Most of this I posted as a response on another thread. However, thinking through it a little, it expresses some of the reasons why I find the degree of support for Trump to be distressing.
Since Trump can't seem to do it himself, it would be nice if one of the "saved" by Trump would try and start explaining to us "haters" in detail why anyone should think seriously about Trump as the head of the government executive. Because quite honestly, I have come to the conclusion that while having business experience is useful, it is neither necessary nor sufficient to make a great, or even a good, leader. Cases in point include, for example, Tom Steyer, who made billions as a hedge fund manager and is now one of the primary financial enablers of the eco-fascist side of the dem/lib/prog machine. Then there are the founders of Moveon.org, who were prototypical entrepreneurs, having founded a software company, Berkeley Systems. Then there are any number of other Wall Street types who routinely fund dem/lib/prog projects notwithstanding that they've made their bones in free market capitalism. That should amply demonstrate that there is no necessary connection between business experience/expertise and republican values and, in fact, that there is often a vast gulf between the two: one would have thought that if anyone understood the importance of the values of individual freedom (economic as well as political), private property, and even-handed enforcement of contracts, that the founders of Moveon.org would have been such people, but instead we end up with a bunch of statist fascists who would deny to everyone else precisely the freedom that allowed them to succeed.
In fact, if one observes the behavior of larger businesses, one should come away with a fundamental suspicion about how large business relates to the core values of individual liberty, private property, contract, and free markets because it is the large businesses that have the ability to engage in crony capitalism, and observation confirms that this is often the case. Just look at Citibank; but for the politicians it owns, it would have most likely been put into bankruptcy or receivership years ago.
Which brings up the following observations regarding Trump: the fact that Trump may be a super great real estate magnate has no substantive bearing on his ability to be a political leader and, more to the point, is no guarantee whatsoever that he has any allegiance to, or even understanding of, the core republican/conservative values of individual freedom, private property, and contract. Furthermore, his experience raises affirmative doubts about his allegiance to those values because (a) he has in fact demonstrated a preference for the use of government power to choose winners and losers in his approval of the use of eminent domain to benefit private developers at the expense of individual homeowners, and (b) his industry - especially in New York City - is rife with crony capitalism, where success is based as much, if not more, on how politically connected you are as on whatever innate skill you may have.
On the other hand, the one thing that is painfully missing from Trump's resume is actual governing experience. Managing a significant government executive is substantially different from managing even a substantial business enterprise. If you're the chief executive officer, you're the boss; if you disagree with someone in the business you fire them. If you're the president, you may be able to control who's on your cabinet, but you have no control over Congress, and you cannot simply govern without the cooperation of Congress. Notwithstanding that the present and prior few Congresses have not been able to force their policies on Obama, Obama has also not managed to score any significant legislative victories once the DNC lost absolute control of Congress in the 2010 elections.
And it is that lack of experience, and the fact that so far several very competent individuals with very good experience at running an executive office have dropped out for lack of support from rank and file republicans that is so distressing. I find it utterly flabbergasting that Scott Walker has dropped out for lack of support from republicans. Apparently, being able to pull teeth from public sector unions in an extremely blue state counts as nothing against the ability to read polls and focus group reports and then start telling certain people what they want to hear. The fact of the matter is, it's extremely easy to say you're against illegal immigration, or whatever, and extremely hard to beat the unions at their own game, and so as far as I'm concerned the former is more valuable than the latter only in looking glass land.
