WhatFinger


The Great Debate



Once again, let me preface my comments and thoughts on the Hofstra presidential debate by making it very clear to you all that, I am, first and foremost a staunch republican, a tried-and-true conservative and a steadfast supporter of Donald Trump to be the next president of the United States of America. Just about a month ago, on August 29th, I took to writing my article ‘I Hope I am Wrong’. In it, I kindheartedly conceded the victory of the next presidential elections to Hillary Clinton by virtue of the fact, that a great majority of Americans, simply put, have succumbed to a culture of Marxism and Communism, readily perceived in just about every fabric of our New Republic – a culture led by Barack Obama with his commitment of transforming this great nation made back on October 30th, 2008, just before he was elected as the 44th president of the U.S. – a commitment which will be unreservedly continued by Hillary Clinton, were she to become the next president of the United States. No sooner had I published my capitulation article, in the weeks that followed, all national polls soon began to prove me wrong, showing Mr. Trump’s legendary come-from-behind race for the presidency, as margins tightened and the tie turned in Trump’s favor even in some key swing states, such as Iowa, North Carolina and Ohio, while in others, like Nevada and Florida, polls showed both candidates being in a dead-heat well within the margins of error. Before I knew it then, polls were making me second-guess myself as to my unwanted concession, and, in fact, even made me think twice, on how wrong I could be, paying homage, if you will, to the title chosen for my article – mind you, a blessing in disguise when it is all said and done.
The mere thought that Trump, could, in fact, be elected as our next president after all, served, to say the least, as an immense source of inspiration and hope for me, while I look upon the forthcoming elections as a nothing short than a momentous milestone not only for the United States of America but for mankind as well – so much is at stake. While many Americans go about their daily lives, with little or no empathy or concerns for what is looming in their future under a Hillary Clinton administration, I, as an offspring of one of the most oppressive communist regimes ever in the island of Cuba, can only tremble at the thoughts of what lies ahead should Hillary Clinton win the election on November 8th. The thought alone of an empowered enemy-state such as Iran having capability of developing a nuclear arsenal aided by the injection of tens of billions of dollars contributed by the most corrupt administration in the history of the nation led by Barack Obama and our next possible president Hillary Clinton should be enough for all of us Americans to out-and-out debar Clinton from her candidacy for the office of the president - which is all about upholding our supremacy not sucking-up to our enemies all over the world. Clinton’s trail of lies, corruption, and outright treasonous acts, including but not limited to her repulsive role in the Benghazi massacre; her nauseating willingness to lie to the families of those fallen in that embassy as to how they died, to her most recent e-mail scandals, as well as her filthy rags-to-riches quid-pro-quo Foundation, which together with husband Bill facilitated Russia’s acquisition of Uranium mines in the U.S., amounting to what could be approximately 20% of the world’s uranium output, would be enough, I thought, for Donald Trump to just walk all over Clinton in the infamous debate. In the weeks and days preceding the debate, [the] most watched of its kind in history, which according to the Nielsen ratings averaged a total of 84 million viewers across 13 of the TV channels that carried it live, I was kind of overwhelmed with the non-stop stream of political-insiders, expert commentators, connoisseurs and you-name-it, oracles claiming to have precognition powers as to what it would take for both presidential candidates to win the debate. I swear to you, there were times when, I could not help such build-up bringing back memories of the unforgettable “Thrilla in Manila” – that final boxing match between Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazer in their heavyweight championship of the world on October 1st, 1975 at the Philippines Coliseum a stone-throw away from Manila, capital of the Philippines, as zillions of viewers watched these two titans go at each other in a close-circuit T.V., viewing all over the world.

