Aside from it being purely speculative all the things Trump won't get done, his history tells a different story of all the things Trump has gotten done.
No one can force you to google and educate yourself about Trump's many accomplishments; successes that have made him an icon in the public's imagination for 30 years: his name has been scripted into hundreds of TV episodes and mentioned on morning shows for 30 years as a symbol of success.
You're also missing an important aspect of his suitability for the presidency: He's a dynamic type-A and works hard. His work ethic is legendary, his drive to master challenges and new skills and succeed is also an important aspect of his personality.
When we hire Donald Trump, we will get a dynamo, not a dud playing golf his entire presidency, like Obama.
Some conservatives have bought into the caricature of Donald Trump, and allowed themselves to be swayed by the political noise, and by his coarse New York street attitude (which actually endears him with a large swath of folks).
But, all that aside, glad to hear you won't make an unforced error and be one of those conservatives who will let pride stop you from doing the right thing, and work with every fiber of your being to stop the democrats in November.
Ahh, I was wondering when Candide would show up. Running a business is not like being the executive in a tripartite government where you ain't the boss. When Trump says "you're fired" in his business, the target of his ire is dead meat. When Trump says "you're fired" to Congress, or to the Supreme Court, he'll get laughed at to his face.
I'm not ignoring his vaunted skill in business, I simply know that it won't be applicable. And it definitely won't work in this case because the dynamic is completely different. In a private business deal, both sides are working toward mutual satisfaction and can usually only accomplish that by working together. The way the Founders set up the government changes that dynamic because sometimes what one side wants is to simply frustrate the other side and prevent it from getting what it wants. And that is precisely what the Founders wanted to have happen, more often than people appreciate. The Founders were very afraid of efficient government, and they intentionally built into it the vaunted checks and balances, the purpose of which is to permit one side to frustrate the other.
And that is what I intend to do - use the checks and balances to do the best possible under the circumstances to minimize the stupidity. Donald Trump is a stupid, callow, grasping opportunist who is as unprincipled as the most milquetoast RINO is spineless. Hillary Clinton is slimy, evil and corrupt. I know the only way to frustrate the second is to make sure she never gets into office in the first place. Since the republican voters are now proving that the Obama voters haven't cornered the market on stupidity, I plan to frustrate the first by making sure he does get into office, because I know that the checks and balances will bring him to heel like a little doggie in a way that they won't bring Clinton to heel, given the current overall political/social context in which we find ourselves.
There's no sense in crying over unforced errors because the time to fix those is long, long gone. We republicans almost promptly forgot the basic lesson Reagan taught: that if you think it out, and then explain it in plain English, you can convince a lot of people why traditional republican civil society values are more likely to improve their lives than are those of the socialist left, and to do this in a way that focuses on the positive, on what the good is, and not on the negative, on what the bad is and why it should be suppressed. Reagan won people over because he was able to do that, to focus on Good morning in America. Ever since then we've been focusing on what's bad, what's wrong, and why, and how, we intend to stop it, get rid of it, or kill it off. Trouble is, it can be difficult to explain to the average joe why taking away government entitlements and regulations preventing this or that is going to make their lives better; it's much easier to focus on what you don't like, what you want to get rid of - hate invigorates focus - but that forces you to use negative language, and that's a turn-off. It's also a lot easier to focus on the past, on what's slipping away, than it is to focus on what's coming and much, much harder to figure out how to deal with what's coming because you can't even really tell what it's going to be when it gets here.
We've continued to take the easy way out for far too long, and as a result we've allowed the democrats to eat our lunch. Until we can get back to the essential optimism that marked Reagan we will continue to lose. That is what we most need to emulate about Reagan - his optimism about the future, about what was coming, and his ability to explain why his seemingly counterintuitive values were actually better than the more pleasant-sounding pablum of the democrats - and not any of his particular policies, some of which are no doubt no longer of much relevance (e.g., the Soviet Union is gone - Russia is not its equal - and so is the sort of industrial set-piece war that embodied the Cold War).
So, since I prefer to deal with what is, not pine for the more rational alternative I'd prefer, I try to see how best to make some lemonade out of the lemons.
And just so there's no confusion: if I didn't think Clinton (or Sanders) was such a danger, I'd vote for the democrat over Trump, in a heartbeat.
