It depends how you define establishment.

Given the legal system, the education system, the tax system and almost everything else in the United States is heavily rigged in favour of rich people I see a man with billions of dollars to his name as absolutely part of the establishment.

How can he not be? Along with many other billionaires and millionaires he's gamed the tax system, he's profited from circumstance, avoided paying many of his workers, flouted the law by gaming the legal system, has life long associations with a host of the other rich and powerful people who control the world, and as you said he can say and do nearly anything he wants and not have to worry about any consequences or ever working another day in his life.

I'm not trying to be a hater but it's absurd that this man is being held up as a man of the people.

His entire lifestyle is the absolute definition of privilege and establishment.

Good luck to him, but his words are utterly hollow as he doesn't in anyway represent or understand any of the struggles he pretends to represent.

In my opinion the old adage "it takes money to make money" is very true.

It's proportionally a lot easier to turn $100,000 into $1,000,000 than it is to turn $1 into $1000 as you need a certain level of money to invest in most projects before they can turn a profit.

That's my problem too.

I don't really like Hillary at all - and while Trump is fun in that he speaks his mind in this politically correct age - he just doesn't seem like a guy with the tact and skills to handle negotiations and debates with world leaders on issues of world safety.

I'm worried he might get in as a protest vote against the system but then we'll have a guy in who could literally accidentally start world war 3.

Essentially because the losses are pretend.

It's logical for small business to only pay tax on profits and to be allowed to balance future profits against those past losses. It's common sense in normal business. However the big end of town has put pressure on lawmakers to allow for some pretty creative accounting about what constitutes a loss.

In trumps case he built buildings with borrowed money and deducted it, then could take depreciation deductions for the real estate even while the actual real estate was really appreciating in value.

Basically you exploit a combination of debt-financing and the accounting laws for booked (as opposed to actual real life) depreciation and you generate a big "on paper" loss that you write off against your future tax liabilities, all while you are actually making a massive profit in terms of actual money you really get.

Neither of them are a choice for the common Man.

Hillary has something like $30m to her name, and is married to Bill who has another $80m or so.

Hillary has decades of deals with the Washington power-brokers who serve the business elite.

Trump has $3b or more to his name. He has decades of deals with the business elite directly.

Basically neither of them are anywhere near regular people and neither of them are likely to enact things for regular people.

But the idea that people dislike trump because he's an outsider is absurd, he's been part of the wealthy club his entire life - hell when I was watching Wrestlemania 4 as a kid he was winging it with WWE promotor Vince Mcmahon at at the Trump Plaza at one of the peaks of the WWE's fame. Maybe h's kinda new to politics but he isn't some backyard guy whose going to make changes - he's part of the rich and powerful and has been his whole life.

If rich people are teaming up against him - it's not because they think he'll rock the boat and spoil their Big $ gravy train by helping regular folks - it's that he has the temperament to accidentally cause a war or a revolution and stuff things up for rich folks by mistake.