster227x227-2Note. … After purposely consuming a bit more than my usual amount of media coverage over the past 36 hours or so since the election outcome was known, I decided to take a different approach in this seven-day “Election Aftermath” series than I outlined in yesterday’s first post of the series. Although I will probably incorporate into remaining posts some results of the “number-crunching” I mentioned in that first post, the overall purpose of this series will now be to assess and comment on the unfolding post-election climate.

In a way, I guess it’s encouraging to me that the only negative I got from the victory and concession speeches of 11/9/16 was the “glass ceiling” reference Hillary Clinton made in her concession speech. I call that a negative because the outcome of this election had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the defeated candidate was a woman, but everything to do with the fact that she is a “standard politician”. Running against a person like Trump, she [or he] would have been defeated whether she/he was a woman, an African American, a Latina/Latino, an Asian American, or whatever. By the same token, had the Republican candidate been a “standard politician”, too [which would have been the case if one of at least 14 of the other 16 initial contestants had won the nomination], a Clinton win might have been more likely. Although ideological drivers were clearly at work, too, this election was mostly about fixing Washington. People are simply fed up with the current dysfunctional government in this country. They want something that will work, and things like which major party our leaders are in, or what their race or their sex is, simply don’t matter any more.

So what else about the post-election climate stands out so far? Without hesitation, I can say it’s all the demonstrations going on. Democrats [and of course, the media] were the ones that pounced on Trump’s hesitation to say up front that he would accept the election outcome. In that debate, Clinton quickly gave the “standard politician” response: “Yes”. For the rest of the campaign, she touted that “peaceful transition of power” was a “hallmark of our democracy”, and that Trump’s refusal to say he would accept the outcome “no matter what” was deplorable.

Fast forward to now. Demonstrations that cause traffic blockages, “keying” cars, breaking store windows, starting fires … the very people whose leaders [yes, both Obama and Clinton!] have graciously expressed their own support for an orderly transition are doing exactly what those same leaders have denounced and called deplorable. In fact, what they are doing is much worse — damaging property, and putting lives in danger. The vitriol and the hateful remarks are at least as bad if not worse than anything Trump has said, even including his disgusting remarks in the now-infamous 2005 video released by NBC. It appears to me that if these people are a valid sample of Clinton’s supporters, she was referring to the wrong people when she called Trump’s supporters a “basket of deplorables”.

In order to make one last important point in this post, let me mention one other remark Trump made that many people considered inappropriate and was picked up and amplified in the media and in the campaign … Lately, he has referred to the election process as being “rigged”. I believe his opponent, and the media, failed to grasp the scope of what he meant. Everybody denouncing that remark referred to dead people voting, multiple votes being cast by the same person, etc. — i.e., actual fraudulent activity — and gave the “standard politician” response that there is no hard evidence that any of this is actually going on.

Back to the “issue” of Trump’s refusal to say up front that he would accept the outcome of the election, and relating it to his “the system is rigged” remarks, what everybody who pounced on him about both of these “issues” failed to take into account was that Trump might have had a broader-scope view of them than any of them had. I believe the scope of his “rigged” remark extended to how the Electoral College system works [not whether or not it’s a valid system — just how both parties have learned to manipulate it], the presence of Super Delegates in the Democrat Party nomination process [and outwardly different but conceptually similar components of the Republican Party nomination process], and how liberally biased the media is [which results in grossly disproportionate “free air time” that supports the liberal candidate].

In the same way, his refusal to just answer up front with a simple “Yes” to the question “Will you say now that you will accept the outcome of the election?” was less about selfishness and narcissism than it was about a shrewd businessmen simply giving an answer that harmed nobody and wouldn’t affect his electability — and doing so after calculating very quickly in his mind potential conditions under which that could come back to haunt him [like the 2000 “hanging chad” issue, particularly if there was solid evidence of fraudulent activity].

The truth is that what won Donald Trump the presidency was not just his own brilliance, but his ability to surround himself with people who could find out what it would take in this election to win, put together a plan [i.e., a campaign strategy] that would capitalize on that knowledge, and effectively and efficiently implement that plan — and his part was to continuously assess how it was going and make personnel or other adjustments as necessary to drive the process to a successful outcome. As just one example of why that outcome was successful, the “Blue Wall” was toppled by Trump’s wins in midwestern and other states the Clinton campaign literally quit campaigning in because they viewed them as being behind the “Blue Wall”.

Barack Obama is a brilliant man, but he has been one of the worst if not the worst President in my lifetime. Donald Trump is a brilliant man. Whether he will be an even worse President, a good President, or a great President remains to be seen. On this, I can truly say “I’m with her” [to use a phrase from the Clinton campaign, coined by Elizabeth Warren, I think]: We must accept this result and then look to the future. Donald Trump is going to be our president. We owe him an open mind and a chance to lead. Our constitutional democracy enshrines the peaceful transfer of power. And we don’t just respect that, we cherish it”.

