Donald Trump, the 45th President of the United States – A Reflection on a National Dream denied?

Keywords or Terms: Electoral College; 2016 Election Results; White House; Melting Pot; Declaration of Independence; Right of the Disenfranchised; Muslims; Mexican; Wall Building; Renegotiating NAFTA; Empowerment of Disparate Groups; Consent of the Governed; Foundation Principle of Organized Powers; Anti-tyranny, Anti-repeated injuries and usurpation, Anti-harassment, Anti-cruelty, Anti-taxation without representation,  Anti-absolute governance; Civil Rights; Beauty of America’s Democracy; Ronald Reagan; Howard Dean

Every four years American citizens and voters flood the voting booths to fulfill the constitutional requirement to elect a president who will govern them. The choice of who ends up being the President of the United States of America in a spate of aspirants is reposed in an electoral college. In this respect, the Electoral College serves not only as a proxy of the American voters, but the voice of the people, following a detailed election proceeding that yields the ultimate occupant of the White House; except where there is a tie in the spread of the Electoral College members or numbers among the candidates for the office, in which case, the US Congress elects the ultimate occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington DC 20500. Within and beyond the general elections taking place in November of all even years, is a political culture stressing equal representation of all segments of the population. Representative groups of infinite number of interest groups, all races, all sexes, all religions, all emigre from multiple nations – the melting pot, exemplify the potential of empowerment of disparate groups and interests, all with a sense of inclusiveness that has now become, truly, the United States of America. The uniqueness of this great experiment, or the distinction of this great experiment, is that, no where on earth do we have this Hodge-bodge of all differences, being meshed into a nation with a singular creed that all these disparate and multiple groups or factions are created equal  with inalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

American form of representative government has its foundation on the notion that just powers can and must only be drawn from the consent of the governed. If any government is found or determined to run afoul of the aspirations of the governed, it is within the rights of the people to alter, abolish and institute a new one that draws its powers only from the innate rights of the people; thus, laying foundation for the principles of second amendment right and precepts of organized powers to effect the safety and happiness of the governed, or the people. Contextually, such government must not be changed for light and transients causes; however, history has shown that voters or mankind, are more disposed to suffer foolery under evil, than to right themselves of an evil government, out of custom. This is why, voters must be vigilant and valiant as always, to ensure protection of the divine providence, to ascertain and uphold that the system of election is fair, independent, and representative of the constituent groups within the union – and for associated reasons, not allow to waste, a legacy that millions of Americans have stood firm for, fought for in the heat of the worst battles, died for, while still holding fervently and pledging to the flag of the United States of America with their sacred honor. Simply put, American government draws from God-given right to humans as beings; it is anti-tyranny, anti-repeated injuries and usurpation, anti-harassment, anti-cruelty, anti-taxation without representation, and anti-absolute governance.

The tension surrounding each group member in the union, as somehow embodied in the platform or promises of the two major political parties, Republicans or Democrats, during an election cycle every four years, continues to drive huge money influx into American politics and by default, humongous advertisement dollars that continue to make communication network executives salivate whenever the general election is around. The identification with either of the two major political party’s flag bearer, or a default to the promises of the two major political parties, are testimonies to how unique and beautiful America’s democracy is; and, how difficult other countries and nations questionably lament about how difficult it is for them to understand, our form or type of representative government and governance. The promise of equality to disparate communities of ages,  gender, national origin, race, and religion as essentially embodied in our constitution; and the empowerment of all groups within the union and affirmation of endowed inalienable rights, resonate with many American voters; and for a desire to reach that plateau of utopia promise of our Independence and often or sometimes achievable reality, led millions of Americans over two and a half-centuries to continue to believe, to continue to vote, no matter how sometimes, it is difficult to fathom the reasons behind the message of the candidate seeking to be the next President of the United States. You have heard of sexist, misogynist, racist and downright hostile campaign messages emanating from some candidates over the centuries, just as you have learned and heard of inclusive, conciliatory and complementary campaign messages; both brands, through the ages, helping some candidates achieve the highest office in the land, the President of the United States, while others have failed woefully.

The beauty of America’s democracy, is probably not found in representative voting or perfect voters’ preferences, considering the presence of electoral college standing in as proxy of the American voters in choosing the President of the United States. Rather, it is found in the simultaneous promise of equality of groups, race, sexes, and national origin and equality of representation by membership in the United States Congress. Until recently, the denial of equality of persons, including the right of minorities to vote, women and blacks, in and out of servitude, remained a blight on the democratic promise of the constitution, and made many in these “sub-classes” question the epitome or veracity of the constitutional promise. Many civil rights pressure groups and fighters, sought a more equal union based on the promise of the constitution; and for centuries, lampooned  the fact that a government solely run by Anglo-Saxon male, was essentially a government of and for Anglo-Saxon male; not a government of the people and by the people, as enshrined in the US Constitution. In reality, the emergence of hate groups took their root from the unfortunate notion that no one must contemplate that all races are equal, in other words, there has to be room for some type of hierarchy of persons in claiming right of citizenship. That is why some civil right groups touted the existing arrangement before the 1964 civil rights act, and as amended in 1972, as one of “government by the Anglo-Saxon Male for the Anglo-Saxon male”; a difficult caricature of President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address; one that can be seen and termed as despotic government, not of a perfect republic as promised and enshrined in the laws of the land. A promise of a female head of government, after two and a half century of nationhood, would have been foresighted and achievable if only the American voters were ready for change, if only they were willing to give equality of sexes a chance in the contemporary political arrangement; unfortunately, in this round of campaign for the White House oval office, the 2016 general election, voters are saying hold on, the choice and our first preference is to have White men rule America as usual.  

In practice then, the traditional governments of the past, like the result of 2016 general election implicates, will continue in the next four years to serve a microcosm of a larger promise; not the real equality of disparate groups, at least when it comes to the question of the sex of the aspirant for the highest office in the land. The difficulty of moving ahead and away from sexism, racism and associated shortcoming of truncated dreams, the challenge of separation, of having a two America, White or Black, excluding and denying dream of a huge segment of the American population, would depend on what is done and how we work and walk through the new murky waters. Women and rural residents failed to rally around a former US Senator, Secretary of State and first lady of the United States, a female politician with probably the best shot  at being the first female to occupy the White House oval office, in any recent memory. America is divisive, it is separate, no matter how we like to deny this; no longer can we depend on not having America discriminate against itself, specifically one of the bests of its female population. We now have to deal with a President who included an anti-semantic message on his campaign website for the White House; a president who threw away the playbook of traditional American Political campaigns, moving to capture the White House with huge chunk support of far-right groups; a businessman who has shied away from paying his due taxes, filed bankruptcies multiple of times, mocked the disabled, admire tyrants, and disdains the rights of women, championing anti-trade and anti-immigrant policies for America. A candidate who lost the popular vote and yet still won the White House in a grand slide, with two hundred and ninety electoral college votes.

