I find the notion strange that you shouldn't support the candidate the working man does. A wrong sense of hygiene if you ask me.

The "working man" is a bit of a cliched term don't you think? There's a huge difference between supporting the common man in their struggle for a decent life, and the angry "let's burn the house down" mentality of mob rule. Though to be fair, I don't believe in the suburban elitism you can find in every other Northeastern town.

Support only that person in which you think has the best policies. This kind of thinking is part of the grounds why America is stuck with 2 and only 2 pretty bad parties.

The fact that a lot of Trump supporters have Bernie as their second choice scares me enough, unless you think Bernie Sanders is the type of political philosophy our founders had in mind?

Mate, America's been long taken out of the "politic philosophy our founders had in mind". And no (still running) Democrat and Republican changes it except for the worse. I mean, America has a navy. Enough said (shore guard is one thing in which I see some grounding for, but navy: not at all). Sanders in my opinion is by far the best, he wants to stop this overmilitarisation and what propoganda calls "world police".

Trump is a fake conservative

Trump is on the extremes of conservism - arguably to the point of fascism. Wants bigger government, more laws, and more free market? Yes, very much. JaiBharat is definitely libertarian - wants less government, and more free market.

Mitt Romney is a loser. He should've won in 2012 but he didn't.

Assuming America is democratic, Romney hadn't a chance in 2012. Obama was blackskin, and Hawai'ian.

Too bad John Kasich is better than anyone at this point.

Ha, he's the Republican everyone forgets about, from what I've heard, though, he might be worse than Trump and Cruz.

"Sound positions". I can't name any. Can you?

The wall! But yeah, he has done loads of principle-switching and also likes to talk about immigration (and his wanting none of it) as his strong point, so much so that he doesn't talk very much about other things.

Every real clear politics poll has him losing to Hillary and Bernie.

You think they got a good sample? 5/6 A ag B polls they took, Democrats won.

The common man that just wants a decent life is angry because politicians don't do their jobs. Once they start doing their jobs, the common man will be satisfied.

Bernie is a nut case but at least he's not the establishment. I'd support anyone over Hillary. I don't get my opinions from a bunch of guys who lived 200 years ago, either. I make up my own mind.

Some of Trump's main positions are: get rid of political correctness, stop radical Islamic terrorism, deal with illegal immigration. In some of those positions, he has already had success without even getting elected :)

I urge you to listen to this one: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/03/22/trump_i_might_not_have_to_worry_about_libel_laws_anymore_based_on_gawker_ruling.html

If those polls were to be believed, then Bernie would win hands down. Either him or Kasich. That is, the biggest losers on either side. Are you really naive enough to think that those numbers will be realized in the actual election in November?

Support only that person in which you think has the best policies. This kind of thinking is part of the grounds why America is stuck with 2 and only 2 pretty bad parties.

Eh. I blame the 2 party system on the state laws that restrict smaller parties from getting on the ballot. Its a corrupt system to make sure neither of the big parties ever have to worry about having to form a "coalition".

The wall!

Except he's poisoned Congress and the public to its very idea. The idea of a wall (in my opinion) sounds rational if you have a problem with illegal immigrants, but not people associate the wall with Trump and Trump with xenophobia. Its going to be next to impossible to get Democrats to support building a wall, no matter what you give in exchange.

You think they got a good sample? 5/6 A ag B polls they took, Democrats won.

Maybe. Maybe not. Real Clear Politics doesn't actually make polls, but they aggregate the results of a bunch of polls, so you can see the different results based on different methodologies.

Once they start doing their jobs, the common man will be satisfied.

I 100% totally understand that frustration. I'm pissed too in that respect, but I think the problems you're mentioning are bigger than Trump...they're ingrained cultural problems. Even if Trump gets elected we're not going to get electoral reform, or term limits, or a balanced budget amendment. If and only if those things happen, will the government start doing its job. Until then I just see a Trump vote as an angry vote that does not good for the Republican party and no good for getting real change done.

get rid of political correctness

No man can get rid of this. I wish Trump could, but he's really not going to convert the millions of university kids and elitist professors calling for safe spaces and LGBTQDRLKSDFKDSJFDK rights and denouncing white "privilege".