Stay tuned. We’re in uncharted territory, and until some trends and patterns begin to take shape between now and 1/20/17 [inauguration of Donald Trump as POTUS], there is literally no reliable basis on which to predict what each post-election day/week/month will look like.

Thanks!

img_7026 img_7043

Charles M. Jones

 

Election Aftermath – 1

image0108One of the original pages I wrote for this web site is entitled A Major Paradigm Shift Well Underway. It is under the Main Menu heading The Situation Today.  Based on the results of yesterday’s election, I don’t think anybody could deny that the existence of a paradigm shift has been confirmed, and that many of the details will begin to fill in as we move forward from this point. The key takeaway is that the Current Paradigm is rapidly drifting into the past, and either already is or very soon will be the Old Paradigm — and what the New Paradigm will ultimately look like is rapidly coming into view.

To quickly summarize the definitional part of the A Major Paradigm Shift Well Underway page, “paradigm” is simply a term to describe how things work, the “rules of the game”. In the context of the American governmental system, it’s our “three separate but equal branches” system established under the Constitution.  In the context of the political “system”, it is the two-dominant-party system, the rules the Senate and House have each developed over many years, the committee structure within each of these components of the legislative branch, the process used to appoint the Chairs of those committees, etc.

At least in theory, our governmental system seems to still be okay. It’s the political “system” that has produced the current polarized, dysfunctional environment — and that is why this paradigm shift is underway. That “system” simply is not working any more — within it, we aren’t able to solve problems, and we aren’t able to drive toward new initiatives.

I intend to do some “number-crunching” when all the results are finally in, and I will develop some future blog posts from my findings.  My goal is to publish one post per day for the next week, kind of an “Aftermath 1, Aftermath 2, …” series in upward-counting sequence similar to my downward-counting sequence “Down The Stretch 7, Down The Stretch 6, …” leading up to Election Day.  However, since there’s a lot of data I’ll need to parse to do what I have in mind, I’ll have to get a feel for the level of effort before I’ll know if I can keep that schedule.  If I can’t, I’ll publish whatever content I come up with on whatever frequency I can.  After that series is done, I’ll make some assessments as to what future direction I will take with this site and the blog associated with i

For now, I think the main challenge before our new President is not getting his agenda underway as soon as possible. It is finding a way to at least begin the process of bringing some degree of healing to the bitter divide in this nation that has been building for at least a decade, exacerbated in a big way by the campaign that has just ended.  It’s absolutely critical now that we avoid reverting to “digging in” to our respective bunkers and designing ways to “block the other party no matter what”, and build on this conciliatory atmosphere and MOVE ON. In my opinion, Mrs. Clinton’s concession call in the wee hours of this morning, Mr. Trump’s victory speech around 2:00am CT, Mrs. Clinton’s concession speech around 10:00am CT, and Mr. Obama’s address around 11:00am CT were all excellent, rise-above-the-details speeches, and collectively a good start toward healing the wounds from this campaign.

img_7026 img_7043

Charles M. Jones

Down The Stretch – 0

obviously-webI thought it was one of Yogi Berra’s famous quotes, but after research I realized it was apparently somebody else [and I got tired of trying to trace it down], but this comes to mind as I write this Election Day post: “When you get to where you’re going, well there you are”. Here we are, Election Day 2016. So where have we been going to this point, and where are we today? More importantly, where are we going from here?

One of Hillary Clinton’s major snafus during her Benghazi testimony was the oft-played video clip in which she said “What difference, at this point, does it make”?  Relating that to the current situation: “at this point”, the only question that matters is “Where are we going from here?”. 

When the results of this election are known, I will decide what, if any, direction I will take with this web site and my blog posts associated with it.

“At this point”, if I have made a positive difference for even a handful of people who may have been struggling with what to do in the ballot booth this year [or with whether to go there at all], and helped them fully understand that their vote counts, and is needed, the time and energy I have put into this site and my blog posts to it will have been time and energy well spent [or I believe, invested — in America’s future]. Let me say “at this point”, thanks to more than 2,000 people who have generated “unique visits” [non-redundant “hits” to at least one site page or one blog post] to this site. I never thought I’d have opportunity to express my thoughts to more than a few hundred people. Please either check the “follow” button or check back in the next week or so to see where, if anywhere, I intend to go with this site and blog posts to it.

Any “expert” in the media who says he/she can accurately project this morning what the situation will be by the time the last polling place in the last precinct in America closes tonight is either lying or trying to lure voters toward one candidate or the other.  The truth is that this election is truly unique, historical analysis is meaningless, and nobody can accurately predict the outcome of this election.

