Thursday, October 20, 2016

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.


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.

Monday, October 10, 2016

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.


Saturday, October 1, 2016

First Presidential Debate Performance of Hillary Clinton Against Donald Trump

Keywords or Terms: Hofstra University; Key Competitive States; Debate Performance; Misogynist; Xenophobia; Ms. Universe; Free College Debt; TPP Pact; Citizen United; NBC-TV Lester Holt; Enigma; Twitter dom; Alicia Machado,  Islamic State Militant; Consequential versus Inconsequential; US Presidency; 2016 White House; Donald Trump; Hillary Clinton; American Voters

An assessment of the debate performance between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump at Hofstra University Auditorium has been telling. Hillary Rodham Clinton has been surging in Key Competitive States, with her debate performance solidifying her chances of occupying the White House come next year. Most political polls since the Monday Night debate have attempted to shed more light on the veracity of performance of either candidate for the 2016 White House. A late Friday, September 30th poll released by Suffolk University, put the Democratic Flag bearer ahead of her opponent at 44% of likely voters, against 38% for Donald Trump.

With recent polling, tweeting, and developments in the campaign for 2016 White House, it appears that, one presidential candidate began his journey for the White House oval office, with little iota of truth in his declarations, tweeting and candor, with meager effort at addressing distinct policy shifts on close to twenty national policy issues, including abrasive and somewhat conflicting views on immigration, abortion and national security; but a gusto to prove to those who may be fooled by his arrogance, that he is a better candidate to step into the shoes of the outgoing first African American President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama. His campaign statements, words and nuances, including unfounded claims on many national issues are now considered in many quarters as probably wishful thinking. His somewhat awkward, if not outright derogation statements and declarations about his opponent have been outside the realm of reality and civil presidential campaigning for the White House oval office in recent memory. His comments about the Democratic flag bearer, Hillary Clinton, has been described in some quarters as misogynist, sexist and abhorring, to say the least.

Close to Eighty-Four Million television viewers, inquisitive about what either party’s candidate has to offer them as American voters, who were relying heavily on learning something new or different between the two major party candidates at the first 2016 Presidential Debate at Hofstra University, were treated to a clash of two worlds. A world of a candidate who believes he can be nastier than his opponent, who chooses not to take advantage of relevant policy differences in what his opponent was offering but rather engaged in light weight, if not confused misapplication of policy and declarations, to an extent of allowing the opponent’s allegation of intemperance to get under his skin, where he double down on his disdain for women, and particularly, on a former Ms. Universe. An uncongenial political candidate, who believes going after the past indiscretions or infidelities of his opponent’s spouse will yield him more votes at the polls; different from a candidate, who, articulated her argument for running for the White House, who reminded the competition that she is not only prepared for the presidential debate of September 24, 2016, but also, is determined to occupy and exercise the power of the presidency to better the welfare of many, including mothers, children and American workers. A female Democratic Party flag-bearer, who articulated a well-grounded knowledge of foreign and international relations; and, offered American voters the following proposals: 1) a potential for free college debt policy that may help grow the middle class, and hopefully temper or reverse the trend of burgeoning college attendance debts; 2) potential of refocusing or re-arranging the terms of the Trans-Pacific Trade Pact, to address the minor challenges of the trade pact as signed; 3) the potential of reverting the controversial supreme court decision on Citizens United versus Federal Electoral Commission, which afforded an unbridled fund raising in US elections; 4) the veracity and potential of new jobs being created in manufacturing, infrastructure building by innovative new start-ups or small businesses; and 5) advancement for mending fences on racism, reversing incremental police shooting, community violence, corrective taxation policies, among others.

Reflectively talking about what he would have done differently at the first 2016 major political party presidential candidates’ debate a few days later, the Republican Party flag bearer, insisted he got out everything he had to say at the debate, laying claim he had a good time at the debate; yet corollary denying general perception of campaign observers that he did very poorly at the debate. Mr. Trump, the Republican flag bearer, has become more of an enigma on the campaign trail since the Monday night debate that shown more light on what type of leader he probably is and may end up being if voted into the office of US Presidency. If Mr. trump wanted American voters to consider his run for the 2016 White House seriously, maybe he should have prepped for the debate; maybe he should have avoided going rouge on women and issues that make him justify the perception that he cares very little for women and their concerns.