Ha, he's the Republican everyone forgets about, from what I've heard, though, he might be worse than Trump and Cruz.

You cannot get worse than Trump or Cruz. Don't judge a candidate by his popularity; the media controls who gets that. Kasich has had a good run in his state as governor.

He's not an overaggressive businessman who doesn't know what he's doing.

He's not hypocritical scum.

He's not a fake, lying woman using her sex and last name to fish in votes.

He's not an already dead Democratic Socialist whose plan will not do the economy good.

He's John Kasich. He has flaws, but he is by far the most trustworthy and the most stBle choice we have in the US right now. But since we are a nation that lets the media do our research for us, he has never had a chance.

The common man that just wants a decent life is angry because politicians don't do their jobs. Once they start doing their jobs, the common man will be satisfied.

What makes Trump more likely than any other candidate to "do their jobs"? And to be easy, their only job is to (help) rule the country.

Bernie is a nut case but at least he's not the establishment. I'd support anyone over Hillary.

Sanders wants to go lefter and lower military deeds, frankly, I don't see why you don't like Clinton more of the two.

I don't get my opinions from a bunch of guys who lived 200 years ago, either. I make up my own mind.

So do you think it is important to stick to the American constitution? If not, that's sound.

Some of Trump's main positions are: get rid of political correctness

There's nothing wrong with politic rightness. It can go overboard, but it's better than some who like to get rid of politic rightness, and have their main arguments be "Sanders is a stinkbug." "Clinton wears diapers.".

stop radical Islamic terrorism

Obama, Sanders, Clinton, Cruz, they all are 100% for violent Islamic extremism, but Trump, he wants to bring that down to -100%, right?

deal with illegal immigration

Since Sanders, Clinton, Cruz, they just don't even talk about illegal immigration at all as their policy.

If those polls were to be believed, then Bernie would win hands down. Either him or Kasich. That is, the biggest losers on either side.

Well, in public opinion and polling, they're quite obviously not the biggest losers on either side (and is that saying much, either? 2/2; 3/3?). Kasich, he does suck, but he's conservative and holds for Republican values, not significantly more than the other Republicans. Sanders, he actually wants to try a new (bad) economic system and stop some warmongering, better than Clinton, who you said yourself is the "establishment".

I 100% totally understand that frustration. I'm pissed too in that respect, but I think the problems you're mentioning are bigger than Trump...they're ingrained cultural problems. Even if Trump gets elected we're not going to get electoral reform, or term limits, or a balanced budget amendment. If and only if those things happen, will the government start doing its job. Until then I just see a Trump vote as an angry vote that does not good for the Republican party and no good for getting real change done.

The problem is systemic, we agree there. One very nice thing about Trump is that he makes a lot of new people interested in the political process. Once the majority of people understand what is going on, they can start pressuring for big changes you mentioned. But they first need to get interested and mobilized. As Jefferson said, an educated citizenry is vital to the survival of democracy.

Two big obstacles are the GOP establishment and the dishonest media. Trump is exposing both for what they are.

Eh. I blame the 2 party system on the state laws that restrict smaller parties from getting on the ballot.

It's not mostly what I said, but that makes up part of it. Also, yeah, that is pretty bad, I hear Communist Party of America isn't even allowed any ballots in any state. I don't support communism, but they should have a chance anyway, since more than one man's thoughts should matter in a democracy. But even though Libertarians was on 95% ballots; it didn't really hurt them, but they still were nothing.

Except he's poisoned Congress and the public to its very idea. The idea of a wall (in my opinion) sounds rational if you have a problem with illegal immigrants, but not people associate the wall with Trump and Trump with xenophobia. Its going to be next to impossible to get Democrats to support building a wall, no matter what you give in exchange.

Yeah, but it is a hard policy point he likes to emphasise. It's stupid and not going to work much, but it's still a hard policy point. Don't see why Democrats matter; thought it was Republicans in the national gathering who were absolute majority, from gerrymandering.

You cannot get worse than Trump or Cruz. Don't judge a candidate by his popularity; the media controls who gets that. Kasich has had a good run in his state as governor.