By the end of today, this country will have made what I believe is the most critical decision in my lifetime: whether we, as a nation, as a people, believe that the path on which we’ve set ourselves in the last eight years is the right path, or that it is not the right path, and that a move in an entirely different direction is needed “at this point”. I hope and pray that our decision will be made after careful consideration of facts and objective assessments of party platforms, and will not be influenced by media hype or what makes us, as individuals, “feel good” about our vote — because this is not about each of us as individuals; it’s about the future of our country.

Thanks!

img_7026 img_7043

Charles M. Jones

Down The Stretch – 1

In deciding on content for this last daily Down The Stretch post before Election Day, my thoughts go to “bottom line” thinking. The byline on the Home Page of this web site is “Currently dedicated to identifying and understanding the current paradigm, and the new paradigm that is rapidly developing, in the USA [and as applicable, in the World]. Future plans: monitor development of the new paradigm and identify signs of future paradigm shifts“.  I am convinced that a major paradigm shift is underway in this country, and I honestly believe this election is, at a minimum, a major “cog” in the “wheel” of that shift.  On the pages of the site, and in the blog posts I’ve made to it over the past couple of months, I have attempted to express an “orbiting the planet” perspective on this highly unusual campaign — a bigger-picture view than the “can’t see the forest for the trees” perspective so prevalent in the media. [Christian readers, please see an important note below* about perspective.]

Practically all we’ve heard in three debates between two very poor choices before us, in billions of dollars in media ads produced by their campaigns and “Super PACs”, and in non-stop media coverage focused almost entirely on these things, is “he said, she said” arguments about scandal, derogatory remarks, etc., always capped off with “this man/woman is unfit to be President” [this “capping off” phrase probably being the only truth in all of that].  Almost everybody I know just wants this entire disaster to be over.

So when I get to “bottom line” thinking, my mind migrates toward the things that actually seem to matter from an “orbiting the planet” perspective. The very first thing that came to mind this morning was prompted by an interview-style article on “Politics and Christianity” in my local newspaper in which a panelist said “We are not responsible for the candidates that have been given to us“. Wrong! On the Our Founders page in the America’s Heritage section of this site appear some very wise words from President Andrew Garfield: “The people are responsible for the character of their [leaders]. If [they] be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption.  If [they] be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities [in their leaders]”.  So in the words of Pogo [Walt Kelly], “We have met the enemy, and he is us”. The candidates have not “been given to us” as the above-mentioned panelist claims. From a long-term perspective, we produced this dilemma and have nobody to blame for it but ourselves.

The next “bottom-line” thought I would offer is that the current system is what it is, and regardless of what we may think we may be doing through a “making a statement” vote for anybody other than the narcissistic bully or the poster child of corrupt politics — or by not voting — all we’d be doing is shooting ourselves in the foot.  There are clearly some flaws in our current system that need to be fixed, and some “statements” definitely need to be made about them — and how we vote is one of the ways we can “make a statement”.  My “bottom line” thought, however, is that this is not the time to do that.  To use military terminology, “hills to die on” must be picked wisely, and with what is at stake in this election, voting in a way that makes us “feel good” could very likely result in our “dying” on a hill where our “death” isn’t significant from the perspective of the overall “war”.

The third and final “bottom line” thought I’d offer going into Election Day is something that has been an underlying theme in many of my posts to this blog — it’s not about the candidates and their equally disgusting profiles;  it’s about the platforms of the parties they represent.  The choice we have before us is between two diametrically opposed ideologies, and those ideologies are clearly evident in the Republican and Democrat party platforms [Republican Party PlatformDemocrat Party Platform]. In one of my blogs I provided this comparison of the two party platforms on ten key issues: Party Philosophy Comparison.  Another comparison I offered in one of my posts was this comparison of “baggage” each candidate carries, weeding out media hype and just boiling it down to known facts [this clearly shows that both of these candidates are more or less “tied” when considering their indiscretions and flaws]: Clinton-Trump Comparison.

So the real “bottom line” is this: every voter needs to 1) vote [i.e., not refrain from voting at all], 2) understand that under the current system, a vote for anyone other than Trump or Clinton is essentially a vote for one of them anyway, and 3) understand that a vote for what they consider to be the “lesser of two evils” if that vote is for the party least aligned with their own worldview and value system, may actually be a vote for the candidate of the other party anyway [because in this election, historical trends like which major-party candidate generally benefits from “alternative candidates” who draw votes away from those two is impossible to predict — not even the “best of the experts” can accurately project those dynamics in this election].

