What in Trump's background makes you think that he's honest with his platform?

It's pretty obvious that if he gets elected, he's going to run the country the same way he's run all of his businesses: He makes a bunch of unrealistic promises, siphons money from the investors/customers into his own pockets, and then declares bankruptcy. I mean, seriously, do you think he's telling the truth when he says he's going to build an impenetrable wall along the whole southern US border? His plan is to pocket the estimated cost of the wall, and that'll be the last anybody ever hears of it.

You're right that Hillary Clinton lies about as much as the average politician, so we need to look at her history as well. Based on her past record: If she's elected, she'll probably try to move things a bit towards the left but mostly keep the status quo in place. Of course a lot of this depends on what kind of Congress she winds up with. But if Trump wins, he'll be guaranteed a Republican Congress that won't have the courage to provide any meaningful resistance to his schemes.

There's a lot to unpack here but I think I understand what you're saying.

The toxically rigid gender roles you're describing didn't get invented in the 1950's. They've existed with minor variations for centuries. The reason the 1950's look especially bad is because they were at the end of a long static period, just before the 1960's-70's when things started to get dramatically better. (Which isn't to say that there isn't still room for improvement, even today.)

Now, there were some phony social scientists claiming that these rigid gender roles were the natural order of things, just like there were phony medical researchers claiming that smoking was good for you. And they got a lot of publicity from monied interests who wanted to preserve the status quo. People who were actually doing real social science were able to figure out the problems that rigid gender roles were causing. They didn't get as much publicity as they deserved, but that's not because they were using bad methodology.

Stephen J. Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man" is a good book on the subject. He talks more about racism than sexism, but it'll still give you a good picture of the kind of dynamic that was in play.

It's not worthless in the sense that you can't find a sucker to sell it to today. It's worthless in the sense that eventually the supply of suckers will run out, and you're running the risk of getting stuck with bitcoins that have no other value. (Of course the same thing can happen with national currencies...but if it does, it means that the nation that issued the currency has collapsed, and if you're a resident of that country then you've got bigger things to worry about. Even a solid gold-based currency might not be tradeable for food or medicine or weapons.)

It helps if you notice that it's like every other pump-and-dump scheme:

Con Artist 1: I'll buy a bitcoin from you for $1.
Con Artist 2: OK, here it is. Actually, I think I'll buy it back from you for $2!
Con Artist 1: OK, here it is. Will you sell it back to me for $4?
Con Artist 2: Absolutely!
Victim: Wow, the value of bitcoins has quadrupled in the past few minutes! They seem like a wise investment! Can I get in on the action?
Con Artist 1: Sure! In fact, I'll sell you as many bitcoins as you want for only $3.50 each. That's below the market rate.
Victim: What a bargain! I'll take a thousand!
Con Artist 1: Done!
Victim: So, who wants to buy bitcoins? The bidding starts at $8 each!
Con Artists 1 & 2: My, my, look at the time! We must be going!