Ancient Greece Reloaded



US Elections 2016: Trump vs Clinton, Scylla vs Charybdis

US Presidential Elections of 2016 coming up, practically being around the corner, and the US citizens will have to make a decision; to vote for their next President, who will lead the USA towards the future.

What future?

What choice do the US citizens actually have between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton?

How will these elections affect their lives?

Who is better suited to be the next president of the US?

Frankly speaking, the actual choice that the US citizens have is practically the one that reflects the Ancient Greek saying:

"Between Scylla and Charybdis"

(For more about Scylla click here: Scylla)

(For more about Charybdis click here: Charybdis)

Hold on guys, you may wonder, what on earth are you talking about?

Thing is that no matter what choice the US citizens will make, they are not given the option of “good-bad” but they have to choose between “bad-worst”; in other terms, they have to decide between two evils and to avoid the worst option for their country.

To a possible question of: aren’t other presidential, or prime-minister, elections pretty much the same, in the sense that voters are basically given only a “bad-worst” option?

Granted, in this case you would be right!

And what makes you guys so sure about it?

Simple: because all political parties, around the globe, have actually managed to accomplish the impossible: namely, to mess up things…

… Let us go back to the US elections…

Clinton vs Trump, Scylla vs Charybdis… and the future of the US (and the world's future?!), rides on the shoulders of those two candidates.

So why is it that the “Ancient Greece Reloaded Team” terms the two US candidates as “bad-worst” option for the USA?

To begin with, the US citizens are basically stripped off from any actual choice; in other words, they are not given a plethora of choices.

So what, some may wonder?

If you observe (political) affairs, on a global scale, you should be able to perceive a similar pattern throughout all countries.

OK guys, what is this pattern that you are talking about?

Practically in all countries (that are not ruled by dictatorships, or some kind of dictatorship) the norm is that two, maximum three, political parties are running the show. Even if a country has in their parliaments more than two parties, history has proven multiple times, over and over again, that these political parties are basically there for show; nothing more.

Turning focus towards the US, we observe that they only have two political parties to choose from; which in fact are not so much different from each other…


Have you guys done some research on their differences and what they represent?

We sure did, and that is why we can suggest that their differences are basically solely on paper!

And even if (?!) US policies did differ in some occasions in the past; it was due to the US president’s personal leadership (for good or worse) at that given point in time. But did these policies necessarily reflect the US political parties? NO!

Besides, what are both Democrats and Republicans claiming that their goals are?

In a nutshell:

To boost the country’s economy, to help the weak classes, to secure its borders, to provide health-care and education to all of its citizens, to protect the peoples’ rights and freedom of speech, to… to… to… Fundamentally, every political party claims the same worldwide.

Do the US citizens, or any citizens worldwide, have all these "services" distributed equally? Nope!

These services are provided to them (aka to the masses) after the ruling-class has made sure to control the parameters of these factors.

What the hell is this now, guys, a communistic blabber-article?

On the contrary, we are just stating history 101…

All of that, is covered up with a ridiculous phrase that goes as “Political Correctness”… yeah right…

But truth be told, all of the aforementioned propositions are highly affected by your own(!) viewpoint.

For example, if you are rich (just saying) and you can afford the existing health-care system then, the current status-quo is probably OK with you. On the other hand, if you cannot afford the existing health-care system then, there is definitely something wrong with the country’s existing government.

To make the long story short, and to turn our focus towards Scylla and Charybdis, sorry – we mean, Clinton and Trump, bottom line is that: regardless of the political party that the candidates represent, they are pretty much the same; end of story…

As US history has illustrated in the past it all comes down to the president himself, or herself, to shoulder the future of the US.

How will the US president act, or react, under certain circumstances and under pressure?

To put it bluntly: does the upcoming US president have the balls (metaphorically speaking) to guide the US towards a brighter future regardless of all the obstacles that may arise?

Good question, good point… remains to be seen…

Now, let us proceed by taking some snapshots of the current presidential candidates…

Political Experience:

In terms of experience of walking around the corridors of the White House, Clinton has definitely the upper hand compared to Trump.

Clinton, first rose to elective office in 2001 and has served as an elected official for a total of 8 years.

Trump’s experience, on the other hand, as an elected official is zero, nada, zip…

Consequently, wouldn’t that make Hillary the more suitable candidate for president? Not necessarily…

The reason is that Hillary, in essence, reflects Obama’s continuation of his policies.

So where does it leave the US citizens?

Voting for Clinton they pretty much have a general idea of what the future of the US will be.

Voting for Trump they will choose an unknown future, which does not necessarily mean that it will be a bad one (Kennedy became president by proposing an unknown future).

The question is this: do the US citizens prefer a pre-set future or will they decide to walk into uncharted paths (for good or worse), terra nova style, as their forefathers did?

Professional Experience:

Granted, both of them have an extensive work experience.

Nevertheless, in our opinion this round goes to Trump hands down.



You see, the difference is that Trump is active in the area of entrepreneurship; an area which demands a lot of guts to be active in. Sure, he has failed multiple times but he had the balls to stand back to his feet and walk again… and on top of that, he made it in becoming a billionaire.

And we all know how much America loves comeback stories...

On the other hand, all work experience that Clinton has accumulated, was inside “secure” environments.


Not much to say here, a tie between both of them…


Based on the ideology, or viewpoints, that both candidates have in areas such as individual rights, domestic, economy and defence…

Well, both candidates are on opposite sides (with the exception of defence in which they principally agree).

Trump embodies the “old” America style which focuses on the American pride and honour; and hence, his opponents call him conservative.

On the other hand, Clinton reflects ideas of a more liberal approach that has been adopted worldwide; in the philosophy of a New World Order (aka Novus Ordo Seclorum).

