@Fuzzy: I'm sorry, but the Democratic party is not solely responsible for this. There are factions in both parties against arrangements like the free trade agreements and whatnot, but BOTH parties are responsible for this. It doesn't matter if Donald Trump happens to be against it when he's completely incompetent and unqualified for the job. It is true that the problems of the working class are equally important, BUT that doesn't mean we should do the opposite and usher back the kind of discourse and cultural equivalencies that Trump is offering along with the opposition to globalist ordeals.
We need to interact with the world anyways if we want to remain a superpower, but we need to do so with good and experienced leadership with people who know what they're doing and that will provide support from Congress. We don't have such/enough candidate(s) available this cycle to do so. The first step is getting money out of politics so that such candidates can rise to power, which is where getting rid of Citizens United comes in.
I agree with much of this, but I have trouble believing in Hillary's competence. Think about it; where has she been right the first time? There's a lot of course corrections, but she's never been right the first time on any major issue.
I don't particularly believe Trump is unqualified for the job. If he is, we no longer have a Government of the People; we have a Government where only an "insider" is truly qualified. That has implications, and while I'm not for an outsider at all costs, we are where we are at solely because of the selfish globalist initiatives of the Ruling Classes in America. It is hard for me to plausibly say that Trump couldn't possibly be better than the quality of leadership our nation has received post-Reagan (at a minimum), possibly post-Eisenhower.
