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.