As someone outside the US, I never understood the fixation on candidates, given that they can tell a lot but the ones who make policy are still the same think tanks, lobbyists and bureaucrats working in DC their whole life. Sure, Trump, may try to push through one or two bad things, but he doesn't control the direction of the ship at all. Without the crew of a sail ship on his side, as a metaphor, Trump can rant whatever he wants. It'll go down in the books just as the escapades of other POTUSes. What I'm getting at is that the important, life-changing stuff happens behind the curtains and POTUS is merely the pony to entertain the masses and sometimes represent the policy created by the large government body. There are thousands of things a POTUS was against but had to defend, because the POTUS was there to represent the whole in the form of someone approachable. To me this is all some weird psychological game used to manage the population, and I like to think humanity has enough experience/knowledge to aim for a reasonable world without stupidity and sentiment-based ruling. Every logician must be very sad at how the world is managed.

In summary, who cares of Trump is POTUS, he'll be just another show piece without real control in a much more complex game of power dynamics.

That said, if someone wants to filter trumpology, they can ignore or flag them in their personal SPAM filter and statistics will do the rest. If that doesn't work, I'm sure you can silence certain Facebook profiles for you personally, just like one doesn't attend certain social circles in the real life.

I don't know. The DREAM act, the changes to the healthcare laws, stimulus-oriented recession recovery, the sequestration, digital surveillance, and the TPP are all very important and very much results of decisions of the President.

How sure are you that these are things he personally pushed through without them being things lobbied for by others? That's what I mean. Trump can talk about a wall he wants the neighbor to pay for, but it won't happen, so who cares.

If anything I'd be more concerned about Hillary, since she is perceived as the good one, but she has ulterior motives, in part of course due to campaign money. In any case, she's not an example of a female leader who looks for peace and happiness, like some female presidents have claimed all females power figures to be in contrast to male leaders.