The Presidential Debate was eye-opening
Neither candidate is good for the U.S.A.
I wish I hadn't watched the debate last night (September 10th, 2024) because after watching it I am certain that the next four years are not going to be any different than the past eight years regardless who wins. Americans may as well bury their heads in the sand because neither Trump or Harris is going to lead us away from the shameful state that our country is in at this time.
As a former English class teacher, I watched the debate to tally points to see who would "win" the debate based on topics and communication skills. There was no doubt that in debate, Kamala comes out ahead. She remained calm and focused on the questions even though some of her answers were political mumbo jumbo simply meant to dodge when a politician can't directly answer the question. Trump was unable to do even that. Instead of answering the questions, Trump got emotionally triggered and attacked his opponent for the past when he was supposed to stay focused on present and future issues.
Trump fanatics are not going to be swayed by this debate because they know how Trump is, but some voters may be more inclined to vote for Kamala Harris now because she has proven that she can talk the talk. Yet for me, I was so disappointed that this is the best that my country can come up with for leadership. I can't believe it's gotten this bad. The only person who hasn't been a disappointment so far is J.D. Vance. It would be so much easier for me if he was actually running for President instead of Trump.
On the topic of abortion, Kamala slayed Trump. I felt sorry for him as she scored point after point regarding what occurred with the Supreme Court and Roe vs. Wade. Though I was raised a Catholic who often quoted Mother Theresa's views on childbirth and abortion, I'm also a constitutionalist as an American and what happened to Roe vs. Wade is an abomination. Trump and the men who want to take away women's rights to abortion seem to think that rape, incest, underage pregnancy, sex trafficking, and other crimes do not occur and that women should simply accept all those horrors without the option or choice of saving their own lives. It was grotesque and appalling. Though I've never had an abortion and never will, I've had several good friends who have and at the time when they did, they made the best decision for their lives possible given the circumstances. Overturning Roe vs. Wade, was a tragic day in American history. Those who supported that or made that happen should be held accountable as misogynists and haters of the constitution. Kamala pointed this out and Trump had no defense which is where she scored all the winning points in the debate. He could have explained the Pro-Life agenda if he was really convicted about that, but he isn't. He looked lost and for someone who boasts of people being afraid of him, it was he who looked scared of a topic that should not be that scary.
Where Harris could not score any points was at the topics on Israel and border control. Trump could only boast that he would have or will take control on these matters and do what she has not, but any politician could or would say that. The difference is that Trump was the President for 4 years when those problems began to escalate, while Harris was only the Vice President when the problems became horrendous. Do you see what I'm getting at? They are both to blame and they are both incompetent. We as the American people with a brain know this. We are having to decide who to forgive and trust and then keep our fingers crossed that one of them will actually keep their word, when we all know they are both hypocritical liars. It's been proven.
If Trump rallies have more attendees than Harris rallies it's either because his tales of dog eating diners are more interesting than Kamala's smooth talking about nothing or that they hope he'll get shot and J.D. Vance can take over.
The debate showed us what we already know. They both failed. They are both ineffectual, irrelevant, and incompetent. Neither is qualified to lead the United States. I am so sad for my country.
About the Creator
Shanon Angermeyer Norman
Gold, Published Poet at allpoetry.com since 2010. USF Grad, Class 2001.
Currently focusing here in VIVA and Challenges having been ECLECTIC in various communities. Upcoming explorations: ART, BOOK CLUB, FILTHY, PHOTOGRAPHY, and HORROR.
Keep reading
More stories from Shanon Angermeyer Norman and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
Teacher Lesson Plan 2: Creativity and Evolution
Reading books and watching documentaries is the typical and classical approach to education in regular school houses or institutions; However, some of the Montessori philosophies and principles can be applied to Secondary Education levels without too much disruption to the "normal" sit down and don't cause chaos idea. Regardless if you are in a classroom with children or pre-teens, or if you're trying to see if Geometry can compete with Instagram or some teenager's raging hormones, you should remember this: Students love learning and enjoy learning when it is FUN. Some of the smartest students in the classroom may not participate or engage in lessons because they either already know the information or it simply doesn't challenge them enough to be interesting or worthy of their attention. FUN defies those factors. When a lesson or activity is FUN, the students don't mind if they already know, and they forget they weren't interested because FUN made it interesting. Not all teachers are FUN. As a matter of fact, most of the teachers I had the pleasure of learning from had a serious lack of humor. I think before I graduated, most of the teachers I learned from had to take a class in "How Not to Be Fun" and they all aced it.
