So is it the message, or the messenger?

There seems to be a disconnect in America today between what some of our politicians are saying and how they are saying it.  I think in many cases the ideas they espouse might be acceptable to many of us, but for one reason or another it's the person conveying the message that is unacceptable.  Example: 

President Donald Trump is reviled by many because of his caustic, misogynistic style.  In general, though, his ideas of securing our borders, renegotiating our many trade agreements, working overtime to keep our companies here vs closing shop and moving overseas, etc, are not out of line with what most Americans want.  I think Trump was elected President in spite of himself, not because of himself.  He keeps saying, to borrow from Muhammad Ali, "I am the greatest!" when in fact 60% of us can't stand the guy.

Likewise, Bernie Sanders seemed to gain traction when he talked about health care for all, free college education, an end to corporate manipulation of our political process, out-of-control banks, etc.  To many these concepts, or maybe slightly scaled back versions of these concepts, had great appeal.  But when they heard it coming from an old school, firebrand, avowed socialist democrat, with the key word being SOCIALIST, they walked away.

I personally feel all these ideas have merit.  Our borders need to be secure, of course.  A literal $15Billion wall might be ill conceived, but aggressive patrolling, high-tech security measures, etc, are reasonable.  

In-depth vetting of refugees and immigrants is not unreasonable, especially those from dysfunctional, violent countries, which today by default usually means Mid-East countries who are majority Muslim.  The key is them being scrutinized because they are from dysfunctional, violent countries, not because they are Muslim.

Why are we giving tax subsidies (write-offs) to companies to help them offset their costs of laying off American workers and moving overseas?  If they want to move, let 'em, but the costs of their move, including the retraining of their laid-off workers etc, should be paid by them, and not just dumped off on the American taxpayers.

Our trade agreements today are heavily skewed in favor of everyone in those agreements except the US.  I don't think we need any preferential treatment, but the playing field does need to be leveled.

A highly educated and healthy workforce is essential to our security and prosperity.  Funding these goals, even if they mean higher taxes, would be in our NATIONAL INTEREST.  We shouldn't pick and choose who we want to be healthy and who we want to keep sickly.  A vibrant economy needs everyone to be healthy and contributing to the maximum.  

And we need workers equipped with today's skills, not with yesterday's high school level rudimentary skills.   We should properly subsidize education to keep pace with the 21st Century, especially in certain critical disciplines.

Corporations, especially banks, will by their nature look out first and foremost for their best interests, screw the rest of us.  They are too nearsighted to realize their greed will eventually "kill the goose that laid the golden egg."  Corporate manipulation of our political system by their PAC's and campaign contributions should be forbidden. 

So you see, many of the ideas that came from both Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Bernie Sanders are IMO not out of line with what most Americans are thinking.  We just need to have them presented by candidates who come with less negative baggage.

S