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.