Why is Anti-PC 'in'?

Like most people, I have been thoroughly entertained by the electoral shenanigans south of the border. Should Bernie Sanders win the primaries against the Goliath that is Hillary Clinton, then our American friends will be presented with two very distinct, historical choices. Bernie is as left as left can be in the US, and Trump... well, I'm not quite sure he knows where he is but it is somewhere right.

What has astounded me is how can a man who has done so much to offend everybody but white men shore up so such a gargantuan amount of support. From what I've heard, people are happy to finally have a candidate who 'tells it like it is'. A candidate who isn't afraid to say what he really thinks.

My inherent problem with this argument, is that being 'anti-PC' works for an entertainer. It doesn't work for POTUS. The POTUS needs to have fine-tuned the art of diplomacy. For instance, I see people upset with President Obama because of his reluctancy to say genocide in regards to what Turkey did to the Armenians back in the early 1900s. Few people deny that that was indeed a genocide, nor did a Senator Obama. However, what President Obama says is very important. Turkey is an important ally to the US in the fight against ISIS and has been so for many years. Is the desire to be anti-PC worth jeopardizing the relationship between Turkey and the US?

I'm not trying to make a statement on the Armenian Genocide and I understand that I'm greatly simplifying the above issue - I am only making the suggestion that politics is far more nuanced than D-Trump supporters seem to believe it is. The President can't just say what he thinks. Diplomacy is a characteristic that the next President needs to have - especially in these times.