@Michael: I respect your disgust with yahoos who don't bother to know anything, or to ponder globally the implications of what they do know, but I suggest this may all have to do with the pasting of a restricted (although historically advanced, for its time) democratic polity onto a structure that prevents the yahoos, and everybody else, from actually being part of a democratic SOCIETY (not just a democratic POLITY, even if it were more democratic than it is), which is actually run, in all the important ways, by private wealth (somewhat dispersed among those few who can afford to own influential amounts of stock). This includes the relatively 'open' media, which is obviously seriously distorted (how could one expect otherwise?) by reliance (through advertising, etc.) on private wealth that is largely consolidated elsewhere in the society, and by all the systematic propaganda of the nationalism and legal structures that protect the wealth and its possessors. In such a situation, it's not entirely stupid to remain stupid concerning the details of the process and the events that it leads to (e.g., wars over petroleum, etc.), because your influence is smothered by those who really have it. Then shit goes bad and indoctrinated yahoos find scapegoats for what they can't understand, and candidates in the narrow political system pop up and promise CHANGE! (in my experience, all presidential candidates over the past century or so use the word a lot) - which simply means a 'minor' shift within the overall structure - yet such 'minor' shifts can indeed become major when they can be promoted by the MASSIVE military, economic and cultural power of this particular national government.
Trump supports this arrangement; so did Hilary. But now that the people have spoken - or perhaps have merely inarticulately gasped and shouted - we're supposed to remember that we're all free, and are spreading freedom everywhere, thanks to our (our?) tremendous, democratically-approved control of globally (or wouldbe globally)-hegemonic institutions. But of course it has to be America First, even though, in common with everybody else, most Americans themselves are not exactly first (or even second).
Not a new situation in history, but now it's one within an environment of advanced technology that presents tremendous dangers - though a comparison might be made with 1914. And we all know how that ended...
CHANGE - yeah, that's a thought. maybe Trump & co. will GIVE it to us...
Hmm - maybe I've drunk too much coffee.

Translation might help. if the content is in some way relevant.

@Michael: OK, but doesn't it bother you that Trump supports an electoral system that gives you one choice in two to get the goals you mentioned achieved, that even with this system Trump received fewer votes than the single other serious candidate presented, that both these parties are very very seriously backed and influenced by undemocratic money and media propaganda and orientation, and that both of these parties are the ones that have reigned over the inequalities and developments (or lack of developments) for so long?
Now you can cross your fingers and hope that it will all come out right, and I can too, but shouldn't it be possible to have a party, or mix of parties, that actually reflect the will to do what you want?

@virtue: Perhaps worse experience than most new arrivals, but still probably something you will get over as your guts adjust to local bugs etc.

I wish someone here would dedicate himself or herself to presenting a rational argument for Trump running the US, or any of the other places where 'US' interests are prominent, overwhelming, or violent. Of course, this would require a statement of goals, & then some logic of workable means. What I think we've got now is some very short-sighted ideas of goals and some very sloppy, dangerous ideas of means, and I think that coming to agreement about goals will take us far afield.

Show me how I'm wrong.