But when I do, I piss people off. Hahaha. Oh my, I tried to resist commenting but, of course, I couldn’t.

I too am not from the U.S. but do have a theory regarding what’s happening with these populist candidates. It’s about balance … more specifically, about economic balance and class.

Think about it, whether referring to Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, Communist China, the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and many, many other examples, there’s a common thread to the emergence of radical, sometimes charismatic and sometimes violent leaders that change the direction of a nation. Historically, these are all preceded by some sort of marked crisis such as war or famine, but ultimately results in the elite, that being the rich and powerful, squeezing the lower socio-economic echelons in order to maintain wealth and power. Eventually, there is a backlash from that majority of the population and there’s always some wingnut willing and able to fill the leadership void. Call it political opportunism. The bottom line is that the ‘establishment’ as it were, is responsible for where we are now by not maintaining the balance of wealth and well-being among the populace they claim to represent.

Since the Reagan era in the U.S., economic disparity between the uber-rich and the working poor has not only increased but accelerated. This is not a party phenomenon. Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Younger Bush and Obama. Party politics has changed very little in the trickle down to the masses. You could say, objectively, that from a 50,000 foot view, there has been no difference in the way that any party has governed over the past 40 years. Simply put, the rich and powerful have acquired wealth and power, while the majority have lost theirs. This is not, I think, a unique issue for the U.S. but is more readily apparent due to the world stage it is being played out upon.

Enter the ‘populist’ candidates or revolutionary leaders.

People are angry, frightened and ready for change. And easily swayed by playing on their fears. (Insert any kind of extremism here used to manipulate the masses.) Take your hopeless, disenfranchised, poor, angry mob; whip them into a frenzy, then send them marching through the streets or to the polls. Notice the opportunist rich and powerful stay on the sidelines until they know which way the wind is blowing.

I guess the point is, this has played out to a greater or lesser degree throughout human history. It’s interesting to watch and while I may have overstated things slightly, I think the U.S. is going through a bit of a revolution of sorts, perhaps akin to the 1970’s but less from a cultural perspective and more from a political perspective.

From a personal perspective, I think Donald Trump is a text-book narcissist and I find his divisiveness personally abhorrent, especially for a person that claims to want to lead a nation, but that’s just my opinion. It’s like watching really bad reality T.V. (is there such a thing as good reality T.V.?). Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, seems to be more concerned with ‘serving’ a nation by leading rather than for personal gain. I’m not so naïve to think there isn’t some kind of power-seeking motivation in that camp either but at the very least he seems respectful, insightful and has an idea of more specifically how he would respond to the issues of the election as opposed to bluster and grandiose statements that Trump constantly spews. I'm speaking more from a charismatic perspective than a true platform perspective of course. Ultimately, I can't really tell what Trump really means to do should if he actually ultimately win the presidential election.

That’s about all I have to say about that. Talk amongst yourselves.