Honestly, considering the population and the impact of their behaviors first, it seems that still to this day politicians are continuously and constantly dissented.
Politicians are not meant to control the population or the nation, but it seems that most of the population begs for a centralized, externalized control beyond themselves, as if to make up for parents that were never able to exercise their functions in respect of basic human rights.
Having the uncritical dissent constant and in greater manifestation than any other popular political perspective, the best way I feel to make the distinction between the candidates is not by their actual charismatic skills (which is what primarily consists of a politician's profession), but by the impulsive, unconstrained reaction of the population regardless of who is elected.
I feel, for example, that if Trump gets elected, whatever amount of voters below the required 50% to elect him will simply spend the next four years attempting to prove the national decision was a mistake, beginning at day 1, even before any carefully planned exercising of his function has been proceeded. Likewise, the same would occur to Clinton. That's the sentiment I get when attempting to seriously analyze the candidates including varying groups of citizens.
If I am using computer analysis, each candidate receives one simplified average standardized dissent in their direction. Trump as a representation of economical monopoly (forceful, aggressive, insensitive and inflexible activity) and Clinton as a representation of economical oligarchy (inconsistent, manipulative, sly, fake, divergent activity). None of which is true, although there is a large section of the population that will not care to argue about it and possibly change their opinions, but instead keep their dissenting perspective as an anchor.
Having this situation in mind, the population continues to be what matters to me in selecting a president. In this case I feel extremely compelled to have Clinton take the position, since economical monopoly as singular regulation of policies cannot truly be comprehended as beneficial for an entire population if oligarchy as plural but few regulations of policies also cannot be comprehended as beneficial and still remains out of intellectual and educational reach for citizens who are concerned but restricted in their emotional activities.
At this point, what I am valuing is simplicity, slow delivery and patience in continued commonwealth allegiance and assurance. The part of the population which never had parents for human rights and yet lives in the midst of other families who had those parents, now still shy to approach and relate, will naturally continue to cooperate as every citizen, but will also have to continue purging their pent childhood repressions, requiring special attention and not so capable of paying attention to the entire context of politics. Space and time for their emotional convolutions to move and become intellectual sovereignty has to be recognized by any citizen serious about politics.
The wars are over, but we are still working on the heavily inflicted trauma. When we are all finally healed then we may finally get to practice and participate in politics as governing citizens and not only as official politicians. Until then, great and enduring respect for all citizens and all politicians, and my particular interest in the ability to bridge topics.
