You, nor I, know that. Only Donald knows what he will/would not do.

Almost..

We have a group of dolts--both from the left & right--that are so afraid of responsibility that they have become absolutely numb to winning. I'm beginning to wonder whether Mitt Romney ever intended to actually win in 2012. Maybe he did, but not winning wasn't going to ruin his career. Ditto for McCain and Dole-drums.

What does winning mean for the Establishment? It means they have to take responsibility; it means they can no longer pass the 'buck' to the Dems. Look how hard they twist and contort to give Obama wants and explain why they can't oppose him. "It'd be racist". "We'd be called obstructionists." "We'd ruin our chances in 2016 if we did such."

They're not worried about Trump winning because he's conservative. They're deathly afraid of having to DO something and be responsible for it. However, with Trump, they'll still have an out for his EGO. "Donald made us do it" will be the mantra of the day come 2017. Good or bad - Donald mandated it.

Ted Cruz worries them all-the-more because Ted WILL force Congress to take back its roll as defined in the Constitution. That is why Ted is detested in so many corners of Washington, D.C. Ted WILL make them accountable for their action or inaction.

Right now, the Establishment is coming to terms on how to deal with Trump.
・ Case A Trump loses to Hillary, they blame Trump for being flamboyant and arrogant; they are safe to continue being inactive, irresponsible, and get to blow back at the electorate for being so stooopid as to nominate Trump.

・ Case B Trump beats Hillary. For all the negative things they said during the campaign that Trump just ignored but still won regardless, they are again Hands Free because, now its all up to Trump to dictate. They just have to rubber-stamp what he wants, while grumbling about it all the while to the media. "Yeah, we'd love to not pass this, but we can't; Trump has mandated it and, well, we dare not go against the Jedi."

Either way - do you understand now why the Establishment is anti-Trump? Either way, they win their cause to exist without responsibility. Look what's happening with Hillary's email scandal. Hillary should have EASILY been put behind bars by now; all they had/have to do is 'pull the trigger' and indict her. But they won't... they've been dragging this out for YEARS now. They even put Trey Gowdie on it. What a show they've made. They've shown they're darn serious about it; doing nothing while being extremely thorough. Look at the Cromnibus bill or any of the federal budgeting - any cuts? Ever? They have both houses of Congress, yet, they refuse to filibuster a single issue Obama wants. Why? They do not want responsibility. Plain as that.

Plausible deniability is the game in DC.

You want to see them squirm? Put Ted Cruz in the Oval Office in 2017.

He is a lot more honest than the other remaining candidates. No president in this day and age would be able to both be an objectivist and get elected. Its a matter of who is less bad, and more likely to expose the bad thats already there in the government.

Well, I think he would not help the establishment to continue on its current course. He isnt part of the good ol boy network, and thats a good thing. The other remaining candidates are all good ol boys, and will be into making back room deals that arent good for us

I am thinking that Trump will tell when the emperor has no clothes at least. That is a good thing. We need to be shown how the government is hurting us all, not helping.

As to making America great again, I discount that as puffery. Making America Great is done by each of us, NOT the government. All Trump could do to help in this would be to get government off our backs, and I am not sure any president can really do much of that

There are too many embedded politicians who make quiet back room cronyism deals that hurt us all. They need to be exposed, and I think the establishment's hatred for Trump comes from his saying what he thinks- and that might expose whats going on.

I believe that is what you have conjured up in your mind Trump would do.

Be mindful of your assumptions of what Trump would do. Or not do.

"No more back room deals" ????

Do you really believe that Trump is ABOVE such just because he's a billionaire? Wow.

I look at how the establishment repubs hate trump and try to get rid of him at all costs. I say they have ulterior motives, and its evidence that he wants to dip into their power and knock them off the political pedestals they are on.

Don't be too proud of this political prodigy you've constructed. The ability to destroy a country is insignificant next to the power of the fooled electorate.

The fact that the establishment is afraid of Trump should not cloud your vision---you should be able to draw your own conclusion(s) independent of what the Establishment wants. The two viewpoints are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Ask yourself why you are automating as much as possible. Dig down to the basics and you will then be able to ask whether Trump will benefit your company's situation or not. I believe he will not be as beneficial as many hope.

Trump, like Obama, purposely leaves a 'blank slate'. Hope and Change was an open page---and Obama's believers filled that blank space in with whatever they 'hoped' he would do for them. Free healthcare. Elimination of racism. .. and so on. The end result: he has operated just as one would expect a 'Present' voting senator from the staff lounges of a university to do. Disappointment City.

'Hope & Change' has an eerily similar feel to 'Make America Great Again'. Ted says it, but few listen. Its a blank slate for the unsuspecting individual to fill in... and how can the individual be wrong? Would you fill in such a sentiment with position counter to what you would hope America to become? Does an individual aspire to see rainbows or tornadoes?