Billionaire Business Magnate Donald Trump, the deal maker, the juvenile twitter feeder, is the forty-fifth President of the United States of America. Americans, White, Black or Brown, would have to deal with the reality of the voice of the people. Corollary, the victor in the contest for 2016 White House, will have to navigate through how to bring policymakers and people together to ensure a probable nationalistic government that looks more inward as contemplated in his campaign messages; a president that disavows the current female Federal Reserve Chairman, Janet Yellen, a descendant of minority Polish Jews,  a president whose male Anglo-Saxon heritage, reaffirms America's preference for an archaic political leadership arrangement that denies minorities the rights of equal citizenship; one that affirms a bigot's right to lord it over the rest of America in an information age. No longer, except an olive leaf is adopted by the incoming Anglo-Saxon President, female American citizens have to continue to endure the aviaries and proverbial assaulting behavior of the "machismo" American male against their counterparts, as demonstrated and communicated in the president-elect missive on that bus with Billy Bush. In the coming four years, women will have to deal with the existing hierarchical structure of governance, where they are expected to submit to the directives of male members of the society, because, they have lost the opportunity to put a female in the White House oval office. The reliable differences in race, religion, sexes and national origin and more, will continue to persist; the differences in the choices of the races, probably more prominent, the disparities in salaries and wages between the sexes continue unabated; and, necessary and progressive change would have to wait until another time and season. Observers of campaigns for the White House, who question the reason why a female American has not been given the keys to the White House oval office, and are quizzical about the results of the 2016 general election, now have their questions answered with the results and reality of the outcome of 2016 general election: America is a divided society with unquestionable preference for Anglo-Saxon male leaders in the White House, even when morally and financially bankrupt, and particular preference for one that is committed to shutting the doors against Muslims to America. Tonight, the glass ceiling is solidified, not shattered as anticipated or dreamed, history has failed to be made, and the negative rhetoric of the campaign season which fired up aura of separation and discrimination within the populace, are replicate of the voices to be heard in the next four years. The outstanding and astonishing victory of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, legitimizes probably, a classical scary presidency ahead, one that will send shocks waves through the world's global market; and, one that affirms that nationalism and discrimination win, when properly and well packaged in campaign messages for low information or uneducated groups in rural America, as is reminiscent of the kind of outcome of the 2016 White House oval office's contest between the Republicans and Democrats.

The remaining part of this article will make a comparison of the promises of candidate Donald Trump, the forty-fifth president-elect of the United States of America, against his former rival, candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. To sum up, candidate Donald Trump promises to: 1) ‘Build a wall’ — and make Mexico pay for it; 2) Temporarily ban Muslims from entering the United States; 3) ‘Bring manufacturing (jobs) back” – being the greatest job president God ever created; 4) Impose tariffs on goods made in China and Mexico; 5) Renegotiate or withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement and Trans-Pacific Partnership; 6). ‘Full repeal of Obamacare’ and replace it with a market-based alternative; 7) Renegotiate the Iran deal to be more favorable for America; 8) leave social security including the retirement age and benefits as they currently are; 9) Cut taxes as part of a proposed tax reform, giving the top 0.1 percent more tax cut than the bottom 60 percent of taxpayers combined; and, 10) bomb oil assets under ISIS control. As further documented by Politifact.com, these are the top ten campaign promises of candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton: 1) For families making less than $125,000 a year, we will eliminate tuition" for in-state students at public colleges; 2) Pass comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship that keeps families together; 3) Stand up to Republican-led attacks on this landmark (health care) law—and build on its success to bring the promise of affordable health care to more people and make a ‘public option’ possible; 4) overturn the US Supreme Court landmark decision, Citizens United; 5) fight for equal pay, affordable childcare and paid family leave for women; 6)  will not raise middle-income taxes; but a tax policy that puts the burden of payment on the top  one percent will be instituted; 7) Say no to attacks on working families and no to bad trade deals and unfair trade practices, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership; 8) increase the federal minimum wage; 9) expanding background checks to more gun sales and the issue of second amendment rights; and 10) increase federal infrastructure funding by $275 billion over a five-year period.

Donald Trump promises appear to incite and polarize America; the needy-greedy of his campaign promises has not been laid out and critics maintain he has an obligation to flesh out the policies behind those promises if he is to win their hearts on the road ahead. As currently stands, the proposed changes to the the immigration law, to reduce influx of illegal immigrants to America, calls for substantial retooling and direction; one probably invoking a revolutionary agenda that many critics are waging continuous precipitous criticisms. Further, a promise to repeal Obamacare will endanger the introduction of workable and practical reform to the healthcare law as it stands, to afford for measurable action that could lead to further cumulative success; however, an outright repeal of the healthcare law appears as infeasible as millions of Americans already benefit from the provisions of the law; and, consider an outright scrapping of the law as a disservice or an aberration. The concept of an alternative market-based healthcare law is retrogressive, since the failure of the forces of the market, led to the initiation of the law in the first place; America once had a failed market based healthcare law before the advent of OBAMACARE. The fact that it would be difficult to muster sixty votes in the US Senate of today, even after the 2016 general election results, makes it obviously difficult at this time and as many lawmakers who worked long hours in passing and enacting OBAMACARE, are apprehensive of the speculative promise and proposal from Donald Trump. In addition, folks are terrified of disruptive trade policies that may throw the world economies into a a tailspin and chaos. A proposal to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement and Trans-Pacific Partnership, may adversely impact international trade, even to the detriment of the nation's economic welfare; since retaliatory policies may ensue from countries that signed up to NAFTA or TPP in the first place. As the nation faces the risk of having a non-traditional politician in the White House oval office, who has bad-mouthed, even seasoned policymakers and allied NATO States, the choice of collaboration on international security and fighting terrorism may be in jeopardy. Many of these countries are necessarily going to introduce dynamic nationalistic alternative proposals that will put their nation ahead of any provisions of internationally signed treaty under other America's White House administrations. The question of renegotiating the content of some of these international treaties are more likely going to make even conciliatory countries under any new dispensation, question if the content and body of the  newly renegotiated agreements are going to stand, considering that the existing ones are being scrapped by the rise of another US government. 

Meeting America's National Security needs, by renegotiating the Iranian Nuclear deal increases the potential  of restoring the status-quo against Iran before the deal with President Obama's Administration. Veteran International Policymakers speculate that a renegotiated nuclear deal may threaten international security and introduce another foreign voyeurism by the government of America. Such a renegotiation may call for once again, the exacerbation and expansion of the military-industrial complex to combat a potential resistance stand up by the country, Iran. This could be particularly dangerous for international peace; as responding to unpredictable crisis that may arise from bulking against this new policy of America. Special Operational forces that may end up being moved because of the potential balking of the nation of Iran, may not like this and may bring upon them an unusual hardship that could exacerbate the burgeoning national debt and deficits. There are going to be significant changes in America's foreign policies as Iran and other foreign countries react to America's choice to renege on an international agreement. United States has been the leading world's power, to now be in the position of reneging on international agreements may bring about new changes on the world's stage that make many apprehensive and wondering what's next.

The air is already full of warnings regarding temporary removal or banning of  Muslims from entering the United States.  The more likely repercussion of this kind of policy is infanticide. There are American Muslims who will fight against this type of policy and create an instability or confirmed front against a heavy-handed President attempting to push a discriminatory policy through or muscle through a policy that create the outsider mentality among some members of our populace. A misunderstanding of the place of America regarding immigrants from Muslim nations have a tendency of introducing deficiency of international trust on coalition building to confront collective enemies like the international terrorists and group of nations with intention to do harm to America. Religious discriminatory policies, or those with similar favor, are apt to make nations with democratic inclination, reconsider their position on negotiated bi-lateral agreements and advancing regimes towards democratic principles and governance. A policy like this has the potential of letting down many Islamic nations that have dedicated unique support towards fighting ISIS and international terrorism. America may loose her credibility by adopting a policy that directly confront inclusiveness of all groups and or factions within America's population. 

Taking literally, the potential of building a wall against Mexico and making that nation's government pay for it, is more of a long shot. By raising tariffs and calling a nation to pay for a project that is problematic to its population or work against the interests of surrounding nations that may have benefited from former out-migration up north, may impact national security dynamics that have hitherto helped the level of stability in the whole of North America. By adopting a policy that transfers burden to a neighboring nation, based on nationalism, racism and xenophobia flairs, may introduce or compel intrinsically uncertain political dynamics that many governments across the globe may find dubious and superficial. For astute observers of foreign policies and immigration issues, a relatively ambitious policy to deny or prevent free movement of people across the globe, is a recipe for unconscionable distrust of governments and leaders; one that may speed intemperance at the United Nations.  To resolve the challenges of US illegal immigration will require more than building a wall across the border of nations; nations like Mexico and Canada may pursue alternative policies that not only counteract the new policy, but create and explore alternative proposals on the basis of self-determination, national pride; and or national suffrage.

