A Presidential Contest of Deplorables: The Current Status of the U.S. Election

I feel sorry for the people of the US. The only winner after November will be Netanyahu.
I am reading Micheal Moore’s book DOWNSIZE THIS! in which he says “…the majority of Americans have decided that the best statement they can make is no statement at all. In the 1994 election, more than 60 per cent of all voting-age Americans – 118,535,278 people, or the equivalent of the voting-age population of 42 states – chose to stay home and not participate. They did so not because they are apathetic or ignorant or careless. They didn’t vote because they have had their fill of it. The candidates and the two political parties no longer have anything to say to the citizens of this country. The Democrats and Republicans are so much alike, obediently supporting the very system that has brought ruin to so many families, that the average American couldn’t care less what any of them have to say. They know that voting will not improve their lives, not one single bit” (pages 11/12).
Michael Moore wrote that statement 20 years ago. What has really changed since then?

The last debate can be summed up by this one cartoon;-
http://comicincorrect.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Cover-story-600-CI-2.jpg
A.F Branco

Mrs Clinton shows statesman-like qualities. Mr Trump, for all his faults, appears the more authentic — more “in the moment”. And this may be his appeal. I think he often (often but not always) purposefully talks bigger than he plans to bite (although bite nonetheless — he wants a mandate to govern and not tinker), adjusting what he says to suit the specific audience — although always tending toward the brash in style and tone (brash appears to be his style). Is it machismo? Probably. But he may well turn out more conciliatory than his style betrays (although how conciliatory remains to be seen). And strangely enough, the impetus to war will likely be greater here for a successful Democratic candidate than Republican. Mr Trump may have the strength of character to stare-down the war-hawks within his own party. Some have suggested that a female candidate may give the appearance (a matter more of perception than necessarily reality) of weakness if she were not hawkish [I am here indulging in interpreting the mind of the masses, rather than making a sexist statement]. Whoever wins, of course, will be surrounded by umpteen numbers of minders. I guess it depends then on the minders they choose. Do they merely choose minders who agree with their world view, or do they purposefully go for contrasting agents and those who are prepared to tell it like they see it. And what should we glean from the minders chosen by the current administration? There are more questions here than answers, but I think we need to ask them — even if rhetorically.

There is another aspect, the gross person may also turn out to be the warmongering person if given half a chance at the levers of power.
Meanwhile the warmongering person could also be as much a danger to domestic lives through deference to the wills of wall street. A different kind of gross person.
As an outsider, it seems there is no good choice at this election. We had the same situation in 2015 in the UK really, two parties offering nothing but austerity, with one promising to be sorry about it as a supposed difference.
The real reason for the universal pushback against Corbyn, and Sanders in the US, seems to be that they actually offer a choice to the electorate, and vested powers seem to want to avoid that at all costs.