Support Canada Free Press


Amidst all the nonsense that I had to put-up with all throughout in the pre-debate saga of predictability epidemic, I do have to concede, however, that, for once, I thought the pundit universe, as a whole, had finally come to grasps with the one truism which I personally advocated ever since I began writing my political dissertations, to wit, the fact that illiteracy and political ignorance are rampantly common in America’s mainstream voting universe, noticeably, as most of the experts coincided on the fact that the candidates’ odds for winning or losing rested for the most part, on non-issues as opposed to criteria such as stage-presence, demeanor, conduct, behavior or otherwise tone and style. Again, a premise long-sustained by audiences prevalently ignorant, eagerly willing to making decisions exclusively relying on trivialities, albeit irrelevant vantage points - a sad but nonetheless a true-life reality of frightening proportions considering the magnitude and repercussions of all that is at stake in these elections. With the race being as tight as it was in the days preceding the debate, and given the fact that many of us, myself included, thought the debate could easily end up being a decisive turning-point for either one of the candidates, I had managed to build-up a battery of expectations on how this whole thing would develop. I have to say it, though; to me it was a foregone conclusion that Mr. Trump would win the debate handily – no “ifs or buts” about it. Notwithstanding my obviously biased support for candidate Trump, I still let reason and logic run its course. As far as I was concerned, there was such an outrageous amount of low-down dirty material prevalent in Clinton’s closet from which to draw knock-out punches to where I thought Trump could really just win it all, mind you without the need of any low-blows and/or the need to cross the boundaries of respectfulness and etiquette. I did mention, to some in my close-knit circle of family and friends that I hoped Mr. Trump, would not, under any circumstance, fall into the many psychological snares that had been avidly set-up for him in the debate. As far as I was concerned, these ‘traps’ included, but were not limited to subject-matters such as Trump’s softening-up of his outspoken vernacular of controversial attacks, all of which, in my mind, had contributed to Trump’s defeat of 16 tough candidates in the primaries. One of Mr. Trump’s greatest attributes, as far as I am concerned, was his total lack of “political correctness” – a prevalent disease afflicting most all politicians nowadays, the cure for which we seem not to have found. This, coupled with Clinton’s favorite “femme-fatale” role alluding to a higher bar of respectfulness based solely on womanhood, could be, as far as I was concerned two of the most critical criteria in the way that Mr. Trump conducted himself in the debate – both of which, I construed as having potential catastrophic results if mistakenly embraced on the wrong side of the issue by Mr. Trump.