Bringing manufacturing jobs back tackles the question of disenchantment that many disenfranchised Americans in depressed regions of America feel right now. The purpose to fight unemployment by bringing back manufacturing firms that have left American shores appear a great investment in the future of America and her industries. Because billions of dollars in tax incentive write-offs may be necessary to effect this type of policy or encourage American firms abroad to come back home, it is imperative that this type of policy is not construed as punitive; rather, a two-headed sword, to encourage the nation to move forward on the issue of unemployment and to ensure that American workers are engaged, without necessarily seeming over-zealously protective of domestic economy. Some American firms may chose to come back however, others will remain reluctant, because the reason of their moving overseas has rather little to do with contemporary economic reason of higher labor cost as reason for initially moving overseas. Many firms that have left American shores have not done that to undo the promise of America to her citizens, but rather to concentrate their production processes close to their raw materials or ready markets for their products.

To resolve the challenges of fighting international terrorism is going to take more than bombing oil assets of ISIS and or, other international terrorist groups and domiciles. But to improve the current dynamics of the fleeting fight against international terrorism and afford stability, will require a new consistency and legitimate actions that do not run afoul of international laws. If every proposal in fighting international terrorism takes on the face of stealing from people, even if they are terrorist groups, then a case may be made for the old style of western banditry and high sea voyeurism that the last century saw and now distances herself from for multiple of reasons. The vision that our nation our national can fight international terrorism by violating international laws and negotiated treaties; or thumbing her nose on the rule of laws and avowed values of democratic principles. It is imperative that prior rhetoric regarding how America is going to fight terrorism under a Trump's administration, including taking oil rigs and personal properties of other nations, will open up a canker-worm regarding past US attempt to incur into other nation's domestic affairs. Our policies must not violate other people's right to their own goods just for the sake of fighting an ill that appears to have consumed our total attention, recently.  How painfully would it be, if after our bombing of ISIS and their domiciles, after taking their oil or whatever assets of theirs as proposed by the incoming administration, we are still unable to win the war against international or domestic terrorism?

In contrast to the promises of President-elect Donald Trump, Secretary Clinton’s promises look more like a continuity of the liberal agenda of the outgoing President of the United States. Cutting taxes to middle income earners, fighting excessive money into political campaigns, championing affordable healthcare for more people, appears more and more like the types of programs that President Barack Obama will gladly bless and probably implement if there were not term limit to the presidency. Historically, the issue of equal pay for equal work for women, affordable child care and family leave for pregnant and nursing mothers have always been forefront to the liberal agenda. This pronouncement reveal probably the coming requirements in the public and private sectors to accommodation of pregnant women and their children during the early childhood season of nursing mothers. The objections that these agenda has and continues to receive from the private sector makes this a hot button issues and an example of pivoting to the female community and one that may face discussions and extended challenges at US Congress, because of the potential financial implications for the private sector.

At the heart of the equal pay agenda for women and attacks on working families through “poor” trade deals, are the issues of egalitarianism and social inequality.  Women in the private and public sectors of the economy have claimed discrimination based on pay: women are paid about three quarters of a dollar to a man’s dollar.  Sometimes mandated employment policies and sometimes the structure of salary associated with family leave absence, have been the reasons for these disparities in wages. The inequality in pay that seems to have pervaded the labor force and made women second rate labor or employees could neither be resolved in her first term in office; and, probably never, except there is an active effort to change the labor laws to accommodate the long standing bias against women for getting pregnant and going on family leave.  The exclusion of women from high stress jobs or executive positions that pays rather handsomely is intertwined with the second-class allegation for the disparity in wages. Nursing mothers and professional women contemplating pregnancy must be perceived or elevated to status of women not in the child bearing years, or others who have chosen not to raise a family. Radical egalitarianism that may afford for better accommodation of women with whatever “disabilities” that have prevent women from earning equal wages as their male counterparts, are issues that would now have to wait, or maybe fought on the floor of US Congress, per chance, and given an appreciable time and look over, if the existing economic, social and financial hierarchies and or disparities are to be addressed.

Just as differential payment of sexes and egalitarianism are intertwined, also, are access to affordable childcare and increasing federal minimum wage are to social justice. There has been a finely graded or abbreviated hierarchy that disadvantages citizens on the lower rung of the pay ladder to afford upward mobility for their family. Many nursing and recently infant mothers have suffered economically; and have been unable to provide for their offspring, because of the lower pay and the inability to maintain accommodation for raising buoyant families. The labor force and employers have long practiced wage discrimination because of the interjecting biological clock of women. Employers have enacted not-easily proven wage disparities because of women who choose to get pregnant; these women have not been eligible for professional growth at the pace of their male counterparts; and in some instances, have lost their jobs for reason of attempting to get pregnant and raise a family. Unlike a system of fair enumeration for work contribution or length of working in an official capacity, women  have been insistently discriminated against on the basis of wages paid and disproportionately restricted to some cadre of positions that make them least upward professionally mobile. When you are restricted to the lower hierarchy of positions the commensurate pay, is usually at the lower pay scale. This is one part of the problem that may be resolved by proactive legislation.

Frankly, the inequality in women against men salaries and wages can be interpreted in terms of social and economic mobility. The inequality in social and economic status prior to getting pregnant by women appears not to be as stark as what obtains, when women choose to raise a family. The necessities and option of being a single and or nursing mother, and or some choosing family against rapid career path, especially in some high energy jobs and  or positions must be resolved; albeit, if only a Republican US Congress is interested, to help address salary and wage disparities between sexes. The object of distinction in salary and wage disparities cannot be raised on the issue of exclusions to some profession as in the military, since efforts in that arena has been made to bring women  and male counterparts salaries and wages at par in multiple positions; more constructively, women are now being brought  into non-traditional military roles and positions that will make their remuneration as equal for the size of efforts expended in about all armed forces positions.

While some communities and cities have achieved some level of frequency of non-gun violence, data and experience dictates that the inner cities and some fast growing communities are suffering new level of increased gun violence and homicide rate that can be considered intolerable for a nation of our size. Gun sales and the exclusions of intensive background checks have led some people who must not be in possession of guns and ammunition, to have access to these deadly weapons, which have led to increased gun violence. Mandating equal background and longer checks maybe one answer; however, asking Republicans and Democrats in Congress to work together to fashion a workable law that does not impede second amendment rights of citizens will continue to be the bane of contention for the 45th President of the United States just as the outgoing President found out, at the height of community violence, as in the event of killing of young Americans in a Connecticut Early Child Care and Kindergarten, the case of worshiping parishioners at a South Carolinian Pentecostal Black Church, gay dancing night club in Florida, and much more.

Just as there has always been the proverbial lamentation that we have not always done it this way, it is obvious and apparent that the results of the 2016 general election, and ensuing protests in the streets, challenge all of us to reflect on issues of past prejudices and to make amends so, we may allow all God’s Children, male and female, black, brown and white, Christians, non-Christians, Gays and Lesbians, to participate in the opportunities and the promise of America, to be that shinning city upon a hill, whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere as once espoused by another Republican, Ronald Reagan. Despite President-elect Donald Trump’s claim of being disrespectful of women by grabbing them by the pussy; maybe, it is time to start seeing such egregious behavior as unacceptable at anytime in the life of this nation. We must allow unity, love and reflection prevail in the life of our nation; we must not allow misogyny, discrimination and prejudice triumph; we must avail ourselves of all the contradictions that have made it impossible for our nation to claim completely its creed as enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men [and women] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

America and Americans must not let the results of the 2016 presidential election shake their faith in government, electoral college, progressive and noble aspirations of equality of sexes, religions and person-hood; rather, it must forever remain a lesson in citizenship; that significant accomplishments of multiple and past White House administrations, may be fleeting, out of citizens' failure to actively participate in the process of voting, due to submission to unwelcome and unnecessary  fears, misinformation and disinformation, generated by a nationalistic campaign for the 2016 White House. If successive White House Administrations do not plan on building on the successes of outgoing White Houses, all of us, the nation, loses. If a disagreeable successor to the White House oval office, take ax to all the laudable programs and policies that continue to inch us toward the promise of America, we all fail to rise up to the challenge of our creed as a nation. A disruptive campaign effort of President-elect Donald Trump, a divisive and erratic leader in his campaign speeches, must now learn to work and commit to inclusiveness in running America. The purpose of the incoming Donald Trump's administration must now be to build bridges to those in fear and those who perceive themselves as unwelcome in this huge experiment and parade of democratic governance. The forty-fifth President of the United States will now have to depend on the favor of many in establishment Republican Politics; and this is why the message of 2003 Democratic Presidential aspirant, Dr. Howard Dean, as offered in Burlington Vermont, is now reflectively telling: “We shall be as one; .. we must delight in each other, make other’s conditions our own; rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together, always living before our eyes our Commission and community in our work.. It is that ideal, the ideal of an [equal] American Community, that we [must] seek to restore.”