By Shanon Angermeyer NormanExclusive • 3 months ago
Trump’s Actions May Be Illegal — But His Greed Might Be the Only Thing Holding Him Back
In American politics, few figures provoke as much controversy, outrage, and relentless fascination as Donald Trump. Years after entering the political arena, he remains a dominant force not only in elections and headlines, but also in courtrooms and public debate. Legal scholars, journalists, and watchdog groups have repeatedly argued that many of Trump’s actions — both during his presidency and after — crossed clear legal and ethical lines. From election interference claims to allegations of abusing executive power, mishandling classified information, and entangling public office with private business interests, the accusations against Trump are neither isolated nor trivial. They form a pattern that critics say reveals a leader willing to push, bend, or outright ignore the law when it suits him. And yet, paradoxically, Trump has not gone as far as many of his harshest critics once feared. The reason may not be respect for democratic norms or fear of legal accountability — but something far more personal: his own greed. This is not a defense of Trump’s conduct. Rather, it is an attempt to understand a reality that even some of his opponents quietly acknowledge. Trump’s obsession with personal wealth, brand image, and financial survival may sometimes limit how far he is willing to go, even when legality appears optional. A Pattern of Questionable Legality Trump’s political career has been accompanied by an almost constant cloud of legal scrutiny. Investigations have examined campaign finance violations, obstruction of justice, business fraud, election interference, and misuse of power. Unlike many politicians who rely on subtlety or plausible deniability, Trump often operates in full public view, openly testing the boundaries of what he can get away with. His response to legal challenges is also strikingly consistent. He rarely engages with the substance of allegations. Instead, he frames investigations as politically motivated “witch hunts” and portrays prosecutors, judges, and journalists as enemies of the people. This narrative has proven effective with his base, many of whom see legal accountability not as justice, but as persecution. The brazenness of this strategy has led critics to argue that Trump believes himself above the law. And yet, despite his rhetoric, he has repeatedly stopped short of actions that would create immediate, irreversible consequences. The question is why. The Central Role of Money and Brand To understand Trump’s restraint, one must understand how he sees himself. Trump has never primarily viewed himself as a public servant or ideological leader. His core identity is that of a businessman and brand. Trump’s wealth — or at least the perception of it — is central to his political power. His properties, licensing deals, fundraising apparatus, and media presence all depend on the image of success. Politics, for Trump, has never been separate from profit. It is another platform for monetization and self-promotion. Unlike leaders driven by ideology, nationalism, or historical legacy, Trump’s decisions often reflect a simple cost-benefit calculation. Actions that threaten his brand value, fundraising ability, or business empire are approached with caution. Actions that energize supporters without endangering his financial interests are embraced enthusiastically. This explains a recurring pattern: Trump escalates rhetorically, but hesitates operationally. He may use inflammatory language, encourage outrage, or flirt with extreme ideas, but often stops short of moves that would directly and permanently damage his wealth. Greed as a Limiting Force Greed is typically viewed as a corrupting influence, and in many ways, it is. But in Trump’s case, it also functions as a brake. Absolute power, while tempting, carries real risks — sanctions, asset seizures, international isolation, and loss of market confidence. Trump may dismiss institutions publicly, but he understands markets instinctively. He knows investors flee chaos, lenders demand predictability, and brands collapse under prolonged legal uncertainty. Even when he attacks courts or regulators in speeches, his actual behavior often reveals caution: delays, negotiations, settlements, and procedural maneuvering rather than outright defiance. This suggests that Trump’s greatest fear is not prison, but bankruptcy. Having faced financial collapse multiple times in the past, he appears determined never to experience it again. His greed does not eliminate risk-taking, but it shapes where he draws the line. Why This Is Not Reassuring It would be a profound mistake to find comfort in the idea that greed will protect democracy. Self-interest is not a moral safeguard; it is an unreliable and fragile one. Trump’s restraint is situational, not principled. When personal profit and political power align, the danger increases dramatically. Relying on greed rather than law also sets a dangerous precedent. Democracy should not depend on whether a powerful individual calculates that illegal actions are “bad for business.” That logic leaves institutions vulnerable to leaders with fewer assets to lose, greater tolerance for chaos, or ideological motivations stronger than personal wealth. In Trump’s case, the line is not legality — it is profitability. The Legal System Still Matters Despite its flaws and delays, the legal system has not been irrelevant in Trump’s story. Courts have imposed fines, restricted business practices, and upheld investigations despite intense political pressure. These outcomes matter, not just symbolically, but financially. Every legal loss chips away at Trump’s carefully constructed image as a “winner,” an image that underpins his fundraising and influence. Ironically, his obsession with money also makes him vulnerable. Legal accountability threatens the very thing he values most. A Calculated Balance Trump operates within a narrow corridor: push boundaries enough to energize supporters, but not so far that financial consequences become catastrophic. This balancing act explains why aggressive speeches are often followed by procedural stalling, appeals, and strategic retreats. It also explains why Trump attacks institutions rhetorically while continuing to rely on them practically. Banks, courts, and markets are not enemies he can afford to lose entirely. Conclusion Donald Trump’s legacy will likely be defined by how often he tested the limits of the law — and how inconsistently those limits restrained him. Yet one constant remains unmistakable: his devotion to personal profit. That devotion may sometimes hold him in check — not because he respects democracy, but because he values his wealth. Democracy deserves stronger guardians than greed. But for now, it remains an uncomfortable part of the equation in understanding Trump’s behavior and the risks he poses to American political life.
By Muhammad Hassan3 days ago in The Swamp
Day 4 of Quitting
If this is how sobriety feels, maybe it’s better to go through life a little buzzed… this, along with other hits like, I want to kill myself, I wish I was dead, and I’m going to throw myself off a bridge have been the only thoughts on rotation these past few days. I promise myself that if, in a month, I still feel like this (‘this’ meaning despondent, full of rage, and simultaneously numb) I can go back to smoking. Until mid-February though? Nicotine is off the table.
By sleepy drafts7 days ago in Longevity
Comments (1)
I didn't watch the debate, but you're expressing what I've felt for years. I have no Faith in either the Republican or Democratic Parties and until the people realize that we don't "have" to only have 2 parties, we are stuck in a vicious cycle of hypocrisy and failure. I have no hopes for this election as unfortunate as it is to say that.