In the matter of political correctness, invariably, I heard the experts, over and over, clamoring for Mr. Trump self-restraint in coming through as too aggressive. Vis-à-vis, invariably I thought their advice could only serve to persuade the man to becoming someone he was not. Like it or not, Mr. Trump is Mr. Trump. His uniqueness as outsider; a non-establishment candidate, genuinely outspoken, if at times gruesomely bordering on what could be thought of as unacceptable in a politically expedient world of scripted expectations was, in fact, the raison d'ê·tre for his success in winning the primaries, thus no reason for changing anything. A watered-down version of Mr. Trump conceived exclusively for the highly anticipated debate, would be not only a farce, but yet another travesty to an already confused and ill-informed voting universe, just more of the same if you will. My only advice to Mr. Trump going into the debate would have been to simply be himself, which, I am sorry to say, was not the case at all. Right off the bat, I saw a Trump, unlike any of the Trumps I was either expecting or had seen prior to the debate. Based on the foregoing presumptions as to how the voting universe would judge the debate, I too, opted to appraise the event, strictly from a commonsensical perspective – that is, I would forsake the candidates’ political platforms, per say, and I would concentrate on all but the real issues as originally proposed by NBC moderator, Lester Holt, to wit, the exploration of three topic areas: achieving prosperity, America’s direction and securing America. I figured that, at the end of the day, the candidates’ interactions, first amongst themselves and then with the moderator, would really determine who the winner would be. That said, I first started noticing many things which were really startling to me. One of my first observations was Trump’s repeated attempts to be agreeable with Clinton, which, in my mind was a strategical disaster. Even that being the case, where the two candidates could legitimately agree on certain issues, I thought, the debate would be the worst possible choice for Mr. Trump to tell about it to the world, as the public could, possibly perceive both as being comparable – the exact opposite outlook of what Mr. Trump has been claiming in his campaign. Huge mistake, I believe. To prove my point, I took time to review the debate and was able to do a fact-checking search of the times that Mr. Trump agreed with Clinton. For example, Mr. Trump said he agreed with Clinton’s position on child-care; on the need for better relationships in the nation’s inner-city communities; on the right to people on watch lists and no-fly lists; on what ISIS is doing through the internet; and on the fact that nuclear armament and nuclear weapons is the single greatest problem facing the world. Hello. Yes, there are all legitimate arguments to be made for Trumps’ agreements on certain issues, but, for God’s sake, this was definitely not best time to tell the world about it, as your entire campaign has been built on selling the world how different you both are in everything. Give me a break. My next shocking observation was Mr. Trump’s complete failure in attacking Clinton’s weakest areas, except for a very brief mention of her release of thirty-three thousand e-mails from her private-server while as a Secretary of State, which, by the way, he mentioned only as part of a defense narrative in response to Clinton’s demand for Trump to make his tax returns public. Matter of fact, come to think of it, I think Trump spent most of the debate trying to defend himself from Clinton’s repeated personal attacks which had nothing to do with the issues, but dwelled more in innuendos, all of which, could have easily served as door-openers for Mr. Trump to retaliate by resorting to an immense arsenal of Clinton’s “dirty-laundry” list, considering her personal attacks on Trump had made all responses to be thought off as “fair-game”. The fact that Trump just passed on the many opportunities given him on bringing to light issues such as Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, Clinton’s legacy of deceit, were, as far as I was concerned, just a poor showing by Mr. Trump, at times, making him look somewhat wimpy and/or too politically correct. Is this the same Trump that projected the very opposite image throughout the campaign, I asked myself? Time and time again, all throughout the entire debate, I felt like Mr. Trump had been indicted in Grand Jury investigation, where the lead-prosecutor was Hillary Clinton. All night, I kept asking myself, why on earth is this man [Trump] even bothering answering of some Clinton’s insidious accusations, which ranged everywhere from Trump’s alleged repudiation of women in general all the way to outright racist overtures and everything in-between. The fact that Mr. Trump dignified Clinton’s claim that he had called a woman ‘Miss Piggy’ and ‘Miss Housekeeping, because she was Latina, was, as far as I am concerned one his lowest points of this debate, together with his dwelling on the comments he made of Rosie O’Donnell, back some ten years, just proving to me that Clinton had the upper-hand, and had the invincible Trump with his back to the wall. No question about it. How the world would react to the reverse roles, adopted by these two, was, as far as I was concerned, the topic for yet another debate. Less perceptible, but just as telling as the aforementioned arguments, had to do with body-language messages sent by both candidates throughout the debate. As for Trump, I could not help but notice how he occasionally, all throughout the debate, took sips of water, which came-through with an air of edginess or uneasiness. Neither good Donald. All throughout the debate also, he continued uttering the word “Wrong”, just as Clinton was still talking. Again, a sign of jumpiness and tenseness not appropriate for someone who is supposed to be in command of a situation. Bad Donald. Vis-à-vis, Clinton on the other hand, appeared to be in total command with a cynical smirk on her face, which lasted for most of the debate, if yet portraying to the viewing audience a sense of confidence and dominance, unmatched by Mr. Trump all throughout the bout, whose close-ups for the most part showed him with tight lips, defiantly looking at his opponent with his forehead shriveled, a posture typically denoting arrogance and haughtiness. No good Donald. And, yes, don’t tell me anymore, I know, Lester Holt, got on Trump’s case almost from the beginning – all the more reason perhaps for Mr. Trump to have taken a more aggressive stance. After all, Trump knew damn well going in, that the liberal mainstream media, including Mr. Holt, were all on Hillary’s side, regardless. So, yes, you guess it, much to my regret, I have to call a spade, a spade, and admit to the fact that Clinton won this debate handily. No question about it. What will the repercussions be? I don’t know. Thankfully, polls are telling us that it was not as bad for Trump as I thought it would be. Could this debate have made the difference as to who will be our next president. I don’t think so, but…I would caution Mr. Trump that on the next two debates, it would probably be in his best interest to just be Trump again. Some have said that his apparent drought in this debate was strategically designed to leave the best for last. I say hogwash to this argument, as I firmly believe this first debate could have sealed the deal had he been the real Trump and not this watered down version, who at times seemed weak and scrawny, very much unlike the Trump we have all come to praise, solely because of his unwavering fortitude of character. As of today, there are exactly 40 days left to election day on November 8th. There are two presidential debates left yet, one scheduled for October 9th and the other one for October 19th. With the stakes being as high as they are, not only for the United States of America but for the human race as well, and by virtue of the fact that the only hope for mankind’s return to a stable world, led by our supremacy and prowess rest mostly on Americans electing Donald Trump as the next president of this great land of ours, I pray to God that Mr. Trump, once again, refrains from the political expediency we observed on this first debate. I pray that his debate-coaches, confidants, consultants, counselors or otherwise his ardent advisors realize that Mr. Trump cannot win the rest of the debates or for that matter the presidency of the nation, unless the real Trump comes back – this is, dear friends, a one man’s opinion, my own. May God save us all.


View Comments

Obie Usategui -- Bio and Archives

Obie Usategui (The Patriot Obsever) and also runs AFCV-Americans For Conservative Values.  Obie is also the author of The Beginning of the End—“The transition to Communism in our own United states has come peacefully, ironically, via democratically-sanctioned elections”


Sponsored