                                                                
                                                           

THIRD AND FINAL 2016 PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE IN LAS VEGAS, NEVADA: Gambling with the future of America?

Keywords or Terms: Third Presidential Debate; University of Nevada, Las Vegas Nevada.  Donald Trump; Republican Party Standard Bearer; Hillary Clinton; Democratic Party Standard Bearer; NBC-TV Saturday Night Life; Alec Baldwin; Kate McKinnon; bad hombres; Social Security Benefits; Beijing; New York; Arkansas; African-America; Miss Universe; De-legitimized Election Results; Party Unity; US Congress; US Speaker of the House; Epilogue

The most talked about encounter today, is the third presidential debate between Hillary Clinton of the Democratic Party and Donald Trump of the Republican Party. It was only ten days ago when the nation was exposed to what looked like debate venue stalking of the Democratic Party Standard Bearer by the Republican Party Standard Bearer; and, we all now know what the NBC Saturday Night Life’s skit and dramatization, as appropriately portrayed by Long Island Native and Comedian Alec Baldwin, deduced from that or got us cracked-ribbed? The vanquished in the second debate, as often, released another tweet, asking NBC-TV network to retire the satirical and funny show after last Saturday’s skit of his performance at the second presidential debate.

For the Republican Flag bearer, Donald Trump, Alec Baldwin portrayal of his very uncharacteristic debate floor behavior, stinks and amount to the rigging of the 2016 presidential election by the media. Never mind the spoof from NBC-TV SNL’s Kate McKinnon of Hillary Clinton, as she portrayed the Democratic Standard bearer as close to being stiff in her campaign routine; or the fact that, Ms. Clinton has taken the spoof in good humor and probably enjoyed the depiction of her campaign style in an alternative universe; attesting to the need for anyone aspiring to the highest office in the land to be less thin-skinned, contrary to the case of her opponent in the November general election.

Enters the Third and Final 2016 Presidential Debate in Las Vegas, Nevada. This time around again, it appears the third and last 2016 presidential debate, like the first and second ones, is going to garner additional lampooning on NBC-TV Saturday Night Life, as viewers of the third debate were treated to what television comedy programmers and hosts will consider gold mine; another series and collection of skits best made for Saturday Night Life art of fine comedy. How about the continued disrespect for women and minorities, ala, this woman is nasty, as Mr. Trump refers to his rival at the third debate; and or, his reference to the possible deportation of millions of Hispanics from America’s shores with, "We have some bad hombres here, and we're gonna get 'em out? What about Trump’s caricature of our constitutional democracy at the debate, where to him, the Russian oligarchs’ illegal attempt to influence our national politics by breaking into campaign computer networks of at least one of America’s major political party, as attested by over at least one dozen America’s security agencies, as a depiction of them being smarter than us?  All these close to funny theatrics and unexpected pronouncements of the Republican Standard bearer make for good light hearten humor this weekend.

For the first time in America’s Presidential Campaign Experience and Political Elections, we have a choice between a candidate who promises to jail or persecute his political opponents, who challenges the core values of what it means to be American and defer to totalitarian governments as better than America’s leadership. How about “[Assad] is much tougher and smarter than [Hillary Clinton] and Obama”, complement of the totalitarian loving Republican aspirant for 2016 White House oval office? This is in contrast to the alternative option or candidate in the Democratic Party’s Standard bearer, Hillary Clinton, who may not necessarily be a saint in public service, but endearingly admires our core values as Americans, considers her opponent’s speculative or calculated nonsense as un-American and renders an alternative universe of decency to the denigration from the Republican Standard bearer; as she resolves to discuss potential policy initiatives that will address shortfall in Social Security Benefits, Excesses of Second Amendment Rights, fighting and overcoming atrocities of international terrorist groups like ISIS and the rest; offering a good testament of how our democracy truly works, reminding us of the over two decades attempt by the New York Real Estate Mongol turned Republican Standard Bearer, to constantly criticize America’s governments without objective grounds; offering and guaranteeing to support or further an enactment of a no-fly zone within Syria to turn around the loss grounds in Aleppo; and, promising the protection of women’s right to their body in the unfortunate instance and choice of resorting to abortion, when and where the life of the potential mother is in jeopardy. The Republican standard bearer continues to be the gift that keeps on giving to Saturday Night Life chests of ‘funnies’ and comical lampooning! The array of contrasting variables points not only the joy of SNL humor skits materials, but the real possibility that America for the first time in her history is likely going to have a female occupant in the White House oval office.

Again, at the third 2016 Presidential Debate, the Republican flag bearer not only doubled down on his claim that America’s elections and institutions are ‘rigged’, he challenges the notion that there was any attempt from any outside nation to have conducted possible espionage against an American Political Party and citizens. For Mr. Trump, there are lot of vote fixing going on in the presidential election, especially around minority neighborhoods in America’s big cities. Whether founded or unfounded, the Republican Standard bearer further asserted that the American Electioneering System is skewed towards the victory of his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton. From what is now readily considered as probably the best performance of the Republican Standard bearer at the 2016 Presidential Debates, critics of his brand of misogynist, sexist and racist campaign for the White House oval office, remind us that Mr. Trump effectively pronounced the reasons why he must never be given the keys to the White House oval office. Consequentially, Mr. Trump has not only provided fodder for additional lampooning through many of his stuttering and sometimes incoherent responses at the third debate, he introduced the worst kind of doubt to a tradition of presidential elections that has withstood the test of time for over two and a half centuries.

The reality of damming criticisms of America’s electioneering system from the Republican Party Standard bearer, is that, neither has he provided credence to his clams, nor profess solutions to what he considers a potentially “rigged” election and or electioneering system. Many of his insinuations or claims about the possible or potential outcome of the general elections result, are not only unjust, all he has mostly accomplished through his dangerous derogation is to present a problem where there has never been one, considering the reliable records kept of vote monitoring by responsive institutions and agencies, including institutions and records kept by Conservative Republican Attorney Generals in many States in America; a few of whom have come to the press to declare that Mr. Trump’s claim are completely benign and essentially unsubstantiated. Invariably, the American voter is now left with an option of either voting for a candidate that cast aspersions on the political process of selecting the leader of the free world, and one, that has complete confidence in the time tested process, stands by it, and has vocally challenged her opponent’s unfounded claims about the electioneering system, reconfirming the veracity and reliability of the American electioneering and voting system that has stood the test of centuries of time. Further, any immanently created problem(s) from the aspersions of the Republican Standard bearer over the coming general election, now can be relegated to whining and irrelevance from a potential losing candidate in the current contest for the White House oval office. Finally, the American voters has the power to show to the naysayers like the novice Republican Standard Political Bearer, that the system works, despite whatever misgivings critics of the same may be attempting to raise in this rather uncongenial presidential campaign for the White House oval office by the current Republican candidate.

