Common theme in reading the Hate Always Squad around the internet. Very long on infantile insults and childish bile lace tirades and completely vacant of any sort of rational, reasoned argument against Trump.
Use to be Conservatives thought, Leftists felt. Sad to see that so many supposed "Conservatives" are actually no different the than Leftists they claim to scorn.
Actually, it was Trump who harnessed the anger of the frustrated class in America, sold himself by babbling about a 'wall' and deporting people (positions he has walked back from). There were numerous other primary candidates who did not rely on emotions, but reason and logic to bring in their supporters, and reason and logic did. Trump, not so much. His supporters remain angry, and even spew that hatred of others who are not on board with their candidate still, well after the primary elections are over. They equally harbor obvious enmity toward Cruz, especially over the speech Cruz gave st the convention, complete with WWE style interruption with Trump's entrance during the last part of the speech, and a well orchestrated bevy of boos and threats, the latter which were delivered as Cruz said 'vote your conscience', for the person whom you think will best uphold the Constitution.
IMHO, there was nothing to boo there, the entire scripted (by Trump's people) response to Cruz came off with all the reason and rationality of a Professional Wrestling runup to a grudge match.
Trump's people had had a copy of Cruz' speech for days, Cruz didn't leave anything out, and his was original, not a flashback to a speech given by Michelle Obama.
But you want reasons? Let's start in Iowa, so we'll ignore the numerous bankruptcies by Trump, the deals where he
paid donated to politicians for access to the halls of power and favors, and deals with the Saudis, heck, we'll even ignore him trying to hire the Lady's attorney away from her during that little
Kelo decision kerfuffle, so he could have him defend property owners from a competitor's attempt to use the same eminent domain SCOTUS decision to obtain some property he wanted. And we'll ignore all the Liberal statements about gun control, Hillary as POTUS, backing DeBlasio, etc., etc., etc.
Let's just wipe that slate clean and start with Iowa, without the baggage of three trophy brides, and the ego that mandates his name be prominently displayed on everything from his helicopter to his buildings to his other stuff (but not on the outside of his suits, Heche en Mexico).
In Iowa (yep, we're getting there), within a couple of hours after Cruz had said he'd end the Renewable Fuels mandate, (which requires a fixed amount of Ethanol be mixed into motor fuels in the US, no matter how much gasoline is or isn't sold), Trump said he'd not only increase the mandate but use the EPA to the fullest extent of the law to enforce it. What happened in between? Governor Branstad of Iowa said that because Cruz would end the ethanol mandate (The Gov's son is/was an ethanol industry lobbyist), Cruz would have to be defeated 'whatever it takes'.
Trump, the guy who ran away from Mehgan Kelly after making a crack about bleeding out of whatevers to do a veterans' benefit he had planned for a whole 24 hours, stuck his finger in the wind and came out all for polluting our fuel and costing untold millions of dollars in repairs, ruined engines, and perhaps lives lost (ever get stuck offshore in a squall in a small boat because your motor wouldn't start?) to toady up to the ethanol lobby.
Wow. What an outsider. NOT. Opportunist and crony capitalist, at best.
If ethanol is so great, let the market decide. If people think it works better, or feel some environmental need, they will buy it. In the meantime, ethanol mixed into motor fuels costs about 10% of mileage, attracts water in fuel systems causing corrosion, damages fuel systems in small engines, two cycle engines (chainsaws, leaf blowers, weed eaters, outboard motors, and some motorcycles), damages other small engines (4-stroke) from garden tractors to generators and even more outboard motors) and damages fuel systems in older and classic vehicles and 4-stroke motorcycles. In short, the stuff costs the unsuspecting or those who cannot obtain no ethanol fuel a fortune in repairs and downtime, and on occasion puts people in potentially life threatening situations because engines fail at critical times. The arguments against mandating ethanol are many. Full disclosure, I work in the oil industry as a geologist, not that that has any effect on either chemistry or thermodynamics, ethanol is what it is and has the effects it has, independent of what I do for a living.)
But he went beyond all that saying he'd use the EPA to enforce an increased mandate to the fullest extent of the law. I don't know whether to attribute that EPA comment to grandstanding, prevarication, or true belief (which is possible with his recent guff about 'climate change'). But here is the problem with the EPA:
The EPA, arguably, has done more damage to American industry than any other Federal Agency, including moving-target emissions standards for point sources such as power plants: the reason Coal-fired power generation is being shut down--no sooner than one expensive shutdown and re-fit is done to bring a facility into compliance does the EPA come out with another standard requiring more of the same. You can't run a business if it is shut down and you have to put money into (again) remodeling to meet a new standard.
