The walls fell in the Clinton vs. Trump debate
To slightly slander a person shows lack of capacity to transmit an own message. Slandering is used as a tactic which truly intends to conceal the effectiveness of personal arguments when choosing speech persuasion.
Donald Trump managed to assist in his own defeat. He called Hillary Clinton a “nasty woman” during the last presidential debate. The hard work of the previous encounters did not render the expected results.
The advantage of the Democrat candidate over his Republican competitor can be found in a wide range of issues. The convenience of the Latin vote, gun possession, immigration, and the threat of expelling illegal aliens have been some of the points that divided the waters in the debate of Clinton vs. Trump.
The statement of Donald Trump about not acknowledging the election results may be considered somewhat clumsy. It implies a major disrespect for the institutions of the Republic. The leader who is not capable of respecting the results of an election, may be very well considered far from worthy of such a presidential responsibility.
“The one whose walk is blameless, who does what is righteous, who speaks the truth from their heart; whose tongue utters no slander, who does no wrong to a neighbor, and casts no slur on others…” (Psalm 15:2-3).
To miss the truth is a human mistake. To express the real and firm decision of not respecting the results of the elections in advance is horrifying. It implies an underestimation to the people and a strong dictatorial feature. It is just a grotesque joke against the institutions.
Trunk showed his capricious being and dictatorial mindset which resulted in simple expressions that have always been there, but which have just recently been observable in his speech. The spiritual poverty which guides his actions shows his incapacity and lack of suitability to be a ruler. The foregoing, notwithstanding the levels of aggressiveness and continuous slandering towards his rival.
What is the American citizen expecting? Solutions regarding problems and concrete demands which have been translated into inputs for the political system. If the outputs are defined as of slandering and verbal aggression, we are undoubtedly witnessing political phariseism. The tactic failed and Donald Trump dug his own political grave.
Politics should be the art of benefiting the other. That science which is generated to solve problems by seeking for coherent and Concrete Solutions. The horizon of justice, truth, honesty and service is determined by the compass of commitment with the public area.
In a ship with many captains, it is likely that the path may be lost. And although being an only captain, when interior giants keep on fighting different battles, the ship will never reach its destination. If the leader is focused on slandering, hatred towards Latins, immigrants who are still not legalized and reside in United States territory and the lack of respect for the institutions, then it is clear that the entire crew might riot.
The blindfold falls when the truth frees a citizenship who has already realized who their candidates really are.
By Gretel Ledo
International Political Analyst. Master in International Relations between Europe and Latin America (Università di Bologna). Attorney, Majored in Political Sciences and Sociologist (UBA).
(*) Translated by WordCheck Traductores