A world where the probable victor and vanquished of the 2016 general election, find themselves at the opposite spectrum of the viability and reliability of the electioneering system that enthrones or dethrones any ambition for the White House oval office, a world with pointers to what is essentially good about America’s Democracy, but is now erroneously being characterized as rigged is one worth standing up for, especially when the criticism is coming from someone with little political experience and how political powers are exercised to allow all voices and shades of opinions to be represented in the democracy. For doubters like Mr. Trump, it is important and imperative to remind them that many decent and honorable Americans have suffered, marched, fought and died for this Democracy; and, the legitimacy and veracity of the system, must never be put to question without a shred of evidence from doubting Thomas’s like them. Not only is the system time tested, even in instances where the end result of the election have been challenged in the courts of law, just as in the case of the general election of 2000, all the vanquished had been honorable over the centuries as they deferred to the will of the people, and allowed the beauty of democracy to shine and persist from shinning seas to shining seas. Unfortunately, this time around, Mr. Trump’s novice foray into America’s politics and presidential campaign, has placed him in a position to offer less than flattering comments about the American electioneering and campaigning systems, with the mind boggling response to the question, whether he will accept the results of the general election with: “I will keep you in suspense.”

Constructively, Mr. Trump’s Democratic Party rival, Hillary Clinton, responded with, “horrifying and talking down of America’s Democracy”, to Mr. Trump’s unwelcome categorization of possible results of the 2016 general election. For Hillary Clinton and probably many of her supporters, Mr. Trump’s attempt to de-legitimize America’s Election system is tantamount to heresy. Trump’s suspense or keeping voters in limbo to the potential result of the general election is tantamount to sedition or potential subversion of the system, especially in the case of an election, where the stakes are rather high, considering the closeness of some polls in many America’s battle ground states.

In the opinion of astute political observers, the Republican Standard bearer is building up a foundation for the possibility of a landslide or runaway election victory for Democratic Party standard bearer. Maybe Hillary Clinton after all, despises a 2016 neophyte Republican politician who shower praises and accolades on despotic leaders across the globe, a presidential aspirant who is unwilling to accept polls and the reality of a tumbling campaign by a Republican candidate for the White House, and truly loves all Americans and unwilling to accept the short-sighted comment of a Teflon businessman turned politician, who would rather hoodwink Americans with his possible ambition for residency at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC. The opposing 2016 major political party’s standard bearer were at each other’s throat; and no one can assume there was cordiality or complementary assertions, when you hear both candidates referring to each other as puppet in their possible custody of the White House oval office. Just as each candidate went at each other’s throat, the usual cordiality expected at debates, including the customary hand-shakes before and after the debates, were thrown outside the window.

Inexplicably, you can say the gloves came off at the third 2016 presidential debate at the sprawling campus of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas Nevada. The differences between the two aspiring candidates could not have been clearer, with Hillary Clinton taking much of the spot and time in presenting her case for the occupation of the White House oval office come January, 2017. The Democratic Standard Bearer was not only masterful as she presents her rebuttal to the question that she had been a politician and public servant for far too long to now claim to be able to make any difference in leadership with the following words, making her opponent looking further inexperienced and unqualified for the Presidency of the United States:

“let me just talk briefly about [my 30 years’ experience]. You know back in 1970s, I worked for the Children Defense Fund, and I was taking on discrimination against African-American kids in schools. He was getting sued by Justice Department for racial discrimination in his apartment buildings. In the 1980’s, I was working to reform schools in Arkansas. He was borrowing $14 million from his father to start his business. In 1990’s, I went to Beijing and I said women’s rights are human rights. He insulted a former Ms. Universe, Alicia Machando, called her an eating machine. And on the day when I was in the situation room monitoring the raid that brought Osama Bin laden to justice, he was hosting: “The Celebrity Apprentice.” So I’m happy to compare my 30 years’ experience, what I have done for this county, trying to help in every way I could, especially kids and families get ahead and stay ahead with [Trump’s] thirty years.

These run down of Hillary Clinton’s experience not only sealed any doubt that she hasn’t been making a difference; rather, they unequivocally solidified her place and accomplishments in public service, and laid a foundation for a claim of superiority of candidacy for the highest office in the land, unlike her Republican Party counterpart.

Deductive Conclusion:

The 2016 Republican Flag bearer, a law and order candidate, who would not respect the electioneering process, who frames election results as being not necessarily legitimate, a ‘rigged’ system, a rigged election, continues to boisterously denounce or challenge what is considered a beacon of hope to so many across the globe, who look very admiringly and sometimes, jealously to our kind of democracy; an institution of American pride, our democracy. When Mr. Trump says he will keep voters in suspense; when he articulates that he is not going to concede the election results to the winner, he is introducing a rather disguised development, call it a challenge to America’s Democracy, the potential of the winner of the election having to defend herself or himself, before the courts of legal jurisdiction; casting further doubts on the integrity of America's electioneering system. If Mr. Trump is not interested in healing his own party, or the country after a hard fought election, insistently casting doubt on the fundamental integrity of America’s electioneering system, he is showing that he cannot be relied upon to bring people together or unify the country, in case he wins the election. If Mr. Trump is unable to energize his base and fails to address the concerns of independent voters on many national issues, no wonder there are as many as ten senior American officials who have served under both Republican and Democratic Whites Houses, who cannot trust the nuclear codes in the hands of a “President Trump.” This singular doubt and apprehension of many who have served this country honorably and loyally, chastises the Republican Party Standard bearer and springs up rather unpopular disposition among many Americans, including many Independent Leaning American voters, which Mr. Trump ought to be courting to expand the tent of his supporters.

The fact that the Democratic Presidential Candidate, Hillary Clinton, effectively shot the Republican flag bearer down immediately she heard him denigrating American’s Democracy, is a testimony to her good character; and, may have actually won her more converts, who do not share in Mr. Trump’s negative rhetoric; and, who believe Secretary Clinton is not only qualified for the job, but ready to take on the responsibilities of the position, unlike her rival, the Republican Party Standard bearer. Interestingly, by so doing, the Democratic Standard Bearer, Hillary Clinton, unwittingly pivoted away the debate from discussion of a subject that could have been ruinous to the American Democratic Process and or, the Republican flag bearer chances at the polls. Thankfully, Secretary Clinton reminded us all that when things happen not to be going Mr. Trump's way, he finds faults in them, anyhow. Effectively, in her re-construction and redefinition of her rival, Ms. Clinton quickly identified a series of systems and events that had not gone Mr. Trump’s way throughout the alternative party's primaries and which he attempted to denigrate, the way he is doing tonight regarding the possible outcome of the 2016 US general election results. Mr. Trump whines, when he talks down America’s election system as he is apt to complain, in his attempt to call to question the veracity of America’s election results, he is challenging the pure thoughts of America as a beacon of hope for the hopeless, the last refuge for finer practice of democratic principles and governments across the globe; a frivolous doubt of the sanctity of a system to be proud about; a deviation from accepted paradigm of the best democratic government on earth. When Mr. Trump fails to re-position himself in the 2016 campaign for the White House, so that he stands a better chance with the independent voters, he misses the greatest opportunity of all time to be victorious in a difficult campaign for the highest office in the land; When he calls to question the essence of America's democracy, he questions his own existence and power play within the Republican Party; and, brings to light the unfortunate aspect of seeing America's Grand Old Party present him as its party's flag bearer in 2016.

When Secretary Clinton alleges that Mr. Trump is cavalier about some very dangerous governments and countries obtaining nuclear weapons, countries like North Korea, a few far eastern and middle eastern nations, he introduces a very difficult and challenging angle to an alarming problem that America has been working over decades to turn around. When Mr. Trump continues to cast aspersions, when he continues to doubt the military and civilian institutions that have sworn to support America and her institutions, he is also introducing a doubt in the effectiveness of these institutions. The fact that Mr. Trump will not accept that Russia is hacking into America’s Democratic Organizations, when he is not worried that Russia’s cyber-attacks means much, perhaps, he is less interested in the serious security concerns that Russia has presented to America over decades. Cyber security until recently has not been perceived a lofty concern – fighting terrorism, fighting home grown terrorists, asserting women’s right and independence from oppression– were considered more of national issues; now, the nation may be contending with having a "President" Donald Trump in the White House who does not believe in century old ideological fight on political systems. This is probably the saddest of all times in the life of this nation.

