Listen Cautiously When It Comes to the US Presidential Election
Following Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s unrestrained style of berating others and exaggerating, the typically extremely cautious U.S. media and columnists could fall into a trap of misreporting or wrongly criticizing the proceedings. For example, the recent hacking of Democrats’ emails by Russian government hackers and Trump’s reaction have led the public to widely criticize Trump. At first glance, this should not be a big deal, but after careful analysis, it was discovered that approximately half of the criticisms or statements were based on misinformation. In particular, some believe Trump exacerbated the situation by “inviting” Russians to again hack Hillary Clinton’s emails, which was a complete fabrication.
Not to be partial to Trump, but if one is to carefully listen to, observe and analyze the recording of the press conference that day, Trump was only declaring that Russia should tell their hackers to search through the already hacked emails for a trace of any of Clinton’s over 30,000 “missing” emails, and if they are able to find them, to please bring them forward. He did not suggest or “invite” the Russians to yet again hack personal documents or emails or those from any U.S. institutions. Perhaps one can stretch to say his action was “equivalent to encouraging” the Russians toward such actions, but in fact, they are certainly different and cannot be equated.
Legally or politically, the importance of emails is debatable. For example, despite however much time the FBI wasted, over 30,000 emails are still nowhere to be found. Now, with this possible source of information, shouldn’t a formal request be made to the Russian government, rather than having Trump, who lacks any official credentials, meddle? However, having the FBI ask the Russian KGB for help would be too farfetched and disgraceful.
According to U.S. constitutional law, illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible in court. Outside the point of view of the law, perhaps it might not a bad thing for information to be available that could publicly clarify the facts, allowing American voters to know the background details, and allowing everyone to vote – whether for Trump or Clinton – clearly and willingly. Because, up until now, Clinton’s integrity, even after the Democratic National Convention, remains nebulous.
For the next three months, regardless of the campaign advertisements, political press releases, official debates and other events, there will be many statements and reports. Voters must be more vigilant and know what the candidates have and have not said. These two candidates, when it comes to their manners of speaking and the content of their speeches, are tremendously different. One is disingenuous and brash, rotten inside and out. At this rate, we may need to do to their words what we do when shopping for jeans on Hong Kong’s Li Yuen Street – discount them by 80 to 90 percent. But if there is some merit in the 10 to 20 percent, it might still be worth paying a little attention.
The other candidate is a classic example of standard Washington political rhetoric. Based on many years of close observation, many extravagant declarations and promises also need to be discounted as the content can be found to be full of holes if carefully analyzed, and perhaps with many “provisos.” This is a very important point for Bernie Sanders’ supporters, because Clinton said many of Sanders’ reform issues have been incorporated into her election platform. Distinguishing between what is true and what is an embellishment to gain votes will require analytical insight.
Opinions from known commentators are similar, especially in recent years as the two parties’ differences and disagreements have continued to grow. Some biased commentators have even, intentionally or not, put words that have not been said or words they themselves wanted said into others’ mouths. As a result, everyone must pay attention. In particular, attention must be paid to some issues or positions with subtle implications for the Chinese people, for the early prevention or discussion of strategies to avoid our vital interests being unfairly targeted, which, at that point would be too late.
Not to be partial to Trump, but if one is to carefully listen to, observe and analyze the recording of the press conference that day, Trump was only declaring that Russia should tell their hackers to search through the already hacked emails for a trace of any of Clinton’s over 30,000 “missing” emails, and if they are able to find them, to please bring them forward. He did not suggest or “invite” the Russians to yet again hack personal documents or emails or those from any U.S. institutions. Perhaps one can stretch to say his action was “equivalent to encouraging” the Russians toward such actions, but in fact, they are certainly different and cannot be equated.
Legally or politically, the importance of emails is debatable. For example, despite however much time the FBI wasted, over 30,000 emails are still nowhere to be found. Now, with this possible source of information, shouldn’t a formal request be made to the Russian government, rather than having Trump, who lacks any official credentials, meddle? However, having the FBI ask the Russian KGB for help would be too farfetched and disgraceful.
According to U.S. constitutional law, illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible in court. Outside the point of view of the law, perhaps it might not a bad thing for information to be available that could publicly clarify the facts, allowing American voters to know the background details, and allowing everyone to vote – whether for Trump or Clinton – clearly and willingly. Because, up until now, Clinton’s integrity, even after the Democratic National Convention, remains nebulous.
For the next three months, regardless of the campaign advertisements, political press releases, official debates and other events, there will be many statements and reports. Voters must be more vigilant and know what the candidates have and have not said. These two candidates, when it comes to their manners of speaking and the content of their speeches, are tremendously different. One is disingenuous and brash, rotten inside and out. At this rate, we may need to do to their words what we do when shopping for jeans on Hong Kong’s Li Yuen Street – discount them by 80 to 90 percent. But if there is some merit in the 10 to 20 percent, it might still be worth paying a little attention.
The other candidate is a classic example of standard Washington political rhetoric. Based on many years of close observation, many extravagant declarations and promises also need to be discounted as the content can be found to be full of holes if carefully analyzed, and perhaps with many “provisos.” This is a very important point for Bernie Sanders’ supporters, because Clinton said many of Sanders’ reform issues have been incorporated into her election platform. Distinguishing between what is true and what is an embellishment to gain votes will require analytical insight.
Opinions from known commentators are similar, especially in recent years as the two parties’ differences and disagreements have continued to grow. Some biased commentators have even, intentionally or not, put words that have not been said or words they themselves wanted said into others’ mouths. As a result, everyone must pay attention. In particular, attention must be paid to some issues or positions with subtle implications for the Chinese people, for the early prevention or discussion of strategies to avoid our vital interests being unfairly targeted, which, at that point would be too late.
Next article![]( "The United States is a ‘Nonstop War Chariot’")
