San Diego, CALIF.- This summer was marked by news reports of alleged police misconduct and the reaction to it, from the politically inspired Black Lives Matter.

The City of San Diego wasn't immune to police shootings and calls of police misconduct.

In the U.S., you have considerable discretion regarding what you may legally say or write about a candidate. So, you could call your behavior perfectly legal, but if you lie, distort, or mislead, most ethical systems would call your behavior immoral. Self-destructive, sociopathic, ignorant, and hateful voting is legal. Legality should not be confused with morality. No legal requirement for ethical voting exists. Perhaps there is no greater disparity than that between the minimum legal requirements and reasonable ethical expectations for voting.

With only a few short days left in this presidential election cycle, it's always interesting to look at the political axioms, however odd or strange, to see how each candidate is doing.

While these axioms are not by any means determinants of the election, some have political insight -- while others are absurdly fun to consider.

1. High Prices at the Pump Hurt the Incumbent Party

This is more of a new political axiom, for decades the prices of oil and gasoline held steady or at least paced with overall inflation.

Our country is in crisis.

Divisions and factions appear everywhere we look. We are slicing and dicing ourselves into homogenous --some say tribal-- groups where our thinking is validated and the “other” is increasingly demonized, dehumanized and assessed with evil intentions.

And it’s all happening on schedule.

"It became necessary to destroy the town to save it', a United States major said today. He was talking about the decision by allied commanders to bomb and shell the town regardless of civilian casualties, to rout the Vietcong." - Peter Arnett, AP Correspondent, Feb. 7, 1968

The lesson we should have learned from our past: destroying a city to save it might win the battle, but seldom wins the war.