Significant history is being made with the 2016 Presidential election. Those associated with this election will certainly have a place in the history books.
What side of history will those people be on when the books are written? What will children learn about them in social studies classes in the future? Whatever they learn will be based on the actions of those written about. And they will judge based on the world they are living in ... good or bad.
The Electoral College, this year, is particularly in the spotlight because unproved allegations of Russian interference are being propagated by people with a vested interest in changing the election results.
So far, the suspiciously funded efforts of Jill Stein have yielded only additional Trump votes ... so Hillary now lost by bigger numbers! No wonder she's apparently drinking more than usual!
So I had a funny thought about the allegations of "Russian influence" ... the chance of them having done so is minuscule ... however IF they had the means to do so, to benefit Trump, it introduced a question I've not heard mentioned at all throughout all the media coverage!
IF Russia favored Trump, and had any means to significantly affect election results' Why would they do so?
Clearly Trump is too patriotic for the answer to be Russia having a cooperative 'puppet' as POTUS.
So it must be somethings else!
Perhaps (as radical as this may sound) ... IF Russia were to have made efforts to influence the election; Is it therefore reasonable to think that their reason may have been to deal with a President who wants peace and commerce as a relationship (Trump)?
After all, Hillary Clinton has maintained a distinctive posture of aggression toward Russia ... vilifying them (Putin) for all her problems ... so WHO would Russia rather deal with? Someone advocating peace & commerce ... or someone who wants a fight and blames them for her political failure?
So, if you were Russian: Who would you favor? That's NOT a difficult question if you are sane!!
Technically, Russia could not have affected the election in a "hacking' sense to any significant level, if at all ... no proof has been or could be provided to establish they did ... but the sound bytes continue because (according to some) Hillary's electoral humiliation on Oct 8th simply MUST be someone else's fault!
So with the failure of Jill Stein's conveniently funded recount efforts (more money collected than she got for her Presidential run!) ... now the Electors are in the spotlight ... under documented pressure, harassment and threats of physical harm to become 'faithless' and switch their votes from Trump to Clinton. Does that sound reasonable? Would any witness in a court have credibility when there is credible evidence they were coerced or intimidated?
Seems to me that any significant switch in the Electoral College vote should be suspect, And any Elector switching his or her vote faces the judgement of history ... and of those who voted faithfully and entrusted their vote to that elector.
The Electors ... lets hope they have sense in the face of fear and intimidation and partisan spin.