A Critical Comparison of the Pros and Cons of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

The people of the United States are about to elect a president in what may become one of history’s most influential democratic elections – and they are about to do so with an astounding lack of the information normally necessary to make decisions of much lesser magnitudes. Critical examinations of the candidates have been consistently marred by both deliberate misinformation and a ratings obsessed media circus in which an ever-changing stream of one absurd headline after another continuously supersedes in-depth analysis. The two remaining candidates have been treated as near equals, both positively and negatively, despite the contrary facts. These facts are out there, but their scattered nature makes it far too easy to lose track. This post will be far different from any other previous posts to The Language Fix, but the magnitude of this election, the direction it seems to be heading, and the continuous misuse and abuse of information makes action critically important. And so here it is: a collection of the facts, and a side by side display of the pros and cons of both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump that highlights how apparent it is that not only are their accomplishments and negatives not equal – they’re not even close.

(Click on image to enlarge.  Click on PDF or DOC for files in those formats.)



The Best Schools Do What?

Last week came the final report of a bipartisan group of more than two-dozen U.S. state lawmakers and legislative staffers who took 18 months to study some of the world’s top-performing school systems, including those in Finland, Hong Kong, Japan, Ontario, Poland, Shanghai, Singapore and Taiwan.  The group, part of the National Conference of State Legislatures, released its findings, titled No Time to Lose: How to Build a World-Class Education System State by State, which specifically looked at what the top schools do that schools in the U.S. don’t.

There were three big takeaways, as reported in this story on the report.

  1.  They level the playing field of the youngest learners.  Ontario, for example, offers free, full-day kindergarten not only to 5-year-olds but to 4-year-olds too.  They provide more resources for schools in disadvantaged areas, and provide incentives for the best teachers to teach in these areas.
  2. They emphasize better teacher preparation.  Not only are teaching programs better, but they spend a lot more time on activities such as working in teams with other teachers to develop and improve lessons, observing and critiquing classes, and working with struggling students.  And yes, pay is higher, resulting in more selectivity at the top teaching universities. Teachers in these top performing countries are often paid on par with accountants and engineers.
  3. They emphasize vocational education.  Classes for auto repair, welding, carpentry, etc. are better funded, and more up to date.  They are not considered lower esteemed as they often are in the U.S., and are funded accordingly.

Sure, the U.S. has fermented many obstacles toward attaining these things, such as bitter politics, and severely unequal funding with a tremendous emphasis on local wealth.  For a long time the answers to these problems have been obscured by different opinions on what the end result should be.  But this report and other recent ones like it have cleared the fog and hopefully, removed the excuses.

The Ad Hominem Fallacy

Ad Hominem means “against the person.” It is an attack on an aspect of someone rather than on the argument of that person. These often emotional attacks are usually against the character, background, or belief of a person.


  • Oh, so your statistic shows that plumbers are successful 95% of the time? That’s obviously false because you got that from The Plumber’s Digest magazine.
  • The only reason that he thinks that Republicans are against the government is because he’s a Democrat.
  • Kid talking to teacher: “You just want me to do my homework because you’re a teacher.”
  • Susan thinks that George Washington could not have owned slaves, because Wikipedia says he did, and she thinks that Wikipedia is biased.
  • A son speaking to his mother: “Of course you want me to stay out of the street. You’re my mother, and mothers always want their kids to stay out of the street.”

Sometimes a person’s background or belief is actually relevant to the argument. The difference is that ad hominem fallacies are often emotional attacks, or claim a causal relationship when one doesn’t exist.

Examples when background is relevant: A reporter says to a lawyer, “You’re only arguing that your client is innocent, because you’ve been hired to be his lawyer.” The lawyer responds, “Well, that is my job.”

Farmer speaking to friend from the city: “You don’t know what it’s like to raise cattle. You’ve lived in the city your whole life. (It is a valid point that if he’s lived in the city, he probably hasn’t raised cattle.)

Examples of attacks or when background is not relevant: A reporter says to a lawyer, “You think that your client should go free because you’re nothing but a sneaky lawyer.”

Farmer speaking to friend from the city: “How could you possibly like the show, Hee Haw, when you’ve lived in the city your whole life?” The city friend replies, “They air Hee Haw in the city, and I’ve never missed an episode.”


Language in Symbolism

Many symbols exist as images.  Because the Maori people of New Zealand were fishermen, for example, the fishhook became a symbol of prosperity and good health often worn around the neck.  For many cultures the dove has been a symbol of peace.  Visual symbols have been prevalent for as far as known human history, from the cave paintings of the ancients, to castles, flowers, and animals common in medieval crests, to the stars, leaves, stripes, and moons so commonly found on flags today.

The imagery can often be profound and deeply meaningful, but the meanings always absolutely require one thing:  language.  This goes without exception, for a visual symbol without its accompanying description is just a picture.

snake png drawing.png
How this story wraps itself around a novel concept.
A snake.
A snake.

Only one of these pictures is a symbol, and the only thing that makes it a symbol is the description attached.  The other one is merely a picture with a label.  The thing is, though, that people often forget the language.

There are only two ways to understand the use of a symbol:  1)  having it explained to you, using language; or 2) luck.  Whenever one person understands the symbolism of something such as a painting or an album cover, and another person doesn’t, the non-understanding person sometimes receives the blame (often from him or herself) as if a more in-depth look, or the putting of more thought into it might be all that is in the way of understanding the creator’s intent.  This is never the case.  The first person has either gotten lucky, or has had the symbol explained.  Now luck can be intensified, sure, by such things as knowing what the symbol’s creator has previously meant with similar symbols, but one still needs the creator’s explanation for verification.