Epilogue:

The achievement or lack thereof of campaign speeches, tweets, over-reactions and sublimity over the past eighteen months, has enriched the American voter’s experience and somehow, brought out the worst or the best in either candidate vying for the 2016 White House oval office. Depending on whose side you default or support in the general election, both of these candidates have offered all of us food for thought regarding who we will like to be our next president. Throughout the campaign season, each of these candidates had debated against their individual party’s rival and fought to be their party’s standard bearer. The last three debates have shown that either of the candidates had some great qualities and probably some unforgivable flaws depending on your personal choice and dream for America as a voter. Hopefully, the debates have offered more insightful information for the average American voter to make better choice regarding what the nation must now be moving towards; or what the nation must stay away from considering the risks and the challenges of enactment of public policy into laws in the US Congress. If Clinton wins, it will be prudent to give her party enough representation in both chambers of US Congress to move her agenda ahead. The same goes for Donald Trump.

It is a known fact that Donald Trump is at logger-heads with the US Speaker of the House, the person who can actually move his proposed bills through the House and probably midwife them to his table if he happens to become the US President; through the usual sausage making task of passing bills into law, a task that may be insurmountable, when and where there is an obvious difference in the position of a US House of Representative Speaker and the President of the United States on multiple issues and concerns, even though both are members of the same party. Sadly, Mr. Trump has been unable to bridge differences or disagreeable gaps between himself, his party’s establishment and probably, those politicians seasoned enough to understanding what it takes to make the system work, as it has been in the past two and a half centuries. Just as Mr. Trump has been unable to make a break through with women in the current cycle of presidential campaign, many of whom find most of his condescending comments about their bodies deplorable and distasteful, so also, has his unconscionable increased gender gap between his supporters and those of his rivals has been multiplying and expanding. This unfortunate self-inflicted problem is likely to become an albatross on his neck as he attempts to move policies in form of bills through the US Congress. No president, no matter how brilliant in political brinkmanship has been able to move bills through the US Congress by remaining at loggerheads with the US House Speaker. Unfortunately, since Mr. Trump appears to lack the tact of working with opponents, or the confidence and solidarity needed to make his bills move in US Congress because of his choice to distance himself from the movers and shakers of his party, it is unlikely he will be able to make a difference in the lives of Americans, including those who support his brand of policies, as he will find it difficult to pass any bill in Congress.

Although Mr. Trump appeared subdued and had a better performance in the third presidential debate and can make a case for the fact that his performance at this time outplays his first two, his inability to reconcile differences with opponents and manage longer debate points by staying on message are going to be great challenges to his administration if he ever ends up being the US President. These vulnerabilities will continue to be his anthills. It may be okay to deny women to safe abortion; however, no one will support the abuse of his wife, daughter and mother, when it comes to actual policy implementation from laws proposed in the US Congress. It may be possible to miraculously win the White House, as Mr. Trump currently anticipates or hypothesizes; however, it will be difficult to govern with a disarrayed party of the Presidency. Second, it may also be possible to win the White House, based off voter’s biases, discontentment and or preferences that are hitherto ignored in the multiple outing debates between the two major party’s standard bearer; however, it is unlikely that a President without support of the preponderance of legislatures in US Congress can make much of a difference in people’s lives. This is just not how our Constitutional Democracy works; and, it is about time Mr. Trump makes himself aware of the reality of the process, if he truly expects to be a consequential president, in case he wins the general election come November.

The issues of economic welfare, national aspirations, international security and domestic terrorism and or police violence will continue to reverberate in the psychic of the American public, long after the election. Fighting of ISIS or renegotiating Trade Pacts are unlikely going to dissolve overnight; and without the cooperation of members of US Congress and possibly the international community, it very unlikely that a US President will be successful, nor the nation, able to easily overcome the current ills that beclouds her comparatively lower GDP growth, as compared to other first world economies. It is imperative for each of the two candidates before us to realize that, it is practically impossible to be successful as a president without support of your party establishment or legislatures in US Congress; as cold as this fact may look, it is the gospel truth. Imagine fighting international terrorism without US Congress allocating funds to complete this assignment.

The fundamental differences between the support or love from party’s establishments and aspirations of Donald Trump and those of Hillary Clinton for the nation, are rather stack, no matter how any member of the public and voter understands the dynamics of what is going on in the country regarding the campaign for the 2016 White House oval office. It continues to appear that the differences in the conception of the problems and challenges facing America and the potential of having them resolved or allowed to spill over to other areas of the nation’s issues without a solid leadership that attempt to coalesce support and efforts toward an excellent brand of presidential vision is missing in the interplay of Donald Trump's aspiration to become US President. This in effect speaks volume for the success of either candidate at the polls on November 8, 2016. When Donald Trump attempts to de-legitimize the same institution that have lasted the test of time, when he introduces doubt in the veracity of having legitimate election results, he ultimately introduces a problem never before seen in our democracy; a problem that may ultimately undermine his leadership, if enthroned the President of the United States. The fact that the Republican standard bearer introduces doubt in the ultimate result of the voting process, encapsulates the minds of civil servants who are going to affect his public policies, make them wonder on whose side the "President" is; and invariably calls for them to question the fundamental ground of effecting public laws and policies in their various agencies. When civil servants understand the "President" is, or was lawless,  there is the tendency to flout the laws of the land under the pretext the "President" does likewise, invariably creating  anarchy in the system. Imagine knowing that the president is known not to pay taxes in the pat and is currently under a long hi-ester from tax paying, what will make those civil servants or any American pay their share of Us taxes? You cannot bemoan a system that you hope to benefit from, if you win the election, by initially bad mouthing it. It just does not work that way.

When Mr. Trump, the Republican Party standard bearer,  explicitly and starkly repudiated the argument that Russians are attempting to intervene in America’s election process, either by hacking into the computer networks of political parties and probably security agencies and governmental institutions, he introduces the question of acceptability of espionage against America and her institutions; he introduces the possibility of doubting the ability of some of America’s best security agencies to deliver on the promise they have sworn under oath, to deliver on the promise of America to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. With rebuttals as: “she has no idea whether it is Russia, China or anybody else”, you start to wonder where the loyalty of Mr. Trump lies and where his overall promise of a contrarian argument begins, on an issue that has been validated and settled by many American Intelligence Agencies. These are issues that may come to haunt him in leading the Department of Homeland Security and the five or six arms of the American Military, as the Chief Security Officer and President of the United States and Commander-In-Chief.

Corollary, when Mr. Trump says he may not accept the results of the general elections and advance arguments for the possibility of a “rigged”  American election, he is creating doubt in the minds of voters regarding public institutions and organizations; a huge challenge that will come to haunt him, or undermine his real essence as a President, as many citizens may choose to ignore the directives from the White House, since they believe the occupant hardly cares about decorum regarding government institutions and what they stands for, or their essence in moving issues that concern the welfare of the public and state. Imagine asking the Attorney General to look into issues of suspicious or random police killings or citizen’s choice to take to arms to fight what may be considered unjust killing or meting out of justice against the police and or judicial system. When citizen occupant of governmental institutions believe that the President does not respect governmental institutions that carry out orders and directives from the White House, why should they effect those directives? Where is the incentives? Casting doubts about the place of institutions in our democracy, institutions attested to have stood the test of time in the way they have conducted the business of state and government, one is apt to ask, is this not a huge watershed from America’s Democracy. This is why many voters and citizens question the loyalty and reasonableness of Mr. Trump, as he cast aspersions on a free and fair general election in 2016, with the "wait and see response. This is a rather unfortunate development and difficult precedence, that makes some call the ‘rigged’ election caricaturing of Mr. Trump as one step to political suicide and a genuine reason not to vote for him in the general election; and an argument that puts on the table, the question, as to whether the Republican Standard Bearer understands what his response indicate, what the purpose of government is and the place of the US Presidency in directing affairs of the nation, both nationally and internationally.

SECOND 2016 PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE: A New Development in possible Use of Presidential Power?

