For newreaders and those who request to be “好友 goodfriends”  please read my 公告栏 first.

The following article was written for all my Lexington friends who will vote in the November  US presidential election. I post it herefor possible interest of Science Net readers.

A“Dispassionate” Analysis of the Two Presidential Candidates: Clinton vs. Trump

First a word about “dispassionate”. I used the word in the sense that at my age (82.7) the  outcome of this presidential election cannot possibly make much difference to me personally. Even if Trump after  being elected and starts an accidental nuclear war and I perished as a result, I have few regrets  since I have  already lived a full and rich life. Also being retired and a political junkie, I have watched up to 4 hours per day both conservative (Fox news) and liberal leaning (MSNBC) TV channels since the  beginningof the political season  as well as including all 11 hours of the Benghazi hearing where it  was Hilary alone against 6 prosecuting Republican senators. Thus I shall attempt below a  summaryof my findings and conclusions as objective as possible for those of you intend to vote coming November.

Of course, no person can be completely impartial. Thus, let me next confess my political leanings  so that you know where this writer comes from. This is analogous to “Truth in advertising”  in commercials.  I came to this country in 1950 (66 years ago). For the first 30 some years I voted  straight Republican.Reagan was the last Republican president I voted for. Then sometime in the 80s I switched to become an Independent. For the last two decade plus I am  a registered Democrat. For a background on my political thinking and rationale See  The evolution of an immigrant's political philosophy http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-1565-820046.htmlandPrivilegeWalkhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-1565-795599.html. Now to my analysis:

1.     Of course all candidates promise you all kinds of things if elected. Some may promise things you  happen to like others not so much. Otherwise,  it is difficultand complex to analyze the  consequence of these promises as well as the likelihood that s/he will keep the promise after election  when reality sets in. Remember the famous Bush promise “Read my lips, no new taxes”.  Unless you carefully analyze and consider these promises, they don’t mean very much beyond a reflection of the candidate as a person and his/her ideas, practical or not. Thus, on the surface, you can say the promises of the two candidates canceleach other out. It is a DRAW.

2.     Next you can listen to media opinions and/or their evaluations. However, here you must take into account of the political leaning of the station and that of the speakers/reporters/analysts.  Just togive an example: in the reporting of the recent (Sept 17-19 2016) New York city- New Jersey  bombing suspect Rahami, the Republican Vice

Presidential candidate Pence said that the Father  of Rahami reported to the FBI as early as 2004 that his son is a “terrorist” but nothing was done by the FBI  (this fact is true)and hence implying the incompetence of the current administration. However, a deeper reporting revealed that in a family altercation in 2004, Rahami stabbed his brother on the leg, and his father in the heat of the moment used the word“terrorist”. When questioned  by the FBI he admitted the use of the word butwhat he explained to the FBI is that he is really concerned that his son was associated with local gangs which has bad influence on his son. Later investigation by FBI confirmed this fact but there were no indication that he as any “terrorist” intentions at that time and the case was closed. At thetime of this writing, we still don’t  know how Rahami became self-radicalized inthe next two years to become an actual terrorist.

 Thus depending on what you hear and from whom you can get a distorted view of what is the truth  especially when facts are taken out of context. Strong supporter of one candidate  tends  to register only what they like to hear and what confirms their convictions. They either ignore bad news or contrary opinions or excuse the candidate for missteps and unwelcome pronouncements. By the way, such distortion of NEWS is worldwide. Just listen to the  reporting of the same news by CNN, BBC,Deutsche-Wella, Nippon New, and Chinese CCTV.

3.     However, over a long period of watching both Fox and MSNBC, I found that on balance Clinton  received less unflatteringcomments than Trump. She is also judged more critically and applied against ahigher standard (Not many people seemed to care that Trump refused to releasehis tax return even though every candidate since the 1950s have done so). Trump having made so many wild and outrageous statements  that the press became de-sensitized. But on balance, I’d say Clinton has an edge in the news reporting and media evaluations

4.     The two candidates also offer a stark contrast in profiles. Trump is anti-establishment, tell-it-like-it-is straight talker, and brand new guy in the running. Supporters tend to give him a pass onhis ignorance, flip-flops, and inconsistencies. On the other hand, Clinton has 35 years of public service has accumulated a lot of experience andknowledge on the job as well as baggage further accentuated by her desire for privacy and secrecy. Support of one versus the other can simply be boiled downto a personality preference.

5.     Thus, in the final analysis a voter comes down on the issue of character of the candidates.  On this point, you may not trust Clinton because of her preference for privacy and lack of transparency  onsome issues. But I believe she is a principled and well informed person. Trumpis on the other hand  demonstrated ignorance and no principle. He can tell a bare faced lie in your face (note 1) . This is best  illustrated  in his final 66 character of retraction on  the Obama birth issue. First he lied that Clinton  started the birth controversy which is not true, In the next breadth he claimed credit that he is the person who put the issue to rest when in the five years after Obama showed his birth certificate he repeatedly inflamed and insinuated that a darkconspiracy surrounds the  Obama birth issue. Personally I cannot see how such an unprincipled person (as contrasted with John  McCain in 2008) can be fit to be the president of the US. Trump’s ignorance of world and defense affairs  (he didnot know what is the “Nuclear Triad” on which the US builds her nationaldefense; he also wanted Japan and South Korea to develop nuclear weapons; lastly he proposes actions which are clearly  unconstitutional) also tends to disqualifyhim.

6.     Thus, It is “better the devil you know” or the “Lesser of two evils”. You may not like Hilary,  but I sleep a whole lotbetter and  visualize a much stable and better future for my children and  grand children with Hilary at the helm. Just my personal opinion you should make up your own mind.

Here are my other blog article associated with the 2016 election in chronological orde r (these are my personalopinions):

1.  Who will be the next US President in 2016? http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-1565-930275.html

2.  My takes on the US Presidential Election 2016http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-1565-973442.html

3.  Observations-the 2016 US PresidentialNominating Convention http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-1565-993117.html

Notes added 10/2/2016. Serve me right for watching too many hours of election TV. Last night I woke up screaming from a bad dream in which Donald Trump was trying to kill me.

Note 1. A bare-face lie is when a speaker knowingly tells a lie and he knows that you know he is telling a lie and yet he still tells it.

Note added 11/29/2016: I can accept that during a campaign one tells lies and exxagerates promises/attacks. But I'd hope that after being President-elect, one can switch to a presidential mode and be a REAL pragmatist. To be so thin-skinned and petty that he cannot tolerate Hilary's popular vote majority and must insist without any evidence that million illegal votes were cast to make him  losing the popular vote is so small minded and lying bare-faced to be unporesidential.