And with those that voted for Obama, regretting it openly later was a hard pill to swallow. Its so much easier to blame those Republicans for screwing it up, rather than face the reality that their own Hope for Obama to change what they sought did not come to fruition. The same will become of those now supporting Trump; he's drawing masses because of his artful attempt to leave the slate blank while coaxing the emotions of the masses.

Good luck with your choice. I truly DO hope he pans out. Obama's shown us what typically happens with 'Hope and Change'. America Hopes while Obama and his friends keep the Change. Given Trump's close alliance with casinos and his history with the mob, can you say, "House wins"?

This reminds me of when Howard Roark said that he doesn't think of them.

See: Ted Cruz.

I'm not so sure Trump has done any 'standing up' to the establishment. Rather, he is just ignoring them. I don't think he's done much to call our Boehner or McConnell or even Ryan as Nothing-Doings for the Republican party nor the masses of the American public.

Those that have made attempts at pointed attacks on him - Jeb!, Rubio, Romney, however, do get responses.

I'm not sure any are "acceptable", Alonzo. However, there are still tolerable candidates preferable to those with a history of corruption or cronyism.

Please name an acceptable candidate, who has a shot at winning.

Thanks for the recommendation on the book. I just bought a copy. I was born during his administration and it has always seemed like a blank page in history. And yet, a lot happened in those years.

I am going to look up that interview, thanks. One real handicap, I have, is that I have not listened to many of Trump's speeches. Then tend to cause severe facial ticks, in my case, and also to stir up my Tourette's Syndrome.

I believe that during his terms Eisenhower was among the most under-estimated presidents of the 20th Century. He preferred to work out of the spotlight, to accomplish things without fanfare, and he did. I greatly value the book on Eisenhower by British historian Paul Johnson. A great, great pleasure to read.

well, then, why do I hear only attacks on Trump when his "atrocities" are no where near that of Hillary or Sanders. It doesnt seem to matter if he is the best of the lot, you just dont like him. Hence the term 'hater" applies. I would suggest that Hillary would do far more harm to us all than Trump ever would.

"Haters" is another indiscriminate, collectivist smear, Term.... You can't pigeonhole everyone against Trump as favoring Democrats, Socialists, and the "Establishment".

Again, you echo your lack of a Trump defense.

Hillary Clinton: The government I served for the past eight years has done great things, but I will carry on and do better still.

Bernard Sanders: Capitalists and their whole unfair system have been screwing up this country for too long. The problem isn't government; it is that government needs much more power and to use it aggressively.

Donald Trump in his general content, emotional tone, and language:

Your government and the cowardice of your politicians have screwed up your country but good.
The politicians and crony capitalists and politically correct professors and left-wing media have screwed up your own personal life.
They have screwed up your economy so badly and for so long that your children will inherit economic catastrophe, decades of stagnation, and not much capitalism.
In short, they have screwed up a once great country, either out of political cowardice or because they never liked that country's greatness.
And in doing this, they consistently have served themselves exceedingly well at your expense, at the expense of the future, at the expense of your children's prospects.
They deserve only anger and contempt, not "polite" consideration or respectful treatment. They deserve to have their asses kicked.

Now, admittedly these are broad general messages--conveyed by content to some extent, by very general proposals and criticisms, by emotional tone, and by language--but who is speaking the truth?
The guy who is winning.
Who is freaked into gibbering fear? The politicians, the establishment businessmen, the media, and the professors.
Oh, dear...

Discuss with specific examples. You will be graded on spelling and presentation as well as content. Good luck.

I would not defend Trump except that you and the other haters simply want to get rid of him, while leaving Hillary and Sanders unscathed. That just doesnt identify where the real dangers are. Without Trump in the race, Hillary would be the next president (or should I say her backers would really be president- leaving her as the puppet)

What can he possibly tell you that he hasn't already revealed with his speeches and the debates? He doesn't get around to specifics because he has no specifics. Interviewing Mr. Trump will be an exercise in futility. He has been interviewed by O'Reilly and others and successfully sidesteps ever salient question.

How about we elect the one that has shown by his public and political actions, that he defaults to Constitutional law? I know, I know, high on dog food, right? Forget I mentioned it...

Your defense of Trump is utter nonsense. Defend him, beyond a soundbite, based on His words and actions.

Weakly pointing to two other unacceptable candidates is not a positive defense of a demagogue.

I still suggest that given Trump is the only one at this point who can stand up to Hillary and beat her, we might concentrate more on the failures and expected disasters of Hillary than downgrade Trump.

Put in a $12/hr minimum wage and I can tell you a LOT of people will lose their jobs as business gets rid of all jobs not worth $12/hr. Our small manufacturing company will have to let go TWO our of our FIVE assemblers and move the work to China somehow if $12/hr comes into play.
I am already automating as much as possible and shifting as much as possible to china in anticipation of Hillary taking over.

There is so much hatred for Trump out there, its disgusting, and those people will have to endure much worse than Trump could ever deliver if Hillary gets into power.

The very fact that the establishment hates Trump says a lot right there- they want to keep their power over us all.