Keywords or Terms: 2016 White House Race; Second Presidential Debate; US Senate; Washington University, St. Louis; Hillary Clinton; Donald Trump; TRAS POLITICA PRINCIPLE; American Constitution; Buddying Tyrant; disillusionment; Presidential Powers; Vladimir Putin; Kim Jong-un; NBC-Wall Street Journal Polls; Donald Trump’s 2016; Mitch Romney’s 2012; and John McCain’s 2008

A great deal has been written and said about presidential debates and campaigns in 2016. With a new development coming from the Republican candidate’s intention to prosecute his rival in the 2016 White House race, if he ever wins the November general elections, one must now expect some degree of substantial disagreements regarding where the current debate for the White House is taking the country; and, the possible implication of such a proposal. Americans can all agree that unlike what obtains in some other countries or parts of the world, where there are poor checks and balances in the arms of government, or poorly arranged governmental power apparatus, hardly in the history of this democracy has there been an attempt to degenerate to a level that may be construed as witch-hunting in the management of the affairs of State, immediately after an election. America and her politicians, past and present, are not known to threaten an opposition candidate with potential prosecution and jail time as is currently advanced by the Republican Standard Bearer. Like a watershed from established tradition, Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, responded to a question during the town hall-styled debate at Washington University on October 9, 2016 in St Louis, that makes many constitutional scholars question or wonder if the candidate has not stepped into a terrain, where he might as well be insulting America’s founding fathers’ advancements, regarding the use of presidential powers and the separation of political powers in governance.

Trias politica principle, developed in ancient Greece, separates responsibilities of arms of government, defining core functions of each arm to prevent or preempt any attempt by any one arm of government to violate the other. The American constitution takes this principle very seriously; and, presents an ideal and understanding that there must not be concentration of power in any arm, executive, judiciary or legislature, to affirm independence of each arm, and provide checks and balances. The threat from the Republican flag bearer at the second 2016 presidential debate, to prosecute and jail his political rival if he wins the presidency, not only flies in the face of the separation of powers, Trias politica principle, it now introduces a general disillusionment to the long standing and trusted American idealism; that each arm of government has a special place and power to exert and precludes any attempt to abuse power by any one arm or occupant of the office.

For the Republican flag bearer to contemplate and threaten to send his rival to jail at the second 2016 presidential debate, is a notice to American voters that we are at dawn of a new era, where a potential leader of the nation is challenging long standing idealism as Americans, a tradition of cherished freedom and liberties. And of course, everyone knows by now that Mr. Trump’s misogynists, Islamophobia and nationalistic campaign flavor may actually put limitations on the average American liberties, if he had his way. This new development in Mr. Trump’s campaign for the 2016 White House not only introduces a new quagmire or precedence as to how the occupant of the highest office in the land, may exercise presidential powers, but also sends notices to Americans that he may be a president in making that has very little respect for the rule of law; a likely candidate who may believe he is above the laws of the land, and so free to do as he pleases or wishes. In three plain words, A budding Tyrant! This is the case in my judgement, not because of my preference for a better and seasoned politician to take over the mantle of power from the outgoing President of the United States, but because of the potential implication of the brand of nationalistic campaign, some say Hitler-like campaign, that has characterized the Republican flag bearer’s drive for the 2016 White House’s oval office.

Although the very idea of prosecuting one’s political opponent, once achieving the mantle of power, appears relatively foreign to the American exceptionalism doctrine in political campaigns, the protection of the rights and well-being of American citizens as conceived in our constitution and democracy, is not only being challenged in Mr. Trump’s proposal or anticipation, but also, put to trial, the core values of the Judeo-Christian principles and doctrinaire that has guided the institution of the US constitution. In case anyone is in doubt, purist will like to remind Mr. Trump, that our constitution enjoins an altruism (“In as much as ye have done this unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me”). If Mr. Trump’s proposal at the second 2016 Presidential debate is unchallenged at this time, if Americans look away and attempt to overlook this potential dictatorial implication of his possible leadership if he ends up in the White House oval office, the country may end up suffering a foolery, at long last. A self-assured misogynist racist and now, vindictive and malicious candidate may end up being the third Reich reincarnation that all of us so much fear and dislike. A candidate that bestows praises on dictators of the world, who respects and appreciates leaders who annihilate their countrymen, Putin of Russia and Kim Jong-un of North Korea, is more likely to usurp the powers of the other arms of government once voted into office.

Presidential powers afford for the occupant of the White House oval office to appoint federal judiciary, federal executive departments, Joint Chief of Staff, the Post Master General, and other federal posts under the advice and consent of the US Senate. There is a measure of independence in the exercise of the presidential power, in case of a legislative recess, where an occupant of the White House oval office may intermittently appoint a temporary occupant, a legislative recess appointee, who can do his bid or hold brief for his potential violation of executive powers, where harm may be caused to the psychic of the public, including the incarceration of minority groups, like Muslims, Women, Asians, Blacks, Latinos and Mexicans; sending them to concentration camps as it were during the second World War for Japanese Americans.

A candidate promising to personally instruct that his political rival be prosecuted and jailed if he wins, hardly believes in the tenets of the Bill of Rights; nor, the provisions of due process in the application of law. If a political candidate hardly respects women, and his past recorded vocal indiscretions document this fact, no matter his belated regrets, his utterances show what he is actually about; and, with his boastful molesting of women, ala 1)“Grab ’em by the pussy”; 2) “I did try to fuck her. She was married”; 3) “I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there. And she was married”; and 4) Just kiss. I don’t wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything,” no one must imagine any differently. What Mr. Trump exemplifies and manifests are a pattern of behavior of violence and abuse of women; and a preference of use of language, that glorifies a sense of entitlement to engage in behavior that abuse the rights of the opposite sex. A candidate of this flair, is more likely to rough shoulder the laws of the land; and possibly abuse position of authority, if he ever gains power and authority. This is why the idea of a Donald Trump’s presidency must send shivers and fears to the spines of all Americans with good, conscious and civil dispositions.

In short, dispositions to utterances and or distractions on the campaign trail that border on violation of citizens’ rights, including surprises and uncanny proposals from Mr. Trump to violate women’s genital, addressing America’s energy needs, advocating restricted borders as against amnesty for non-resident immigrants, and derogation of his rival, with comments as Ms. Clinton signing up with the Devil, are exemplification of tyranny and precursors to possible Armageddon in the use of presidential powers; one that must light the fire of apprehensions and concerns among Americans regarding the possibility of having Donald Trump as the forty-fifth President of the United States. The second President Debate for 2016 White House, is obviously a turning or braking point in the campaign for the Oval Office and raises many questions that have to be sorted out before everyone goes to the polls to make probably what must now be considered the worst mistake in contemporary American Presidential Elections.

A potential leader who mirrors a tyrant-like Vladimir Putin, who would want to jail his political rival, who is increasingly exhibiting despotic behavior, is a recipe for a huge problem for America or a potential disaster in American Democratic Experience. Uncommitted American voters in current cycle of campaign for 2016 White House, who are having cyclical romances with who they will vote in as the next President of United States, owe themselves an obligation to find out the true nature of the persons presenting themselves as candidate for the President of the United States. They owe themselves the duty to ascertain what characteristic of behavior and temperament, they will accommodate in a person vying for the highest office in the land; and, what kind of person ought to represent their interest in the international arena. If a candidate has an uncharacteristic behavioral issues that make his party members and stalwarts question his leadership and authenticity to occupy the highest office in the land, shouldn’t the rest of America be weary of this candidate. If members of a candidate’s party are deflecting from his campaign, if party stalwarts, including the US Speaker is saying he is unwilling to campaign with his party’s standard flag bearer, shouldn’t the American voter be weary of this kind of candidate? Is there a reason why his party’s members are un-endorsing his campaign? Is there a reason why former endorsers are pulling their former endorsements of the candidate for office of the President of the United States and saying fie?

