I'll address all points in your comment.
Curious though if you noticed this contrast in your remarks: "Private morals are beside the point in politicians; what matters is public appearance." Followed by "Public appearance is beside the point in Hollywood; what matters is private morals." Not to say this is wrong - you may have a good reason for not caring about politicians' morals, but very much caring about their class, and not caring about producers' class, but very much caring about their morals. But it did stand out to me.
Let me address specific points though:
Im objectively looking at Trumps public behavior and its obvious to see. I honestly dont have a problem with his politics as much as the guy himself. Hes incredibly classless in his public behavior.
Unsure how we got to "class" from "cult of personality" - the two seem distinctly unrelated to me. Opposite, even. In general, cult of personality heads are portrayed by the media they control / who support them as classy, refined, model citizens. i.e., they are (or are flouted to be) the opposite of classless. It sounds like what you are actually saying is really just "I don't like Donald Trump / people who support Trump" rather than "I have a specific charge against Donald Trump that is actually the reason I don't like him."
"Class" is used to maintain the status quo. Agis IV, Cleomenes, the Gracchi, Andrew Jackson, all great reformers, and all likely would've offended your sensibilities as much as or more than Donald Trump. Aside from perhaps Numa Pompilius, there has hardly been an effective reformer who was also classy (which is not to say Trump will be effective; reformers do not have too good a track record of righting the ship on their civilizations, unfortunately, especially civilizations in the later stages of decadence). In Numa's case, the elites desperately wanted his reforms; in Agis IV, Cleomenes, the Gracchi, and Jackson's case, the elites wanted these men and their reforms dead (and very often succeeded). Reform politicians are rude brawlers - there's just no way to take on entrenched media, intellectual, and political elites in a classy way that is also effective. Usually, whoever tries "classy reform" gets ignored or steamrolled... Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, Barack Obama, and Bernie Sanders are examples of what we might call "classy reformers", none of whom succeeded in effecting much/any reform.
Tell me did Clinton and Obama make fun of disabled people ever, let alone in public? Come on.
I'm unaware of any modern American politician who has. If you mean the MSM spin over 2016 Donald Trump's "retarded" gesture, yes, that's how the MSM does it, and one of the reasons I suggest folks stop letting these people brainwash them. Trump's made that gesture dozens of times on camera about all sorts of people - it means "this guy's an idiot", not "this guy's a cripple." When you watch the MSM, you're consuming manufactured outrage designed to manipulate your emotions. The MSM is lying to you (about all sorts of things, not just politics).
I dont really give a shit what kind of person any of these guys are in their personal lives, they could all be dickholes, but Trump is by far a classless act (publicly) in comparison to the other three
Appearance is important to an extent, but you must see past it. There are many great men who have charm. But there are terrific villains who use it too. If your primary concern is the superficial, you will not tell one from the other until too late.
"Sex is one of the motivations" thats kinda the point and the problem… it shouldnt be wrapped up in this.
You're talking ideology/idealism. Which is fine to talk about - societies are driven by various ideologues with various idealistic dreams they try to move their societies toward. However, we're not talking "shoulds" or "shouldn'ts" here - or if you are, it'll be a one-sided conversation. I myself leave the shoulds for priests, pundits, and political leaders. I'm concerned with "If a society decides you 'shouldn't have this', is there a realistic way to enforce that? And does society care strongly enough about the issue to enforce it, or will society balk at the level of control required to separate, for instance, male power from male sexuality?" Those, in my opinion, are the far more interesting questions.
Harvey Weinstein meeting women on the street, being transparent about wanting sex from them is far different from sexually harassing and exploiting vulnerable potential clients hoping for a big break in their careers. trading sex for money & fame =/= trading sex for sex.
I never mentioned trading sex for sex.
I mentioned trading promises of a long-term relationship for sex. Or trading incredible romantic experiences for sex. Or what nice guys do, trading availability and emotional connection and favors for sex.
Left unchecked, men will trade anything and everything within their power for sex they can. It is up to society to decide what they will be "allowed" to trade and not trade, and how to enforce such rules.
but its not fair to call it equivalent unless they would engage sexually career implications aside
Only if one views sex as victimization. If sex = victimization, then yes, it is unfair for men to use power to influence women to get sex. If sex ≠ victimization, and in particular if you live in a level-headed society where women understand "the primary value women have to offer to men is reproductive, and powerful men are extreme versions of maleness, in which male traits are amplified, including the desire for more sex and the urge to use power to get sex" you no longer have the morally shocking world American feminists find themselves in. And you no longer find yourself battling with all your might against nature, trying to convince men to become powerful but not use their power to get sex, or trying to convince men to step aside and not seek power. Society must constrain man's worser natures to function, of course; you cannot murder someone for his property, you cannot rape someone because she looks hot to you, etc. Yet the drive for powerful men to use power for sex is much stronger and more pervasive than the drive to murder or rape, and it is tied to a specific thing our society greatly values: enabling men to create, build, and command. There may be a way to constrain it, but I do not see one that is practical or realistic. And it would seem more likely a society would have to be willing to give up some level of creativity, inventiveness, wealth, and ambition to get there (a Mosou vs. an America, for instance).
putting someone's career aspirations in a vice grip and giving them a "choice."
The sympathy I have for someone who trades sex for career favors, or for someone who faces that decision, is not that people face this decision. This is what happens if you have aspirations and want things from other people. When other people hold the keys to something you want, you will either provide something they want, on their terms, or they will give it to someone else who will give them what they want for it. To say "I do not like the terms that person offered for this thing he could give me; therefore, I want to use the state (i.e., other people) to force him to give it to me without me needing to consent to his terms" is one way to go about things. And maybe your society agrees with you. Such a society would have to accept deeply unfair rules, but sometimes societies decide to sacrifice fairness for other ideals. I wouldn't want to inhabit such a society myself, but different societies value different things differently.
The sympathy I have for these women, rather, is how poorly prepared they were to face the world, by parents, teachers, and the media they consumed. They did not learn the cardinal rule of life: if you want something somebody else has, he's going to want something HE values in return for it - and is not simply going to accept whatever you think he should accept for it.