I think this captures Trump well:

"The appeal of a Donald Trump is obvious:



1) He has his own money, which means he’s beholden to no one.

2) He eschews political correctness and focus-group-approved language.

3) He has charisma and guts enough to broach topics considered radioactive for other candidates.



On those fronts, Trump is an ideal candidate. Unfortunately, behind those positive points lies a mess of unprincipled confusion, pandering and shameless self-promotion all disguised as policy."

http://townhall.com/columnists/derek...y-pal-n2108964

It's unfortunate that he's the frontrunner, but he beats the alternative-long run and short-and that is an undeniable fact.

I believe you could much the same about the vast majority of politicans. It seems seems to me their 'Policy' revolves around personal-enrichment, covering ones ass and growing their teams brand over the needs of the nation.


Trump only said he could get away with murder, HRC on the other hand actually has gotten away with murder and a long list of other crimes. So the longer this circus continues the more it looks like Trump may be more qualified than he is been given credit.

I think it was Eric Erickson who recently opined that, while we should welcome Trump and his newfound conservatism, his is too new to be elected as a "trusted conservative" to the most powerful position on the planet. I'm finding it rather difficult to logically merge Trump's present statements with his past actions.

Opinions are preferences which can change. Conversely, a person can't compromise his convictions without redefining who he is. Applying this logic to Trump does not paint an electable picture.

I agree with you 100% on the need of qualifications. Whether it is me, you or whomever, people find comfort in knowing that a person or persons is up to the task. We all want to people we can count on....

The problem is the standard bar for politicians includes the unsavory qualifications of adultry, lying, cheating, theft, treason, sedition and many other unsavory characteristics......you must be very short on integrity to be a present day politician.

And they found that in Obama? Sorry but I disagree. The uneducated masses got for celebrity. They are used to shallow personallities. They also don't expect a politician to really follow thru on his campaign promises, at least not during the first term. We are a nation of idiots.

Ronnie backed up Truman on the single-payer crap and hung with Humphrey.
People can change.
We may not have a choice other than Trump or a Marxist. What are you gonna do?

Heck no, they/we got a bag of crap with Obama. But they do believe and expect all the promises that are made to be cashed in full....just as with Read my lips, No new taxes. When they don't get what was promised they run to a new savior.

Do you expect politians to follow through? If not, then why cast a vote?

I can agree with that premise, however I do not believe so-called established conservatives like John Bohner, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, John McCain and Mitch McConnell (too name just a few) can be considered 'Trusted Conservatives'.

As I see it you could put any of the fives names above in place of Trumps

'I'm finding it rather difficult to logically merge _______________ present statements with his past actions.'

I don't expect anyone to save me ... I'll take care of that myself (using a few close friends). That's what sheeple expect -- a saviour ....

.

You know what they say about pictures . . . :munchin

Is that the pocket flap of Ted Cruz's suit? :D

Seriously though... His ties are made in China, his suits in Mexico. It's the way the regulations and tariff structures are set up. When it's cheaper to make something overseas/in another country and import it than it is to make it here, it sets up a trade imbalance that is a big part of why manufacturing in the US is dying. I will tell you that I do believe that Trump is a patriot. If the choice between manufacturing overseas or doing it here had roughly the same costs, I'd be willing to wager that he would choose to make them here.

The US has some of the highest business taxes in the world.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/cor...und-world-2014

China is either 33% or 25% depending on various factors. They also have Government sponsored subsidies on goods that are exported. There's a reason that there are so many companies going there for manufacturing, not just Trump.

Interestingly, even though it would hurt his own business, Trump is advocating for a tariff on goods manufactured in China (even though he argued badly in the debate that it wasn't a tariff). This was one of the points that Ted Cruz opposed in the debate.

Personally, I agree with doing it. China is manipulating currency and now their stock market to undermine the dollar. If it wasn't so much cheaper to build in China and import into the US, we'd actually have higher tax revenue AND create more jobs here in the US. My belief is that the impacts that Cruz cited would happen, but the additional revenue and jobs would more than make up for it. The economy is not a zero sum game...

Change the rules to make manufacturing in the US a value proposition and businesses will adjust, albeit slowly.

Here's what will never change: not voting for the non-dem gives the dem half a vote.

As I've said before, anybody in the GOP field is preferable what the Democrats are offering. But the point remains, that the GOP needs to put forward the best we have.
Here's one huge problem as an illustration: Imagine you're Hillary's campaign manager (disgusting, I know, but bear with me). One of your jobs is to put together Hillary's commercials, emails, facebook posts, mailers, etc. Your goal is to galvanize your base, demoralize the GOP base, and to try and get independents and cross-over voters.
The script against Trump writes itself. Trump has traded in two wives for younger women, he owns casinos, he was previously pro-abortion, and his religious faith is lukewarm at best (how many Christians now stay home). He was previously for an assault rifle ban (now the NRA folks get squeemish). He is for expanding use of eminent domain (property rights issues are pretty important in rural areas). He received a ton of deferments to avoid the draft (now your veteran groups are groaning). So, how many commercials could we come up with so far, and we haven't even had a Hillary-Trump debate?
So far, the field has been so broad that he hasn't had to answer any tough questions. He hasn't had to put forward a tax plan, proposals on foreign affairs, etc. Once the field narrows, his off-the-cuff remarks must be replaced by solid policy proposals. I hope that he doesn't come up with anything too crazy, but Trump's history shows that there is no guarantee.
It's one thing to say that a person will vote for Trump vs. the democrats. It's wholly another to say that he should be the GOP nominee. We have some pretty impressive candidates up there, but the problem is that Trump steals the oxygen from the room with a lot of bluster and zero substance. The voters in Iowa and New Hampshire go to the polls in the next few weeks, hopefully they send us some pretty good winners.