Donald Trump for President?

You can lump them together if you're trying to show that voters are upset with establishment tone, or results, but not if you're trying to show where the party is on policy, because they don't have many similarities there.


Can't respond without a source, and whether it's "exaggerated" will depend on what your baseline is. But it's clearly a factor, given that he's underperformed in closed primaries, and that's on top of struggling to get above a third of the vote to begin with.

I'm literally just describing his actions. They need no exaggeration or embellishment.

What do you think of the things I've listed? Do they bother you?

It would be a revival to support a principled conservative who talked seriously about how to fix things. Not a longtime Democrat who can't be bothered to understand even the most rudimentary aspects of his own proposals.

The "shake the cages" logic has a hole: we need something different. Trump is different. Therefore, we need Trump. But of course, "different" is not the only thing we need, and it's easy to be different in ways that won't fix anything.

His behavior is reason enough to disqualify him, but as for policy: he supported single payer healthcare. Then, the individual mandate. Then, he flipped on that, but he kept the requirement to cover pre existing conditions, which makes zero sense without the mandate.

He won't address entitlement reform at all.

He's not for free trade.

He favors the use of eminent domain for private takings.

He's given money to liberal politicians. Recently.

And that's just taking him at his word about what he believes today, even in the many cases where it doesn't match his behavior or previous beliefs, even though we have some pretty good reasons to believe he doesn't mean much of it,

Haha, there was a new documentary on this guy...

Yoda, thanks for answering. As I said, I'm not politically astute. From my very limited knowledge, I'm guessing that Trump's previous support of Pro Choice and support of Planned Parenthood is the biggest reasons conservative Republicans refuse to support him.

Most of the people I have talked to buy his flip flop on this actually. I'm not one of them, but then again, I'm not buying anything he is selling.

__________________
Letterboxd

Looks like the country is beyond thinking that because a candidate is polished and behaved it means they will achieve anything

Trump can be rough, no doubt about it. Tough may be exactly what will right a soft and lethargic country

Hey, we can do this forever

You're focusing on all the things that are bad about him, but to me Hillary is worse. That's who you should be focusing your criticism on

This thing isn't going away, Trump is in the final three, this isn't some fringe element. MoFo doesn't reflect the support and momentum that is real here

I've been working for Bernie Sanders, but..... I think I rather have Trump than Hillary. The system is rigged, and Hillary would be more of the same, right-wing politics disguised as a progressive.

You keep trying to pretend this is about being "polished" and "behaved." It's not. It's about being honest and decent. Refusing to mock disabled people does not make you a slick politician, and refraining from advocating war crimes does not make you "establishment."

I can tolerate an unpolished person if they're a good person. I can tolerate someone who's not a politician if they have real principles. That's not what we have here.

I asked you if you were bothered by the things I listed. You didn't reply. I assume that's because they do, in fact, bother you, because you're a good person. That should be a red flag. Candidates worthy of our support don't force us to constantly fight with our own consciences.

And if the goal is stopping Hillary, why would we nominate the guy who consistently performs the worst in the polls against her?

The country is soft and lethargic?

I find the country to be hard, unyielding, angry, and petulant. Maybe that's just GA though.

I see that Trump's opponents within the Republican Party are trying to shutdown his support, because he doesn't do things their way and they can't control him because he's funding his own campaign

They're actually strengthening his supporters though, by trying to make him look so bad all the time

I would rather have Arnold Schwarzenegger for a President than Donald Trump. How about you? Dont you think Arnold has more work ethic, smarter on topics, and more of what a real american is compared to the natural born citizen The Donald is? Him being born on a certain landmass is an accomplishment? Him going-on about Obama not being a citizen should have eliminated him from any presidential consideration. You think its gonna stop there? You just know he will say something or do something stupid again. COUNTRIES ARE LAUGHING AT US MAN! British Parliament was flabbergasted at his stupidity, outright calling him names. Theyre our greatest ally!

I would. Yes.

He's not funding his own campaign. A third of it is from standard campaign donations, and nearly all the rest is a loan, which means he can fundraise to pay himself back. Which I would bet money he'll end up doing.

Country of origin isn't all that relevant to me, although it is a Constitutional law that U.S. Presidents and Vice Presidents, for that matter, be natural-born citizens

So that argument should be taken up against the Constitution

Ok, do you think Schwarzenegger would be a better choice? Hypothetically.

Sorry, wasnt trying to kill the conversation.

Percentage-wise, Trump is funding more of his own wealth to his campaign than any of the other candidates

Link: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016...is-way-n508311

While at the same time, his campaign has costed less overall than all the other candidates. This low-budget with high results mentality reflects his approach he wants to bring to the presidency and to America's economy

1) This isn't what you said, and it isn't what he's said. He said he's self-funding. That's false.

2) Even the portion he's "funding" is merely a loan, as I just pointed out. He can repay himself with later fundraising. If he does, will that change your opinion of him? Or can every stated reason for his candidacy be tossed aside so long as he seems "different"?

He's done that by saying outrageous things and getting constant coverage. How will manipulating the media pay for budget shortfalls, or secure superior trade agreements, exactly?

So you're undermining his positives

More self-funding than the rest, *FAR* less overall budget, astronomical results

That's music