The problem lies not just in visual symbolism either.  Songs, religious texts, and literature are among other examples often bursting with symbolism.  The writers of many nineties grunge songs often attempted to stuff so many symbols in their songs that they forgot the explanations, resulting in basically nothing more than gibberish.  “Make your own meaning” is just not how symbolism works.  The fact that so many of the Bible’s symbols have had various interpretations, without really knowing the author’s actual intent, has led to centuries of schisms and divisions.  Again, symbols without explanations are not symbols – at least not ones with meaning, anyway.

I recently saw a travel show where after looking at a Polynesian drawing, the host asked, “What does it mean?”  The images appeared so powerful and mysteriously captivating.  His and my curiosities were piqued.  Mystery seems a large part of symbolism’s allure.  The answer came in a satisfying stream of words passed down from previous generations, demonstrating how symbols are like puzzles that can only be solved by answering their inherent questions – with language.


A Nice Summary of the Efficacy of Early Intervention

From one of the trending stories on the Atlantic Monthly’s website, the following paragraph in a story on the increasing importance our society is placing on intelligence is one of the best encapsulations I’ve seen on the influence – and common critical differences – in preschool education.  “…early education, which, when done right—and for poor children, it rarely is—seems to largely overcome whatever cognitive and emotional deficits poverty and other environmental circumstances impart in the first years of life. As instantiated most famously by the Perry Preschool Project in Ypsilanti, Michigan, in the 1960s; more recently by the Educare program in Chicago; and by dozens of experimental programs in between, early education done right means beginning at the age of 3 or earlier, with teachers who are well trained in the particular demands of early education. These high-quality programs have been closely studied, some for decades. And while the results haven’t proved that students get a lasting IQ boost in the absence of enriched education in the years after preschool, measures of virtually every desirable outcome typically correlated with high IQ remain elevated for years and even decades—including better school grades, higher achievement-test scores, higher income, crime avoidance, and better health. Unfortunately, Head Start and other public early-education programs rarely come close to this level of quality, and are nowhere near universal.”

The link:  The War on Stupid People

The Straw Man Fallacy

The straw man is a logical fallacy that occurs when a person argues against a misrepresentation of an opponent’s argument rather than the actual argument itself. In effect, the person is building a false argument (the straw man) that is easier to knock down than the actual argument.


  • George supports a law reducing speed limits by 10 miles an hour. His opponent, Lucy, says, “This is part of your ultimate plan to get rid of all cars.”
  • A parent tells her daughter to eat her vegetables. The daughter replies, “You won’t be happy until I’m a vegetarian.”
  • Richie Rich says to one of his workers, “You just want a raise because you want more of our company’s money, and you’re jealous of all rich people.”
  • Stanley says: “I don’t think children should play on busy streets.” Livingston replies: “I don’t think we should be confining children inside all the time.”

scarecrow straw manStraw men fallacies are typically exaggerations or misrepresentations. The actual facts are critical toward determining if an argument is a straw man.

  • Straw man: Person A: “We need to do yard work today.” Person B: “I don’t understand why you want to work in the yard every single day.” Actual facts: person A has wanted to do yard work three (or some number not near ten) days out of the last ten.
  • Not a straw man: Person A: “We need to do yard work today.” Person B: “I don’t understand why you want to work in the yard every single day.” Actual facts: person A has wanted to do yard work ten out of the last ten days. Nine days may be close enough, although it would be less fallacious for person B to instead say, “I don’t understand why you want to work in the yard almost every single day.

Avoiding extreme language can often help prevent straw man fallacies.

  • A mother tells her son that he plays video games all of the time. He says, “Not true. Last week I mowed the lawn.” (The son took advantage of the fact that the mother actually did use a straw man fallacy with her exaggeration. She could have prevented this by instead saying something such as, “You play video games way too much.”)

The Fallacy of Cherry-picking

Cherry-picking is a logical fallacy that occurs when there is more than one important part to an argument, and a person intentionally omits the part or parts that do not support the person’s preferred conclusion – picking the parts that do support the preferred conclusion.

Cherry-picking is also called the fallacy of incomplete evidence. It can be informally called, “suppressing evidence.”

Sometimes we cherry-pick evidence to no one but ourselves. This is called confirmation bias, and it happens when we first form a conclusion, and then pay attention to arguments and evidence that support the conclusion we want to be true, while ignoring any evidence against.


The coach said, “Mary, you’ll be a great help to this team by staying at home.” Mary told her mother, “The coach said I’ll be a great help to this team!”

Joe’s puppy barks at all people except Joe. When Joe tries to sell his puppy, the possible buyer asks if the puppy likes people. Joe says, “He loves people. He licks me all the time.”

Calvin tried out a new diet. He lost ten pounds, and then gained nine. He tells everyone, “That diet was great, because I lost ten pounds!”

Mahatma said, “Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes.” Stanley, his political opponent says, “See! Mahatma said that freedom is not even worth having.”

Often, when only one or two examples is given as evidence, the speaker is cherry-picking. An exception would be when there are only one or two possible examples.

Cherry-picking:  Mary’s new friend says that Mary eats ice cream all the time because she has seen Mary eat ice cream the past two days. (She doesn’t know what Mary’s ice cream eating habits were before that. Maybe Mary just bought some ice cream for the first time in a long time.)

Not cherry-picking:  Mary’s friend says that Mary must really like red cars because her last two cars have been red. (This would not be cherry-picking if Mary has only owned two cars, but it would be cherry-picking if Mary has owned many non-red cars in the past.)

More cherry-picking info can be found by following this linkthis link, or this link.