CAFE standards (increases cost, reduces durability of vehicles), and may affect survivability in accidents.
Not to mention pollution done by the EPA (Gold King Mine effluent release, for just one) and the assertion of dominion over everything from rain water to Carbon Dioxide to the low spots in your lawn.
This is an agency which needs to be severely reined in, cut back, and reduced in scope and power if ever the industry in the US is going to recover. It's regulations sent manufacturers here offshore where they found cheap labor, too, but much more reasonable and stable regulations about not only what they could emit, but who would be held liable for it.
Yet here was the guy who said he was going to "Make America Great Again" stumping for increasing the power of the very agency which has shut down or forced out American industry.Now, if that isn't rational enough for you, let's bring the problem home to your pocket. If you use fuel, whether you have the Ethanol blend or can shell out the extra 20-25% for real gasoline, burn diesel, whatever, you may have noticed that prices dropped in the last couple of years.
If one process could be blamed for this, in conjunction with horizontal drilling techniques, it is the process of hydraulic fracturing (AKA: "Fraccing" or "Fracking") Gasoline went from nearly $5 per gallon to half that or less, depending on where you are, and you can thank those of us in the industry who drilled the wells, put them on line by fraccing them, manage to get oil to market despite the blatant hostility of the EPA and other agencies of the Federal Government.
That selfsame EPA has waged war on fraccing, unsuccessfully, I might add, because the process itself doesn't harm anything. No polluted groundwater (unless someone spills something), turns out the natural gas in that tap water was there before anyone fracced a well within a hundred miles (although if I had methane coming out of my water well, I'd have figured out how to separate it, used the pressure tank for my water supply as a compressor for the gas, put a dryer in the line and , and a regulator and a low pressure shutoff, and be using it to cook with at a minimum, if not for heat and the refrigerator, too).
But enough about the EPA,
The Donald is against fracking. Between the alcohol blend and the predictable result that rapidly depleting horizontal well production will bring increases in fuel costs and more money in the pockets of terror sponsoring organizations, your fuel is going to cost more if Mr. Trump gets his way.
Then, after Iowa, we get into the serial, coordinated, and incontinent prevarication attacks on the character, wife, and family of other candidates. Known untruths were repeated ad infinitum by the Trump camp, including the appellation "lyin' Ted", as justification for these attacks.
Tump went ballistic when Liz Mair's Make America Awesome PAC (Pro-Rubio, anti-Trump, NOT pro-Cruz) ran an ad with a GQ stock photo that was used as the cover image for the magazine overseas, of Mrs. Trump wearing mostly air. The image could not have been new to Mr. or Mrs Trump. I am sure he was aware of it. He is a billionaire, and would routinely vett anyone he wanted to marry, just to avoid golddiggers.
When the ad came out, Cruz said "That's not one of ours.", disavowing the ad.
Despite that, and without getting the facts (or worse, full well knowing them), Trump launched a vicious attack on Heidi Cruz. When the facts were made known, despite disinformation trying to tie Liz Mair's PAC to Cruz (not the case, Mair was not pro-Cruz, either), Trump redoubled the attacks on Heidi.
Let's break that down, rationally. He attacked the wrong people, without finding out who was responsible for ad (or knowing damned well they were innocent). When it was disclosed who was responsible for the ad, he lied about that (to cover his ass?) and continued to viciously attack the wife of another candidate, the whole time calling that candidate a liar. When the truth came out, the response was that Cruz hadn't disavowed the attack
forcefully enough. What part of "not one of ours" is so difficult?
Let's take that into the geopolitical arena, shall we? A terrorist attack is made on the US. Assuming the attack came from country A, 'The Donald' orders a retaliatory strike on that Country.
Oops, spectral data indicate the physics package in the initial attack came from Country B.
The Donald lies about the origins of the attack, says they were really only a front for country A over at Country B, and orders a second, follow-up attack on Country A.
That is what those actions taken during the campaign would look like on a global scale, with the added plus of strategic weapons, and without the entire planet coming down on the US because of that incompetence and newly earned distrust.
I'm going to stop here, partly because i doubt you have read this far, partly because I have other things to do with my day. But there are more reasons to not find Trump acceptable for the job, from his latest embrace of an entitlement program possibly larger in scope (and expense) than the Great Society, to walking back his immigration stance, to faltering on the Wall before the first brick is laid, to an even bigger Obamacare, to a general return to the liberal positions of his younger days, to talk of funding all the good things done by an outfit which custom aborts babies to sell the parts for profit.
Frankly, I don't see much conservative about the man, nor desirable traits for someone I would want near the nuclear 'football' and representing this country as ostensible the leader of the free world.
I am sure others would be happy to weigh in with their reasons, too.
