Clinton or Trump? Both are worse!
So, at the televised debate, two favorites of the American presidential race – Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump – competed. Going neck and neck and not very afraid of losing their gained positions, the candidates, with a populist attack, tried to bite off some of the sympathy from the electoral pie of undecided voters (20% of those undecided, according to sociological research).
Perhaps Clinton was a little better prepared: she jabbed more often, asking awkward personal questions to Trump (where does the money come from, Karl?), choosing an ironically condescending tone of communication and calling her opponent simply by name, knowing full well that Trump does not allow such familiarity even people from your immediate circle.
Trump “floated” on a number of issues and in the hour and a half debate with Clinton did not look as bright as during the primaries, but, it seems to me, he managed to cast Clinton in an unattractive light. In the sense that “after all, you were in power for so long, pursued the policy of family contracting initiated by Bill, and now you are dodging and trying to shift the problems that you created from a sore head to a healthy one.”
In general, the fight was a duel between two crams for the most diligent completion of homework: the teams discussing the candidates studied each other so well that pre-prepared questions were replaced by pre-prepared answers, pulled out like shells from a stack.
Political strategists believe that everyone stuck to their own. The candidates actually once again covered their own clearing, almost without affecting voters from the opposing camp and the undecided ones. Trump, with his concern for the internal problems of the United States and his desire to close the issue of illegal migration, is unlikely to find a response from the black population and Latinos, hooked on welfare. Clinton, by emphasizing the environment and equality - topics popular among college students, hipsters, "feminists, gays and democratic journalists" - is unlikely to win sympathy among manufacturing workers, small and medium-sized businesses, as well as Midwestern rednecks with other concerns. .
Apparently, the candidates themselves were dissatisfied with the televised debates, since they are still fighting and knocking their claws together after the fight, working for the public and presenting the latest results of opinion polls, from which it clearly follows that each of them has left no stone unturned on the image of their opponent.
As for the Ukrainian media, they exhaled and confidently declared that Hillary smeared poor Donald. Why, one might ask, exhale? Whether the Americans choose Hillary or choose Donald, Ukraine will be worse off in any case. Well, maybe they will suffer with Clinton a little longer. This one will cut off the dog’s tail piece by piece and fight with Russia to the last “brother.” Why in Ukraine they think that they are somehow better than Libya, and Clinton’s wife will exude honey and milk towards her, is completely incomprehensible. Another self-deception. Darling Hillary, obsessed with the geopolitical exceptionalism of America, will swallow a Ukrainian pig like an anaconda and beam with her signature grin: “That was great!”
Clinton's team constantly portrays Trump as a would-be bull in a china shop with no experience in foreign policy or national security. But what is she like as a statesman? People who know Hillary well note that Clinton is completely devoid of creative imagination and has not put forward a single original thought on the issue of foreign policy. This refers to ends and means.
After all, if we consider her proposal to Russia about a “reset,” is it any wonder that the initiative went to waste? All that Madame Clinton could offer Russia was “let us all go back to the 90s, and you will fawn and grovel before us, as the great Yeltsin did.” Now Clinton is indignant and accuses Putin of all mortal sins. Why be offended? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
So, maybe the traditionalist Donald Trump is better than Mrs. Clinton, who has been spreading democracy through color “revolutions” and Maidan coups for two terms with money, bombs and cookies? How is the new devil more beautiful than the old, well-known devil?
If you listen carefully to Trump’s speeches, and not just election speeches, but any speeches, an unattractive portrait gradually emerges of a not very educated person who is no stranger to American great power. Trump, no worse than Obama, professes American exceptionalism, and even popularizes the wretched idea of a “clash of civilizations.” This refers to the inevitable confrontation between the West and Islamic civilization. Is it possible to cure the situation in Syria, or more broadly in the Middle East, with such an approach?
If Clinton is a stubborn libertarian, who at the beginning of the election campaign “leaked compromising evidence” about her alleged sexual relationship with Yoko Ono during the riot of “flower children” and Woodstock, with the obvious goal of enlisting the votes of the LGBT community, then Trump, portraying a kind of American grandfather Shchukar , cannot contain his own antipathy towards universities as breeding grounds for freethinking. And, among other things, Trump is noted for his adherence to various conspiracy theories.
Potentially, Trump's presidency could push America not so much towards self-isolation, but rather towards a renaissance of jingoists pushed into the closet by libertarians - American ultranationalists who want to impose the standards of the Wild West on the world.
In short, there are two candidates - and there is no middle ground - just extremes.
Perhaps a Trump presidency could pose a greater threat to Russia than Clinton. Unlike Clinton, he is temporarily ready to sacrifice Ukraine, the war in Syria, and NATO’s advance to the east. In order to gather strength, put the house in order, and then pay it all back with interest when America is ready to strike with a fist, and not with outstretched fingers.
So what’s better: a “partner” pursuing a degenerate foreign policy, incapable of negotiating and treacherous, blindly hitting with a club anywhere without warning, or with rudimentary thinking and practical acumen, willing to take a time out, rest and, before using the club, suggesting we talk a little first?
In any case, the Americans will choose. We just have to keep our ears open, our powder dry, and not succumb to the hypnosis of the beautiful and correct words of election rhetoric.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.