A UKIP view on Donald Trump: He may be cliched and controversial, but he's better than Hillary the robot

The two candidates have acquitted themselves like a pair of bar room brawlers for the most part, particularly in the televised debates, writes Bill Etheridge.

I've watched the action unfold with great interest, but it has been hard not to tire of all the bickering, especially in light of what has been going on in my own party of late.

It is fantastic that the American audience is able to see, in principle anyway, the two candidates to be President go head-to-head.

Any similar events in the UK always seem to end up with too many politicians talking over each other, meaning that no one ever manages to get their point across.

In our political system every party naturally wants to have their say.

UKIP's Bill Etheridge is a West Midlands MEP and Dudley councillor, representing the Sedgley ward.

He recently came third in the race to succeed Nigel Farage as party leader and has suggested he may stand for the post again after Diane James stood down.

But although they have had the perfect platform, Trump and Clinton have both been guilty of abandoning serious discussions on policy in favour of personal insults and cheap point scoring.

At this stage of the game they should be challenging each other in real depth on crime, immigration, the economy and other key issues. Instead we have Trump threatening to 'send Clinton to jail and her calling him the Devil.

I would crawl over broken glass to get a similar opportunity for debate in this country. It is something I would have loved to have arranged ahead of the last general election when I was bidding to become MP for Dudley North.

But as is often the case in America, the glitz and the glamour is considered far more important than any substance.

I have to say that Trump has disappointed me in his constant reliance on soundbites. More than anyone, I understand that when you are an outsider and you want to get noticed, it is very easy to throw a controversial comment into the mix. It is a case of setting off a few fireworks in order to get a bit of attention.

But once you have the ear of the people, it really is time to wind in the cliches and catchphrases.

Trump is probably one of the best known faces in the world, but unfortunately his reputation is of someone who throws his weight around says very little of substance.

The Labour Party once called me Dudley's answer to Donald Trump, which I used to find quite amusing.

Now I just find the connection worrying and hope that's not what people really think of me!

He makes a point of being deliberately controversial and sets out to be as offensive as possible, which is disappointing to see as I'm sure he's got a lot more to offer underneath the surface.

I'd like to see him adopt more of Ronald Reagan style. He was my all-time hero. He could handle all the razzmatazz with consummate ease but there was also real substance to him.

Having said that, I think it is unfair when people say Trump doesn't know anything about policy.

He wouldn't be the Republican candidate if that was the case.

For me he clearly thinks the only way he can win is by being controversial, but he's pushed it too far.

I don't think he even believes some of the comments he has made. The idea of building a wall between the USA and Mexico is just ridiculous.

Is it even possible? I think he was trying to be symbolic in saying there are issues with immigration, a point that millions of Americans would agree with.

His sexist comments that were caught on tape are more serious.

They were unpleasant and ungentlemanly at best, although I'm sure many of us say things that we wouldn't want to see splattered all over the news.

I thought his reaction to the whole thing was pretty poor. Why not just apologise, say you've been an idiot and move on?

The President of the USA is also the head of state and is treated in the very highest esteem. Unfortunately, Trump's behaviour at times has not befitted the position.

However, for all Trump's faults I consider him to be a far more appealing candidate than Clinton.

I instinctively rail against anything she stands for. She is the epitome of an establishment figure and the type of person that I completely detest.

Her family has been involved at the top of American society for decades and the country has suffered as a result.

Many of her views, particularly on foreign policy and state control, reflect everything I stand against.

While Trump comes across as a flawed human being, Clinton is more of a robot. She lacks warmth and I consider her efforts to identify with 'ordinary' Americans to be embarrassingly contrived.

The American people have been presented with two of poorest and most unpopular nominees in the history of their elections.

I genuinely believe that if the Tories and Labour pulled such a stunt here then UKIP would sail into power.

It is a shame because they were not the best two candidates by a long stretch. I was very impressed with Rand Paul for the Republicans and, although many people may be surprised to hear it, I also liked the Democrats' Bernie Sanders.

He came across as a man of principle, at least until he spoilt it all by backing Clinton.

My vote would, somewhat reluctantly, go to Trump.

But whatever happens on November 8, the rest of us around the globe are going to suffer from their lack of effective leadership.