To support that suggestion, let us take a few peeks of the ideas that the two candidates support:

Absolute right to gun ownership

Trump – agrees (the all-time classic US philosophy of past decades).

Clinton - disagrees (ruling classes should only have such privileges – by the way guys, most countries agree with that approach).

But this is USA, who cares about other countries' opinions, correct?

Depends on where you live… lol

Stricter punishment reduces crime

Trump – agrees (a firm hand should bring back some order)

Clinton – disagrees (we are “civilized”)

Well, you get the idea…

In terms of economy:

It becomes obvious that Trump supports the idea of a guns-blazing capitalistic approach; namely, make or break (and if you break its game over for you). Some criticize him for favouring the rich guys (well he is super rich, isn’t he?)…

Clinton on the other hand, tries to favour the mid-range income citizens (well, that is the theory at least).

What does US History 101 teach us?

Regardless the President, the rich will be always favoured…

In this aspect, Trump is more honest than Hillary…

Defense and International Issues:

Both are the same…

And who can blame them?

The US foreign military policy is still dictated by Alfred Thayer Mahan's ideas (therefore guys, you should not be surprised that the US has so many aircraft-carriers, and military bases, oversees).

So, none of the presidential candidates dare to change a doctrine that is around for over 100+ years… (Did we mention the fact that there are ultra-billion businesses involved in it as well?)

… OK, at this point we will stop with the snapshots, of the two candidates, since we are confident that you guys are getting the idea…

The questions that arise are:

Where do the US citizens stand in regards to the two candidates?

And, what is the future of the US, based on the possible upcoming US president?

Let’s address the first question…

Regarding the US citizens, from an overall standpoint, the voters are divided; and we will go insofar as to propose that the US voters don’t know where they are standing!


Are you guys for real?

Yes we are!

And how do you guys support your suggestion?

Surprisingly, the polls that are carried out in the US practically illustrate the voters' confusion.

For instance, the answer to the question of “Who do you think is more honest and trustworthy?”

Trump is the winner.

To the question of “Who do you think has higher moral standards?”

Clinton is the winner.

Outcome: The voters are providing contradicting answers (Psychology 101).

Another example that depicts the confusion of the US voters is the following one:

To the question of “Who do you think is a stronger leader?”

Trump is the winner.

To the question of “Who do you think is better prepared to be President?”

Clinton is the winner.

Outcome: The voters are providing contradicting answers (Psychology 102).

And another example that depicts the confusion of the US voters is the following one:

To the question of “Who do you think would be most effective against ISIS?”

Trump is the winner.

To the question of “Who do you think would do a better job responding to an international crisis?”

Clinton is the winner.

Outcome: The voters are providing contradicting answers (Psychology 103).

We just randomly depicted the above three examples just to demonstrate to you the mix-up of the voters' minds.

How can this be, some may wonder?

First, it is thanks to the art of asking questions by reversing terms, supported by key-words with dual meaning.

Second, it is thanks to the guys who support the candidates and their sole job is to cause confusion among the voters, to take advantage of it; and then, to push (confused, aka the opponent’s) voters towards the candidate they work for.

So, what is the future of the US, based on the potential upcoming US president?

This is an answer that, in order to be fully addressed, an entire book would be needed. Nevertheless, since we are bound by space constrains – it’s an article after all – we will try to squeeze everything into a few lines.

Regarding the US:

United States is no longer the sole domineering nation around the globe as it used to be.

Nowadays, there are three main players that are affecting circumstances on a global scale specifically, the US, China and Russia. The EU, the usual supporter of the US, is currently tottering from within and has lost its influence towards international affairs. As for India etc. they may have economies that are currently on the rise yet, they do not affect foreign policies to the extent that the three "big nations" are doing.

All of the aforementioned factors lead us to the following conclusions:

If Clinton becomes president of the USA, her approach might be similar to the one of Obama.

If Trump becomes president of the USA, his approach might be more aggressive; compared to his predecessor.

Nevertheless, there is one final factor that has to be taken into consideration by the US voters; and that parameter has a name: (Global) Corporations!

On a global scale, multi-corporations are gradually influencing, more and more, not only politics but also the direction of the future that humanity as a whole will take.

Similarly, the US presidents are profoundly influenced by the agendas that the various corporations have.

Therefore, the US voters should ask themselves the following question: which president will most likely be able to balance out: on the one hand, the agendas of the multi-corporations (banks included) and on the other hand, the well-being of the US citizens?!

Should a more pacific approach be followed, when in the meantime leaders from various countries become gradually more aggressive on the global chessboard, or should a more forceful approach be adopted?

Going in, Rambo-style or weeping/puppy-style is definitely not the solution; otherwise, the future of the US looks grim.

… Unfortunately so far, none of the two candidates have illustrated the necessary qualities of being able to assume both stances; hence, their leadership brings with it only one of these two needed abilities.

Consequently, the US citizens will have to vote: "Between Scylla and Charybdis"

Outcome: Trump will win the elections!

What do you guys think about The US Elections of 2016 and about the two presidential nominees ?

Let us know your thoughts of the article by visiting our Forum.

For more articles go to our Brainstorming Section or click here: Brainstorming

Author: nikvas

Published: October 13, 2016

Written For: Ancient Greece Reloaded

Moreover, if you wish to reproduce the article you are more than welcome to do so as long as you cite the source, which in this case is:

Site: Ancient Greece Reloaded


Author: nikvas and the Ancient Greece Reloaded Team

Date: (the date you guys retrieved the article)

Our Mobile Application

Check out Our Mobile Application "Ancient Greece Reloaded"