There still seem to be a misconception among Iranians in both category of pro and anti-Islamic regime of Iran that this or that candidate in presidential election of the United States will do something in their favor. I also see particularly some Iranian-Americans who attack or defend this or that candidate so forcefully as if there is a real serious benefit to them in the outcome which differs from one candidate to another. Well, they say American democracy is all about casting your vote and having your "say" to choose from available options that, who should speak for you and who should lead. But is that all there is to democracy?

They also say media is an important pillar of democracy that would keep all elected officials in check in order to avoid any corruption in the system and keep public informed of any issue which should matter in the affairs of the nation. But how would that work if the ones who own and control the media become part of the system in which money can buy anything including your vote? This of course may happen directly or indirectly through manipulation of the tools (ie: media) which could have an influence on people's mind over any issue including voting for a presidential candidate. After all, in this day and age, media is the only source of familiarity of most people with activities of any candidate so they can make a judgment on their qualifications like competence, honesty and dignity.

With lots of pussy talks and labeling flying around this presidential election, dignity has definitely been thrown out of the window for both major candidates in the race. There is really nothing dignified about either one of them. And "honesty", is something which makes neither of candidates shine with Hillary Clinton being worse as a liar which is of course expected from a professional politician and a lawyer. The only remaining element is competence that Donald Trump can definitely take more credit than Hillary Clinton whose reaching to such stage in the race has been made possible through unusual elements and tactics that her support team (including President Obama) has employed from the beginning.

From what I see, Donald Trump most certainly has an edge over Hillary Clinton in this race and the reason is mostly because he speaks the language of the people and reflects the frustrations that is felt by most ordinary people. His position against globalization and global elite has made him a likable person for many Americans who wish to follow the example of British voters in Brexit referendum and get the nation away from the uncertainty of globalization. At the same time, scandals around Hillary Clinton and her associates has made it possible for many people not to like her and her being cocky and victorious in behavior has had more negative impact than a positive one against her in this process.

Hillary Clinton's views and policies (when she was in office) are definitely not very peaceful in any way. Her positions about global issues and other global powers like Russia and China are not in direction of making a peaceful world. She has openly and directly accused Russians of attempting to influence the election and conspiring against her and blaming them for all the questionable materials that has been disclosed from her emails without addressing such issues first. FBI has been forced to investigate her illegal use of private resources in the matters of state affairs for second time indicating the issues are not that minor to ignore as far as American government system is concerned. This certainly is not a sign for great competence.

Why should we be concerned? United States of America is definitely a great nation with immense military might and having a person in highest leadership position in America who can use such capabilities in direction of of not only helping themselves but also helping others who can not help themselves is very vital for the world. Anyone who wants to use such power in seeking dominance over all other nations and bully other nations for the sake of profit for certain corporations or group of people will bring havoc to the world. With plenty of nations armed with devastating nuclear weapons and being able to deliver them far away from their own land, playing bully by anyone would have catastrophic consequences for humanity.

Hillary Clinton is a gambler. She gambled and compromised security of herself and her nation by use of unauthorized and insecure resources, she might very well gamble the existence of humanity to gain dominance for America in the world in order to enter her own name in the history as a tough leader who put America on top of the world. Donald Trump is a capitalist and business person. He has been a business person all his life and he says that he is after improving business for America while making partnership and having cooperation with other nations in different ways and on different issues. His views and positions regarding attack on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and situation in Syria is very different than Hillary Clinton and is much closer to reality. He has definitely scored many positive points with American public so far but it is still possible that even if he wins the popular vote, he may lose the election.

for many years since the assassination of President Kennedy whose rise to power was with the help of mafia, the political establishment in United States of America has been tainted with presence of a shadow that has kept a hold on all political process in this country and many other parts of the world. President Kennedy, in a cryptic statement without naming any names, mentioned his opposition to such shadow powers and their "secret oaths" and "secret proceedings", a few months before he was killed. From that time, US government of either parties have been following same agenda in the world's political arena. Donald Trump says he is different and because of that, many of his own party refused to support him. No matter the outcome of this presidential election, western people, in Britain and now in America, have shown that there is a movement under the surface that "status quo" can not satisfy that any more.