US Presidential Campaign 2016

Trick or T(h)reat.....

I thought that it was Ok for me to take the liberty to write a little bit more about the upcoming US Presidential election.

The difference with what I said previously is that, this time, I will endeavor to take a look at the strengths and weaknesses of each of the candidates from an (as much as possible) objective perspective.

Mind you, objectivity is not an 'art' at which we, humans, particularly excel at. There is no such thing as objectivity when it comes to appraise oneself, other people or group of individuals, or situations. We all know that this 'concept' is all about the collective perception assessment and agreement as to what it defines as a particular reality.

I have decided to avoid discussing about tax reforms or access to quality and affordable healthcare, or even about the treatment of international conflicts. This because of the fact that these equations have so many (external) variables that there is no way anyone can provide a reasonably good alternative and, at the same time, guarantee that its (positive or negative) consequences will be fair for all parties involved.

Having clarified the above, here is what I think.

TRUMP

  Strengths                                                               Weaknesses

Not afraid of saying what he thinks. An entrepreneur who has experienced real life business successes as well as failures. Not a (classic) politician. An alternative to satisfy aspirations of a big portion of US citizens who are tired of politicians’ ‘verborrhea’.   Challenges the status quo.

Does not seem to care about what and how things are said, and/or its potential implications. Not a gentleman (if you know what I mean…). Ignorance of geopolitical environment. Apparent lack of acceptable business principles and transparency about own conduct. Lacks integrity. Not well prepared. Challenging style.

  Opportunities                                                        Threats

Could (potentially) change the behavior of the traditional political parties. Bringing transparency in relation to the decisions made by both the governing establishment and its Agencies Changing the electoral legislation and move towards a direct vote approach. Changing regulations on immigration’s controls system.

Doesn’t have a (known) plan. Managing country and external relations by ear. A country managed by an amateur. Extremely angry and resentful. Lack of culture and manners. Poor education. Bullying. Blatant discriminatory attitude. Communication style (verbal and body language) could create conflicts with catastrophic consequences, for the US and also for the rest of the world. Threatening and/or persecuting political adversaries. Triggering serious internal social unrest in case immigration and religious issues (among other) are not treated with utmost respect and sensitivity.

Serious strengths and good opportunities indeed. However, the threats are, in my opinion, way too somber to even consider favoring this candidate.

CLINTON

  Strenghts                                                               Weaknesses

Seasoned politician. Cultivated and well-educated. Good manners. Looks sensible. A woman. Good communications’ skills.

Doesn’t have a (known) plan. Makes (childish) mistakes as regards the management of highly confidential documentation, and running the risk of putting the country in a delicate and vulnerable position. Apparent lack of acceptable business principles and transparency about own conduct. Lacks integrity. No change in political environment

Opportunities Bringing transparency in relation to the decisions made by both the governing establishment and its Agencies Changing the electoral legislation and move towards a direct vote approach. Changing regulations on immigration’s controls system.

Threats Managing country and external relations by ear. Lack of good judgment. Poor treatment of sensitive information. Poor quality of reforms and/or treatment of immigration issues (among other). Potential inability to stand her grounds in the role of CIC.

Reasonable strengths, similar opportunities as this candidate's contender (but unlikely to take these onboard). Less serious threats, although sufficiently significant to think a good few times before voting for this option.

To be totally candid, the verdict remains the same and, perhaps, similar or identical to yours. This is to say that none of these two candidates has the moral standing, stature and the good reputation needed to represent a (in relative terms) powerful country such as the USA.

It may perhaps be a good idea for the current leaders to meet and try to reach an agreement to declare this (soap opera of a) Presidential campaign void and postpone the elections until the end of 2017. This way, eventually (an hopefully) new, more suitable and dignified candidates could be found among the ranks of the contending parties.