Well, I say Sanders is my favourite candidate, but he's not. He's my favourite candidate who has a chance at all to win the candidacy. But anyhow, Kasich, I know this about him: he wants to grow out the military forces. That's a bold "no" for me.

He's not an overaggressive businessman who doesn't know what he's doing.

He's not hypocritical scum.

He's not a fake, lying woman using her sex and last name to fish in votes.

He's not an already dead Democratic Socialist whose plan will not do the economy good.

Trump obviously knows what he's doing: he's getting the support of untaught, and racist folk. Frankly, if I didn't know the first bit about polit, he'd be my choice, too.

Cruz is worse than Trump, but most polticians are hypocritic if it gets them what they want.

Clinton lies/is wrong more than Sanders, but still better than all the Republicans. From politfact.com: rate of false claims (out of all claims).
Sanders: 11%
Clinton: 14%
Kasich: 18%
Cruz 36%
Trump 60%

Sanders won't do the economy good - but he'll do the world less worse.

What makes Trump more likely than any other candidate to "do their jobs"? And to be easy, their only job is to (help) rule the country.

Trump is not controlled by donors and special interests. Also, Trump has taken clear and even bold stances on things such as illegal immigration, radical Islamic terrorism, political correctness, and Bush being a disaster for the GOP. He didn't get love for those statements, he got record numbers of "incoming".

Sanders wants to go lefter and lower military deeds, frankly, I don't see why you don't like Clinton more of the two.

You've built a warmongering strawman of me and now you wonder why I don't act like it? I want maximal results with minimal investment, and Trump is the candidate to guarantee that. I don't care what Sanders has to say about foreign policy, I would support him over Clinton just to prevent another establishment candidate from entering office.

So do you think it is important to stick to the American constitution? If not, that's sound.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. That said, I think that by comparison, the US Constitution is very good for being 200 years old.

There's nothing wrong with politic rightness. It can go overboard, but it's better than some who like to get rid of politic rightness, and have their main arguments be "Sanders is a stinkbug." "Clinton wears diapers.".

By saying outrageous things, Trump is making a point that he doesn't care about political correctness. Sometimes he's funny, sometimes irritating. Political correctness means that you can say anything you want about a white straight male, but you cannot say anything about a black lesbian female. That needs to go. It has nothing to do with politeness.

Obama, Sanders, Clinton, Cruz, they all are 100% for violent Islamic extremism, but Trump, he wants to bring that down to -100%, right?

Obama, Sanders, Clinton, Cruz are all like those guys who put "Je suis Charlie" on their profile and then condemn critics of Islam as racists. They are sanctimonious and don't achieve any results. Trump, on the other hand, is not afraid of addressing the elephant in the room, so he is most likely to actually get something done.

Since Sanders, Clinton, Cruz, they just don't even talk about illegal immigration at all as their policy.

Sanders and Clinton won't do anything. They just rejoice over new potential voters. Cruz only started taking strong stances on the issue once he saw Trump having success with it.

Well, in public opinion and polling, they're quite obviously not the biggest losers on either side (and is that saying much, either? 2/2; 3/3?).

They are last in their respective primaries. Nobody cares about them so nobody makes attack ads about them. That's the only reason why they have such strong numbers now.

See I can agree with you a lot on general issues.

The GOP establishment and the dishonest media needs to go. And sure, maybe Trump is exposing them for what they are, but in my mind he's exposing them to people who already know that they are a problem. Many if not most people already hate the establishment (that's why Congress has less than a 10% approval rating) and don't trust the mass media (which is why we get things like Drudge and other niche news sources).

The reason so many people have given up on the political process like voting and being engaged with state/local politics is that they don't think its fixable. But how are these people who are suddenly voting for Trump for the first time, going to exercise their constitutional political rights if they haven't been doing it for their whole life? If these voters believe that their only power is voting only then we're in trouble. Being a citizen is more than just voting. Do these voters even know how to "pressure for big changes"? I don't think that answer is obvious. We have a crap political education system. Most people come out of high school with little understanding of our government or how they can get involved in it.

Also I would love to know what you think of Congressional races for the House and Senate. Do you not buy the concern that if Trump is the nominee, a lot of Republican seats are going to be lost? An establishment Republican who folds at the first sign of conflict and who sells out the working class is bad don't get me wrong...but a Democratic party moving further and further and further to the left isn't going to be any better (might even be worse since Democrats more than Republicans favor mass immigration and free trade deals).