Notwithstanding the Republican flag bearer's position, accolades or differences, on his performance at the debate, many American voters have probably made up their minds regarding who they are going to vote for; and, what the audience saw on Monday September 24th, 2016, will have somehow, opened up new considerations for each voter: whether to continue supporting an uncongenial braggadocios political candidate, with a knack for dramatic tweeting and offensive comments about minorities, women and other groups, who will rather spend his time focusing on trivialities rather than, national issues that impact the bread and butter concerns of the voters, and or, defer to a long tested and well-seasoned political operative, with clout and dependable resilience in addressing policy and national issues; graciously accepting he is not up to snuff when it comes to political experience and running for the White House oval office. Uncharacteristic exemplification of the veracity of Hillary Clinton’s political experience and dossier was outed at Hofstra University Auditorium, when her Republican rival made what may be considered outrageous claim about the stamina of the first female major American Political Party flag bearer: "Well, as soon as he travels to 112 countries and negotiates a peace deal, a cease-fire … or even spends 11 hours testifying in front of a congressional committee, he can talk to me about stamina” Hillary Clinton nailed it on the head and made Mr. Trump look more like a politician caught in the fire hole, when she offered this response to the issue of her stamina!

Conclusively, the first major 2016 presidential candidates’ debate couldn’t have been more revealing of the strengths or weaknesses of either of the candidates in the 2016 race; as the candidate who needed to convince uncommitted America voters that he is the real deal failed woefully; and one, that has uncharacteristically been considered as not just trustworthy enough, shown ever so brightly to the thrillingly of her supporters, with a renewed conviction of victory for the not-so-perfect Hallmark! The Republican Party flag bearer, known for his lone wolf approach characteristic of debating style during the Republican party primaries, trolled and interjected his opponent’s response more than fifty times, ignoring the usual decorum of how presidential debates are conducted. With askance and unconscionable style, ignored, disrespected and showed no courtesy to his opponent or Lester Holt, the NBC-TV debate moderator, as he insistently offered less than cordial utterances in his multiple interjections. Invariably, what the audience was exposed to in the first 2016 major political parties' presidential candidates' debate, was nothing short of playground antic that the Republican party flag bearer has been known for in his intra-party Republican party debates of the past eighteen months. Much as candidate Clinton attempted to get out our prepared policies and arrangement for the Office of US Presidency, so were interjections from Donald Trump with: 1) “She doesn’t have the look;” 2) “She doesn’t have the stamina.”

Could Critics of the Republican flag bearer be right concerning his thin-skin to criticism? For critics of the Republican party flag bearer, not only has Mr. Trump been spreading racists birther lie over the past eight years in an attempt to de-legitimize the presidency of the first African American US President, the Republican flag bearer continues to propagate false claims that are not only outrageous, but absolutely delirious considering what are probably known about the essence of Trump’s campaign for the White House oval office in 2016. For Hillary Clinton, who closely kept to the script in her debate deliberations and maintained a poise of authority as she renders her position on policy issues, sometimes attempting to provoke her opponent to the extent that viewers saw a Republican opponent with a rather explosive debate performance and what some debate observers term, inability to stay on message and remain above board as one manages the inconsequential and consequential of leadership obligations.

Even in instances of relative debate congeniality, Clinton was still able to assert the argument that her opponent, Mr. Trump, wants to continue to pitch Americans against each other. Much as Clinton admonished all Americans to work together to build a better future, Trump continues to offer comments that appear to put him in another realm and reality, only known to himself and probably, throng of Republican supporters who have vowed to elect him President. Rather than hit Ms. Clinton on issues that bemoan her campaign for 2016 White House, honesty and truthfulness, Mr. Trump remains despaired and desperate, switching, twitching and sometimes, blown off course, appearing to be losing his temperament, with an assailed comeback: “"You go to New England, you go to Ohio, Pennsylvania, you go anywhere you want, Secretary Clinton, and you will see devastation where manufacture is down 30, 40, sometimes 50%. NAFTA is the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere, but certainly ever signed in this country." Paraphrasing one MSNBC commentator, post-debate reaction, the American voter is left with the choice between a candidate who has acquiesce himself with behavior characteristic of a school yard bully; and a candidate with expansive legal debate experience, and or long public service, who may not be necessarily perfect, but appearing stronger by the day and polls, instinctively built ready and prepared to take the mantle of office of the US Presidency.

If Clinton doesn’t open up her polls’ lead with her debate performance showing the world that her past public service experiences matter, not only to the presidency, not only to those who may doubt her trustworthiness, but also to many voters who have been sitting on the fence; and, who finally found in one scoop of a night on September 26, 2016, that Hillary Clinton is a more prepared and superior candidate to occupy the office of the US Presidency than Donald Trump. Judging by Hillary Clinton’s performance at the first 2016 Presidential Debate of the two major parties in America, the  collapse of Trump's acquaintances of old freewheeling campaign style, peppered with outrageous allegations, xenophobic and unapologetic sexism that may succinctly crystallized has having no place in our kind of democracy. Trump’s throng of supporters, probably felt humiliated for his unpreparedness for the debate. If the winner of the debate were to be determines about how much hot air was puffing out of their mouth, maybe the substance of insult would have heralded Mr. Trump’s chances to the White House in the coming general election. However, for now, it appears this might not be.

