Perhaps, against the background of his rivals, this is really not the worst choice. Probably there was no such strange recruitment of candidates for 150 years. From elephants - freak Trump and wild obscurantist Cruz. From donkeys - the greedy snob Clinton and the undisguised stoneman Sanders. Any choice from such a rich range is very difficult and does not guarantee any advantages, while a bunch of disadvantages are quite visible. Therefore, choosing someone is rational and will not work - you have to focus on your own taste)
Very simple. Nothing in this world happens without the necessary objective conditions. And if in the event of decline, the victory of something reactionary and regressive is possible, then Trump and Hillary are practically the same goods. Real power does not belong to those who play the role of rulers.
What do ordinary politicians do? Nothing. These are people who have never produced anything and will not produce anything. Cold-blooded and insincere, saying "what is needed" and politically correct, they create the impression of armchair rats that cannot be reached.
Trump has the image of a person whose intentions are known, who, being financially independent, is really able to defend his interests, at least his own. The latter is especially important. After all, he worked and earned, forming the American budget when someone else distributed it.
Trump seems to have the same language as his mind. This allows him to appear sincere. And with a truthful person, dialogue is possible (after all, he says not only what is politically correct).
It is also important (especially for representatives of the privileged nations) that he allows himself to be a nationalist, because the fruits of multiculturalism of white Americans are hardly suit.
What is there to explain. Before these elections, politics was as if mothballed, and it smelled of hopelessness. And Trump is a breath of fresh air.
Trump is conducting anti-propaganda against himself. There is nothing additional to invent or distort against it. Everything is visible and audible there. Trump's behavior and statements are provocative even by ordinary human standards.
What he does is bragging, being rude, waving his arms, his manners are all indecent.
All right, if it was all against the background of great and exciting ideas, but they are not there either. He didn't say anything new. All his promises are empty and contradictory. So why is the choice good?
When you say Trump is a good choice, can you list the rational reasons for this conclusion? Or is this conclusion related solely to the emotional positive perception of his appearance - hairstyle, gestures, manner of speaking, his imposingness ("a real colonel")?
Many, for example, pay attention to the following:
1) Trump makes statements that are inconsistent and internally inconsistent;
2) Trump distorts facts;
3) Trump's vocabulary is not wide;
4) Trump behaves rudely;
5) Trump can be called a politician and populist, but not a serious politician.
In your opinion, such characteristics of Trump make him, as the head of state, "a good choice "? Or does the hairstyle and gesticulation drag? In this case, it implies the formation of an unfavorable, prejudiced opinion about Trump.
Can you give 2-3 examples of anti-Trump propaganda?
When Trump is talking about rude sexist statements - is it a fact or anti-propaganda?
When Trump humiliates immigrants - is it a fact or anti-propaganda?
When the media and politicians report is the appearance of a report containing serious suspicions about Trump - is it fact or anti-propaganda?
When does the US Senate begin a formal investigation into the information of this report - is it fact or anti-propaganda?
When Trump is convicted of distortion facts - is this fact or anti-propaganda?