Being a citizen is more than just voting. Do these voters even know how to "pressure for big changes"?

Voting is a start if you've never done it. Writing to officials, talking to your friends, going to (actually legal) protests might be another.

Trump has mobilized huge crowds in months. I would have hoped Ron or Rand Paul managed to do the same, but they never did, which was a big disappointment.

Also I would love to know what you think of Congressional races for the House and Senate. Do you not buy the concern that if Trump is the nominee, a lot of Republican seats are going to be lost?

It's hard to say what happens, but if the primaries are anything to go by, the number of votes for Republicans will probably increase. There may be some losses in the transition period as the GOP renews itself (by changing personnel), but I am much more interested in the long term than the short term. And the Dems have their own problems as well.

Trump is not controlled by donors and special interests.

Even if he did boast some kind "I don't take donations, I got enough of my own." sign, he obviously doesn't: on his website (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/), he accepts donations of up to 2,700 $ (and is limited only by law). And that's easily bypassable. Let's say 500 folk (workers of these businesses) are each given 2,700 $ to donate to Trump. That's 1,350,000 $ right there. Though he loaned most of his campaign money to himself, he obviously is controlled by himself and has his own "special interests".

Also, Trump has taken clear and even bold stances on things such as illegal immigration, radical Islamic terrorism, political correctness, and Bush being a disaster for the GOP.

That's a few things, big things, but he doesn't really do much else. I assume he's standard Republican for most of these things, but he hasn't talked about it. Crimes? Home? Electorates? Social? Economic? Teaching? Environmental? Meantime, these other candidates have covered immigration, foreign policy, and some these other things.

You've built a warmongering strawman of me and now you wonder why I don't act like it?

Do you agree with Trump's foreign policy, for more war, or if you want to sugarcoat it, "American military involvement in Islamic Middle Eastern countries"? If you are for it, you're for war.

By saying outrageous things, Trump is making a point that he doesn't care about political correctness. Sometimes he's funny, sometimes irritating. Political correctness means that you can say anything you want about a white straight male, but you cannot say anything about a black lesbian female. That needs to go. It has nothing to do with politeness.

Well, I agree with ridding what you mean as politic rightness, but that's what I see as going overboard with politic rightness - politic rightness just means the decency not to do cheap insults, and not to be racist. But I certainly do not agree any laws stretching into society to "right" it, like his anti-negative outlooks. Fascist Italy did a like thing - made it criminally punishable to speak badly of the government or life in Italy.

Obama, Sanders, Clinton, Cruz are all like those guys who put "Je suis Charlie" on their profile and then condemn critics of Islam as racists.

Arguably the Democrats. Cruz certainly wants to kick some Muslim arse, though; no way he defends Islam. Anyhow, the point is, they all have meant stances on the same thing; Trump is not special this way.

the dishonest media needs to go

They should not be forced by the government to go. That's taking away free speech.

[]Voting is a start if you've never done it. Writing to officials, talking to your friends, going to (actually legal) protests might be another.

Trump has mobilized huge crowds in months. I would have hoped Ron or Rand Paul managed to do the same, but they never did, which was a big disappointment.[/i]

I guess, but I don't really buy into the narrative that they'll suddenly become politically active if they vote. Politics is a bug in my opinion...if you get it while you're young it usually follows you your whole life. Its harder and harder to really get involved in politics when you've sat on the sidelines most of your life...at that point you're already at a huge disadvantage at being knowledgeable or informed about the subject to get any changes done (even if its just in your town).

There may be some losses in the transition period as the GOP renews itself (by changing personnel), but I am much more interested in the long term than the short term. And the Dems have their own problems as well.

That's fair enough. Look I can't stomach Trump when he speaks (I wonder if I would look at his policies differently if they were coming from a different person?), but I sure as hell don't want the establishment trying to block his nomination at a convention if it comes down to that. The party splitting is so much worse than the Democrats winning an election in 2016.