The apprehensiveness of many establishment Republicans regarding the candidacy of Donald Trump for the 2016 White House, is now rather worth a solid second consideration at this time. Trump’s tweeter storm early Friday morning has been upheaval even within Trump’s campaign. There were some Republicans, in States like Ohio, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire and Pennsylvanian who had given the Republican flag bearer a benefit of doubt prior to the Monday’s September 24 debate Inexplicably,  Trump woefully failed to go after Hillary Clinton for part of her weaknesses at the debate, nor made effort to rally his supporters with more proactive futurist policy proposal that could have strengthened his chances of winning some of the uncommitted American voters, a little bit. Rather, he punctiliously continued to work on minor issues of faulty microphone and his derogation comments about the Democratic Party flag-bearer. 

Uncharacteristically and miraculously, the weight of the former Ms. Universe has now played into the lofty and highly regarded US Presidential debate. Hillary Clinton, who highlighted the misogynist flair of her opponent, by initially introducing the pageant queen's name unconscionably at the debate, to highlight the thin-skin of her opponent to genuine criticism, could by now assert, "I told you so!" The war of words that has ensued between Donald Trump and Alicia Machado, a Mexican former Ms. Universe, has now taken a life of its own, with Mr. Trump tweeting in the middle of the night and doubling down on what many experienced debaters and presidential campaigns would have easily ignored as rubbish. Mr. Trump's derogation statements about the Mother-Actress-Mexican-US-Citizen are now unfathomable distractions, not only to important issues of concern to many American voters, but also the Republican Party who nominated Donald Trump as their party's 2016 flag bearer. A pageant winner is now the toast of what in more congenial times, would have been ignored. However, thanks to Mr. Trump's relatively thin skin and inability to manage his use of social media, a sideline issue of office water-fountain gossips has now gone mainstream conversation in 2016 presidential campaign for the White House. Many seasoned political observers are amazed that theatrics of America's reality television programming, far remote from reality and political significance of many national and public issue, issues of genuine interest to undecided American voters, is now daily and routinely interjected to the the presidential race. Just as Mr. Trump has vacated decency and ignored civil discussions of relevant national issues and policies, American voters are now being treated to television-like drama in the campaign for the 2016 White House oval office. Hillary Clinton’s baiting of Donald Trump with Alicia Machado to prove Mr. Trump is temperamental and unfit for the White oval office, appears to have been vindicated by this one political debate kabuki. Mr Trump continues to body-shame the beauty queen on the campaign trail after his three a.m. Tweet that continue to bug down his campaign. The architect of the political debate kabuki, Hillary Clinton, continues to grow in confidence and support among the undecided in the battle ground states, that were judged head-to-head in polls prior to the first 2016 White House debate.

As if this nightmare was not enough for the nation, the Republican Party flag bearer appears to be now interested in focusing and discussing the infidelity of Ms. Clinton's spouse, former President Clinton. In short, or surprisingly, the Trump campaign is focusing on making Hillary Clinton responsible for the actions of her husband; a hard sell for most reasonable and articulate American voters. Rather than talking about issues of jobs, national safety, national and international terrorism, immigration, racism, police brutality, the 2016 Presidential Campaign and debate has degenerated to a tail of two cities, a discussion of issues of relative insignificance to the educated as against the fancy or inconsequential of the educationally challenged. Donald Trump discussions since the first 2016 Campaign debate on Monday has been a dumpster fire with many damaging statements and tweets that the Republican flag-bearer has chosen to engage in an after-debate effort to re-direct attention from his lackluster presidential debate performance

The danger of the course of the Republican party flag bearer thirty-eight days to the election day, may have probably collapse the chances of a Republican candidate occupying the White House in 2017. For instance, Trump’s brazen refusal to disclose his tax returns, has compounded his ‘Tweeter Dome’ indiscretions; rather than flesh out his so-called extensive plan to defeat the Islamic State Militant in Syria, he is more interested in averting his light weight to conspiracy propaganda to deny him victory for he White House; rather than  address and cultivate other supporters that may default to his choice of freewheeling campaign peppered by insults, Xenophon, unapologetic nationalism and sexism, Trump has taken his campaign to a new never land, engaging a former inconsequential beauty queen in a trade of words rather than concentrating on outworking and outclassing his opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton. He is more interested in talking about a beauty pageant sex tapes, rather than important national issues. Really? Is this what the run for the US White House has degenerated into?