posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 08:59 PM
There exists a double standard on both sides of the Trump/Clinton finger pointing and, not surprisingly, it begins with blinders worn by each team.
Accusations flying non stop every day brings so much turmoil it has become undeniably impossible, at least as of this moment, for voters to determine
their alliance based on pertinent issues as opposed to who they believe is the "least worst person". What we have been given are stats, slanders,
mud, bullying, and every bad thing that causes otherwise sane people to perhaps pick their "team" by absolutely worthless or even false propaganda.
Both candidates are expert marksmen when shooting themselves in their own foot.
Given this climate, therefore, there does seem to be one triple standard I cannot reconcile with my supposedly rational mind. First, the common double
standard: both campaigns are prone to unsupported accusations and/or claims built on Diet Truth, or Truth Light if you prefer. Any individual
performing the smallest modicum of due diligence can quickly and easily find multiple, well documented instances indicating crisis of conscience or
ethics of questionable intent for either candidate.
"He is this, he did that, and he is therefore unfit to serve as Chief Executive!", vs. "She believes this, she would do that," and throw in the
assumption "she is also physically unwell so she should be disqualified to be our president." The rhetoric has mutually devolved to such a basement
mentality that neither deservedly commands a level of respect within sight of a majority even among their own supporters.
The result is that this will almost certainly be the lowest point regarding voter mentality or psychological investment yet still the most
passionately fought contest in America's (or any other country's) history. Will the voters turn out in record numbers? Will they stay home in record
numbers? Surely third party, write in, and protest votes will be at an all time high. The double standard that exists whereby each team accuses the
other of moral, legal, or ethical deficiency, demands unrealistic proof to the contrary, and then steadfastly refuses to play by the same rules when
addressing or not addressing their own image of supposed impropriety.
The Pee Wee Herman election. "I know you are, but what am I?"
Here is where the triple standard comes in. Those who will vote for Candidate A and under no circumstance would vote for Candidate B will do so often
looking the other way when similar character flaws have been highlighted against their choice and vice-versa. Neither side seems to want accept
deserved -even proven- criticism but have no trouble levying ugliness at the other. Unfortunately, one team appears by near universal account,
incapable of recognizing their champion is human after all and not omniscient or flawed. Every day, sometimes every hour, some group or high
visibility individual announces they have studied the evidence appropriately and thoroughly which has led them to abandon Mr. Trump, albeit
reluctantly, in favor of Mrs. Clinton. They have examined available and well presented information leading them down a path resulting in the
uncomfortable conclusion that certain indefensible facts will preclude their continued support for the male member of the race. However, the reverse
appears to be as rare as the dodo bird. Casual to detailed scrutiny points out that when people of good conscience determine the facts lead them to
believe Mr. Trump does not meet the standards to serve, they realign their allegiance. But, when the evidence seems to stack up unfavorably in an
otherwise conscientious voter's mind pertaining to Mrs. Clinton's character the default response isn't denial or defect to her counterpart. The
befuddling overwhelming sentiment seems to be acceptance of behavior abhorent in anyone else in that voter's circle. In simpler terms, Trump's
behavior, careless choice of words, historical record, etc. alienates someone and motivates him or her to vote for Mrs. Clinton or cast a protest
vote. In stark contrast, information and details (proven or adequately demonstrated beyond reconciliation with one's moral values) may convince some
of her supporters she is somehow more bereft of redeeming qualities than Mr. Trump, yet said voter stubbornly refuses reason and settles for what he
or she truly believes is unacceptable.
How can that be? Denigration of all Muslims because of the actions of others is irresposible and bluntly, racist in its purest form. Many offended
by this or any number of other offensive and ill advised statements/behaviors disqualify Mr. Trump for the job in objective minds thereby placing that
vote squarely in Mrs. Clinton's column. But, jury-worthy evidence that would convict Mrs. Clinton of endangering lives and the country in general
with wreckless, self-serving dismissal of security protocol while serving as the top defense authority in the nation is also reprehensible (and a
national security risk) but usually ellicits only denial or acceptance with an equally "so what?" attitude. This double standard exists on each side
of the equation, but I submit a triple standard is one where their candidate's abhorent behavior becomes undeniable yet some voters refuse to accept
reality and adjust their understanding accordingly.
The even more universally hard to face truth could be that neither candidate is capable of earning the office they seek and rightfully should be
disallowed the privilege. Poll after poll proffers this glaring conclusion but the system is determined to place us all under authoritarian rule of
one or another immensely unpopular egomaniac with a entitlement mentality. There is a poster circulating in the internet that simply states, "The
biggest problem with this election is that one of them is going to win."
We deserve better. Those of us vested enough in the future of our children or otherwise still motivated to exercise our responsibility to vote will
overwhelmingly do so based on either "I disliked this one less than I disliked that one", "I believe less of the negative reports about this one
than that one", "this one will do less damage to the country than that one", or any pick of formally unthinkable criteria needed to endorse and
support our choice to lead the free world. One undeniable conclusion is it is too late to stop the wheels this time around, so voters will take their
priorities, denials, and preferences to the voting booth and whoever the victor is, the most reviled President in American history will be sworn in
this February. Double standards or triple standards are every bit as dangerous as no standards. It is therefore absolutely, undeniably imperative the
American people start now to prevent this atrocity from repeating itself in any form four years from now. Can we do it? Can we find or groom a leader
we can endorse and not feel compromised? Can the government become the respected institution it has to be for our now weakened nation to survive? This
cannot be a question any more. It has to happen. It MUST happen or sometime in our children's future it is possible the choice will be taken away.
Through all the questions, debates, and rhetoric in just a few months a regrettable historic precedent will be set and those of us reflecting years
from now will have to live with our decisions.
Double standard, triple standard. or no standard. Will you be ashamed when you look back?