Edited 3/23/2016 01:32:45

I don't really like that chart, nor the organisation "Politic Compass". For one, they randomly pick what the middle point is, when the middle should be a meant point, like a current government. In Nepal, the Communist Group is middle-left; in America, the Communist group is far-left. Also, Republicans and Democrats are closer than most admit, but they're not that close.

Even if he did boast some kind "I don't take donations, I got enough of my own." sign, he obviously doesn't: on his website (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/), he accepts donations of up to 2,700 $ (and is limited only by law). And that's easily bypassable. Let's say 500 folk (workers of these businesses) are each given 2,700 $ to donate to Trump. That's 1,350,000 $ right there. Though he loaned most of his campaign money to himself, he obviously is controlled by himself and has his own "special interests".

Trump obviously means donations of the size of hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. If he tried something like you outline, that would probably become public sooner or later and destroy a lot of Trump's credibility.

That's a few things, big things, but he doesn't really do much else. I assume he's standard Republican for most of these things, but he hasn't talked about it. Crimes? Home? Electorates? Social? Economic? Teaching? Environmental? Meantime, these other candidates have covered immigration, foreign policy, and some these other things.

Trump needs to get elected. He cannot be very vocal about everything, because then he would inevitably offend somebody and lose votes. I personally care more about the things he's vocal about than the things he isn't, at least in this election. I will assume that he's going to do something good with regards to the the topics you mentioned - he's a smart guy after all - or at least he isn't going to be a disaster in any of them.

Do you agree with Trump's foreign policy, for more war, or if you want to sugarcoat it, "American military involvement in Islamic Middle Eastern countries"? If you are for it, you're for war.

Trump does not want the US to be the world police. In fact, he's probably going to wield a lot of power internationally, but rather thanks to good deals than with military power. Let China handle North Korea. Let Russia take care of ISIS. Problem solved. I am absolutely convinced that Trump will apply the US military with more restraint than Obama, Clinton, or Bush.

Well, I agree with ridding what you mean as politic rightness, but that's what I see as going overboard with politic rightness - politic rightness just means the decency not to do cheap insults, and not to be racist. But I certainly do not agree any laws stretching into society to "right" it, like his anti-negative outlooks. Fascist Italy did a like thing - made it criminally punishable to speak badly of the government or life in Italy.

Trump has already toned down his rhetoric. As you can see from the last few debates, he's much more presidential than before.

Also, political correctness has nothing to do with politeness even though its supporters claim it to have. Political correctness is something similar to what you say happened in Italy - you have a protected class of people that it is criminal to criticize. Take for instance the case of Gregory Elliott against Stephanie Guthrie:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Elliott

Elliott was challenged to court for criticizing a feminist on Twitter. All charges were dropped, but Elliott was prohibited from accessing the internet for 3 years because of it. This is what political correctness actually means. Nothing to do with politeness.

Arguably the Democrats. Cruz certainly wants to kick some Muslim arse, though; no way he defends Islam. Anyhow, the point is, they all have meant stances on the same thing; Trump is not special this way.

Cruz only started talking about the wall etc. after he saw Trump having success with it. He probably doesn't care about the issue very much. Also, in response to the Ohio attack on Trump, Cruz said that Trump is himself responsible for it because he allegedly encouraged violence. Cruz only talks about illegal immigration because he sees he can get votes with it. But when push comes to shove, he isn't going to stand by his those principles.

They should not be forced by the government to go. That's taking away free speech.

What I mean is that the dishonest media needs to be exposed for what it is. There needs to be a strong alternative media as well.

Look I can't stomach Trump when he speaks (I wonder if I would look at his policies differently if they were coming from a different person?)

Trump has become much more presidential as of late. Here's a 1 hour long discussion between him and the Washington Post. Very interesting interview imo: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/03/22/trump_i_might_not_have_to_worry_about_libel_laws_anymore_based_on_gawker_ruling.html

Here's a one hour long interview between Trump and the NY times:

[Censored]

Edited 3/23/2016 21:06:01

^+1. I really wish they would release that interview he had off the record.

Trump knows how to draw attention to himself :)

So he doesn't want to build a wall but rather use it as a bargaining chip? Doesn't mean he isn't going to solve the problem in an effective way.

:( But I want a wall!!