Newton's first law of motion and tomorrow's debate

My simplistic interpretation of Sir Isaac Newton's first law of motion is: "Objects, emotions, thoughts, feelings, elections, politics, public speaking, power-point presentations, poor bosses, etc. tend to keep doing what they're doing until something forces change in trajectory or momentum. In other words, something--rocks in the road, discontented voters, pay checks that bounce--steps out in front and shouts: "Stop!."

Newton's first law of motion: "An object at rest stays at rest unless acted upon by an unbalanced force and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force."  It is the natural tendency of objects to resist changes in their state of motion. This tendency to resist changes in their state of motion is described as inertia. 

This Presidential Election cycle has been endless, put in motion several dreadful months ago. The media and voter opinion and belief systems have added fuel to this amorphous mass. Human anguish, earthquakes, global climate change, doubling the national minimum wage, Congress disagreeing about yet another thing, even the momentum of the "birthers" lost front page status in most newspapers. Voter confusion, apathy, rabid support or dislike of any candidate has created it's own inertia. Theoretically, politics, after the presidential election, should grind to a halt but the acrimony between the two major parties sustains the trajectory. 

The "birthers", sprouted from the same medium in which mushrooms grow: the residue left behind by horses. During President Obama's first term, the "birthers" opened a crack in racial relations, rebooted hate, discontent, anger. Down stream, during this election cycle, being openly racist or bigoted, appears legitimatized by Trump. Vitriol has increased velocity and volume and back-pedaled to the tumultuous darkness of the fifties, sixties, and seventies. Trump has fired up the discontent.

His campaign has gained momentum. Clinton will have to fire up her campaign rocket to out-race him. I appreciate that she is a obsessive researcher, data driven, has leadership experience high in our government, seems to understand foreign affairs, has debated for the Presidency when she ran against Obama, and her Senate stint gives her experience dealing with Congress. Her emotional appeal is lukewarm. Monday, the first debate, will show her ability to deal with a pompous, arrogant, mis-informed, and a despicable man.

She must win for any number of reasons. 

"If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a Merry Christmas." If Elizabeth Warren ran with Bernie Saunders as VP, in a third party bid for the Presidency, she would have my vote and support. Could she carry the vote this late in the game? Would she split the Democrats? Who knows, and we will likely never know at least for this cycle.  

The following short play happened on Facebook. The author is an acquaintance, a retired reporter, not a U.S. citizen, and pro-apartheid. His opening statement was so egregious and hateful that I decline to share it in my blog. The theme was a seriously racially charged rant about President Obama, his white mother, black father, African Americans, and our Presidential election in general. Most of the responses followed suit.  NOTE: his country is in shambles! 

My response: "Trump agrees with you! I think Trump is a disaster to people of all races!"

He responded: "Hillary a disaster for world..! Cannot stand her!"

Some of his "Friend" weighed in:

"Trump is outspoken, but won't stand nonsense!"

and "If he runs the country as he does his businesses, then America can only get better."

and "WATCH GREAT DEBATE ON MONDAY.....! Be part of history being made...!!"

Other rebuttals to my statement about Trump were also racially charged and as often happens on social media the "dialogue" got personal. Kinda like past and present Presidential races in our country! The rest of the Facebook dialogue would not be helpful to quote. They are the same words and attitudes I heard growing up in the fifties and sixties; the same I'm hearing in our country now that the beast of racial tension has regained lost momentum. The responses became even more personal, fueled by vitriol and myopia, and increased not unlike the inertia of racial issues in our country.

My response to all of the comments above: "My grandfather said that sometimes choice came down to deciding on a jab in the eye or a jab in the ass with a sharp stick. Both choices are unpleasant to contemplate, are going to hurt, and both will have lingering effects." 

I am not going to vote for Trump. My dislike of the man has gained its own velocity. There is only one person I can vote for in November. And while I worry about the lingering effects I can only hope that she maintains the inertia that President Obama launched. 

.