Incidentally, after the Second Presidential Candidates’ debate at Washington University, St. Louis, NBC-Wall Street Journal Polls show comparatively, the performance of the Republican Party flag bearer against his rival in the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, as dismal. The prevailing polling results and probably preferences by American Voters indicate an edge for the Democratic Party Candidate, Secretary Clinton. Further, questions regarding the suitability of the Republican flag bearer is now now drumming higher and harder than have ever been in recent time. Barely a month to the general election, many voters are dismayed that a potential occupant of the White House oval office, can accede to violation of America’s tax laws; writing off close to a billion dollars’ business losses, in future stream of tax payments, with possibility of not paying any federal income tax for the next twenty-years. Americans are further worried and mystified with the content of the recently released lewd tapes showing Mr. Trump’s preference for sexual assault of women and wondering what's next, with the 2016 Republican flag bearer characterizing what is obviously a criminal act by a former 59-year-old, as merely, locker room antics or talks? Really?

The prevailing voices of supporters of candidate Donald Trump portray a shroud of confusion; and, with a new realization that there is often a constant change between the “known” and “unknowns’ or the “expected” and the “unexpected” about the life and behavior of the Republican flag bearer; there is now all the more reasons to be careful about how much public commitments insider Republicans are bestowing on this brand of candidacy for the highest office in the land. No establishment Republican with any iota of reputation is ready and willing to give unequivocal support for their party’s 2016 standard bearer. Further, the prevailing understanding among political pollsters, drawn from data since the second presidential debate, shows how slim a chance, the current Republican Party flag bearer has in winning the 2016 White House. In addition, recent data, one as recent as this morning’s, show that comparatively, Donald Trump’s 2016 Republican Party campaign effort against Mitch Romney’s 2012 and John McCain’s 2008, is so winded away, it is rather difficult to see a path for him to reach the required number of  electoral college number to declare victory on the election night. In terms of affinity and establishment party’s commitment to the candidature, Donald Trump’s candidature and campaign for the White House, are comparatively doing worse off than Mitt Romney and John McCain, at this time of the game. Comparatively, Mr. Trump is doing less well in number of battle ground states and some of his former party’s supporters are considering him more of a liability for many legislative races, especially in some states the Republican Party has considered a sure bet for a return of their party’s candidate to the legislature. As compared to the two recent Republican Party flag bearer ( Mitt Romney - 2012; John McCain - 2008), Mr. Trump is considered more of a long short than hitherto anticipated since the party’s convention. By now in the race, comparatively, Donald Trump has support from 72% of likely Republican voters; Mitt Romney, 93% and John McCain, 90%.

There are those in the Republican Party, who are advocating dumping Donald Trump as the Republican Party flag bearer. While the prevailing voice, however, is that Donald Trump has the rank and file’s mandate, there are growing disenfranchisement and probably a huge rift between Donald Trump and a preponderance generality of the Republican establishment. The power brokers and well educated Republicans are dodging and jumping ships; worse yet, the Republican House Speaker, Paul Ryan, just released statement saying he does not intend to campaign alongside the Republican Party’s flag bearer or standard bearer, a huge departure from tradition. The rhetorical escalations since the release of lewd tapes of Donald Trump's comments about women plus his insistent attacks and denigration of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party standard bearer, during the debate, have given many more Republicans and Independent voters a second thought about voting for Donald Trump. With Donald Trump throwing his Vice-Presidential nominee under the bus during his second presidential debates, with his deviation away from Mike Pence’s position on issue of handling the war in Syria, Donald Trump continues to compound the problem of having independent and undecided voters bier his way during the upcoming election day. His enigma has become a greater challenge for potential independents who may be contemplating voting for  his brand of politics; and, making undecided Republicans disillusioned about throwing their support behind the Trump-Pence ticket, as no one knows or understands where really the ticket stands on foreign relations and many other national issues. Inquisitively, Donald Trump, the top of the Trump-Pence ticket, is against US Air power strike against Syrian Prime Minister Assad, while the bottom half of the ticket, Mike Pence, an experienced foreign relation committee member while in US Congress, is in favor of all out and complete air strike to help change the course of the historical mayhem in Syria.

Quizzically, nobody knows exactly what impelled Donald Trump, the Republican Standard flag bearer, to continue to advocate extreme vetting for refugees from Islamic States as he once again did at the second 2016 presidential debate, labeling them a probable Trojan Horse. His continued opposition to Islam and Muslims flies in the face of our nation’s avowed commitment to the doctrine of religious freedom and liberty. Now, if the nation ventures into the Middle East or any area of the world, where her ability to fight the enemy is going to depend on the support of governments with predominant Muslim population, the sad truth of an Islamophobia campaign, may come to roast. Contrarily, Democrat Hillary Clinton, is making a case, denouncing the position of his rival, asking that the United States may be tainted by the advocacy of Donald Trump against Islamic Religion and the persistence of rejecting refugees into the country. What American voters must now read from their rear view mirror, is that the nation stands more to loose by having a religious intolerant leader or bigot in the oval office, than one who is not.

Encouragingly, the brilliance of Hillary Clinton’s performance at the second presidential debate against Donald Trump is rather promising and the fact that many pollsters have rated her performance as steady and superior, are signs of relief from a potential nightmare. Further, the fact that these recent polling are affirming a positive outcome in favor of Hillary Clinton, putting her conveniently ahead and enough to win the November general election, with a promising margin that may allow her claim a potential runaway election, is another sign of relief for many concerned Americas who do not share Mr. Trump's brand of politics. Historical data has shown that, prior standard bearer candidates that have suffered less disastrous setbacks as suffered by Mr. Trump since the release of his sexual abuse tape, have really survived the debacle to turn around their un-favorability rating. Interestingly during the Sunday night dwell between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the first female major party nominee, chose to take the highway, choosing not to dwell on contemptuous Donald Trump’s allegation against her spouse; but reminding voters about the misogyny of Trump's campaign and his constant choice of body shaming of a former Ms. Universe, a Hispanic, as overweight. Simultaneously, Ms. Clinton continues to show her empathy for the underclass and remained engaged with the undecided and independent voters, listing her campaign offerings to better their lifestyle and redirecting their attention to the policy proposals she intends to execute and affirm once elected into the office of the President. To remind her supporters that she understands their frustrations, she again flew the idea of having a public-private space for politicians; and, committing to protecting all groups constituting America.

In brief, the second 2016 Presidential Candidates debate was not merely a competition of emotions but a choice of discernment of any responsibility by the Republican flag bearer regarding his past denigration of women, Muslims, or other minority American groups. Much as Donald Trump attempted intimidating his Democratic rival, the less Ms. Clinton appeared daunted. The boundless ignorance and baseless accusations on the part of the Republican flag bearer, showed how much difficult it continues to be for many independent voters to move to the side of Donald Trump’s devotees. Regarding his repentance on a number of issues or switching the discussion between reality and unreality, nothing was more displeasing or disgusting as the constant interjections of rude and baseless accusations that make many wonder, if Donald Trump truly has the temperance to become the President of the United States. Although the American voter was better informed and enlightened about the best choice in the current cycle of presidential elections, the developments at the second debate, either exposed Mr. Trump as a workplace bully, who may find it difficult to interact on a basis of social rules, norms and decorum that are expected, of the occupant of the highest office in the land.

The significance of realizing or knowing that a potential president of the United States, once took advantage of the nation’s tax laws, to reduce future tax liabilities by postponing current tax obligations; or is now currently advancing a tax proposal that may continue to cut taxes to the rich who had vehemently violated the obligation of all citizens to tax obligations, is an eye opener to how many affluent taxable Americans have become tax cheats. There is probably a likelihood that Mr. Trump may bring to the White House and governance the same line of thought that it is okay to take advantage of the lapses in public policies, while in position of leadership or the US Presidency. Compounding this is the reality of knowing that a prospective candidate’s opinion of women or the right of women to make decision regarding their body must have been a reflection of his low opinion of women or how he is likely to treat women, if  he ends up being in the White House, notwithstanding his denial of prevailing perception of him after the release of the lewd tapes, where he not only insulted women but also, made sexually aggressive terms that made him look more like a sulking juvenile caught in an old bad habit.