PLEASE vote!

img_7026 img_7043

Charles M. Jones

* Christian readers …

I realize that an even higher-level perspective than the “orbiting the planet” view I try to present is the Biblical worldview perspective [with which I personally identify], in which all things here are transitory, and the ultimate end is known as revealed by God in His Word. From that perspective, movement along God’s path to ultimate fulfillment of His plan will be neither accelerated nor retarded by this election.  My goal at this point is to present concepts in terms that people of any religion or no religion can relate to, so I try to refrain from routine use of terminology that may turn some readers away because it sounds “churchy”.

Down The Stretch – 2

thoroughbred-race-horses-heading-down-the-backstretch-during-a-race-b15ee6This edition of my Down The Stretch series of posts will be very brief. The thought occurred to me that a simple table might be the best way to communicate something that has been an underlying theme at this web site and in the posts to this blog … On November 8, everybody who is registered to vote [including those who do not vote] will be voting for either the Republican Platform or the Democrat Platform [see previous posts for links to these platform documents, and to a table comparing them], whether consciously making that decision based on their worldview and value system or unwittingly because they don’t understand how the current system for electing a President works. For details as to why that is the case, I would simply recommend reading all my previous blogs, but particularly It’s not about the candidates — it’s about the parties (Parts 1 and 2). I won’t go into the details again here, but I’ll offer this simple table for figuring out [to the extent possible — see the footnote in the table] which of these two candidates you may have unwittingly voted for: Voting For “Alternatives”.

One other point worth re-emphasizing [again — sorry to be repetitive, but this is important]: it’s the current system that will play out in this election. This campaign has amplified some flaws in that system that need to be examined, but that will not happen in this election. A “protest vote” for an “alternative” candidate, or a decision not to vote will, in this election, be counted as I’ve represented in the above-referenced table.
 

Charles M. Jones

 

Down The Stretch – 3

thoroughbred-race-horses-heading-down-the-backstretch-during-a-race-b15ee6Well, I cannot tell a lie.  I didn’t do my research today to come up with content that would be appropriate for this post.  I participated with our family in a great 70th birthday celebration for my wife, and then watched my LSU Tigers go into NCAA oblivion for yet another year by losing 10-0 to Alabama.

I can’t do this post, however, without re-emphasizing what has been a central theme of everything I’ve been trying to communicate in setting up this site and posting blogs to it for the past couple of months: every registered voter needs to realize that the choice before us on November 8 is about political parties and ideologies, not about two candidates, both of whom are seriously flawed and, in my opinion, neither of whom is the profile of person I’d like to see in the White House.

But we cannot make this decision on the basis of how we would like things to be. The system is what it is, and it is not going to change between now and November 8.  Our decision must be based on how the system currently operates, and on the ideological choices currently before us.  Under that scenario, a vote for anybody other than Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton will be an unwitting vote for one of them anyway, and in this particular election cycle, it is impossible to predict in advance which candidate that is [see previous posts for copious amounts of rationale behind this conclusion].

img_7026 img_7043

Charles M. Jones

 

Down The Stretch – 4

thoroughbred-race-horses-heading-down-the-backstretch-during-a-race-b15ee6In Part 1 of my two posts entitled It’s Not About the Candidates, It’s About The Parties, I outlined the only three possible situations that could even theoretically exist on 11/9/16: 1) Hillary Clinton won 270 or more electoral votes and is President Elect, 2) Donald Trump won 270 or more electoral votes and is President Elect, or 3) neither Clinton nor Trump won 270 or more electoral votes, which according to the Twelfth Amendment, has moved responsibility for selecting our next President and Vice President to the House of Representatives and Senate, respectively.  I also pointed out why regardless of which of these is the outcome, the ultimate result will be the same — i.e., we will have made a choice between two ideological extremes, the tenets of which are expressed in the platforms of the Democrat and Republican parties [I have explained in depth in previous posts to this blog why none of the “alternative candidates” will become President, and why people who vote for anyone other than Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton — or who don’t vote — will have unwittingly voted for one of these two candidates].

In Part 2 of those two posts, I included a simple table that boils the “planks” from the platforms of the two parties down to their ideological/philosophical positions on ten issues that I think most people would agree highlight the extremes of their two ideologies. Click on this link to display that table:  Party Philosophy Comparison.  To access the full party platforms themselves [which I suggest in the table that you also read], follow these links: Democrat Party Platform; Republican Party Platform.

I have repeated here these brief excerpts from those posts simply to emphasize yet again how important it is for voters to 1) understand what a clear ideological / philosophical choice we have at this time, 2) decide for themselves which of these choices most closely aligns with their own worldview and value system, 3) let that guide their voting decision [not the personalities and shortcomings of the candidates], and 4) VOTE.

img_7026 img_7043

Charles M. Jones