I would feel BETTER if an outsider was president. One who could say "you want ME to do WHAT???", and would just bring it to the people and tell us the emperor has no clothes. I dont want "a full suit" with pre-arranged deals already agreed on that will suck money out of the country and give it to the "contributors". Americans are DONE with that stuff, which is why Trump has so much appeal.

Hillary would be a continuation of things as they are, and its time for it to be different. No more back room deals with the power brokers. Bring it all to the light.

If Trumps "words and actions" make it so, what about the "words and actions" of Hillary or Sanders? They are MUCH worse, and at least Hillary is bought and paid for by contributors, so we know what she will do once she has the pen.

+1 Well stated

No, actually, I was a fan when I read The Art of the Deal a few years after it came out. I was impressed. I still am. But the child is father to the man and his flaws then stand out now in retrospect.

No, it is not true. Yes, politics is about coalitions and deals, but Hillary Clinton brings many of her own resources to the Oval Office. Franklin D, Roosevelt was another who did.

Dwight D. Eisenhower did not. He was an empty suit politically. Richard Nixon was the conduit from the power brokers to the Oval Office. That role is played now by V.P. Joseph Biden, because President Obama was an empty suit: he had no power of his own, no political career to call upon, no favors accumulated. Dick Cheney filled the same role for George W. Bush. "W" was completely his father's tool.

Ronald Reagan's administration was clearly a 50-50 split between the "Cowboys" and the "Yankees" with George H. W. Bush holding the inside track for his own power base, built on his father's connections.

It is quite likely that Hillary Clinton's role in the Bill Clinton White House was to be a conduit between the power brokers and Oval Office, along with Al Gore who probably represented different interests entirely. Bill Clinton likely had very little political capital of his own. The same was true of Jimmy Carter, for whom Walter Mondale was the senior advisor.

That Hillary Clinton sold her soul to the Devil is quite likely. But that she is a merely an empty suit standing in for others is unlikely. Do not underestimate her.

I loved you from the first moment I met you

(sigh...) Yes, term, you are right.

However, his words and actions "make it so"—no matter how much your faith in his persona.

you re entitled to your opinion, but calling someone that doesnt make it so. Perhaps you would rather Hillary or Sanders?

Yeah...that's what I meant to say.

Two of the most worrying statements he has made publicly are that he would seek to alter the First Amendment to allow him to sue anyone who disagrees with him, and that he would continue to use Executive Orders as a method of "getting things done" in place of Legislative action. Those two in my mind make him just as unfit to hold the Executive Office as Barack Obama - notwithstanding his proposed policies.

The Wall Street Journal interview of Trump has been the best so far. The interviewer (I forget her name) was courteous and friendly, but addressed issues directly, and got sensible answers. The key is that she didn't approach the interview as an adversarial contest or throw out "gotcha" questions. It's a lesson in how to interview IMHO. Trump definitely showed he's a pragmatist in the interview, stating that all of the candidates had sound ideas for addressing the nation's problems, and that he's open to consider any approach that benefits America. Not a bad answer.

The answer to a political syndicate is NOT a demagogue.

You are just a trump hater. Instead you should hope that someone beats hillary

Bark bark bark.

Yes. I have to give a hand to trump for standing up to the establishment. And with his own money

She won't be president even if elected;. The real president is her wall street contributors who bought her

We should be very grateful someone would run for this terrible job against the establishment and has to put up with the un substantiated venom obviously rampant in this campaign. The establishment wants to keep ITS power

Hillary's the next President.

Thank you, Walter.

It is, tragically, no shock that our country has among its choices for the Presidency: a Criminal, a Socialist, and a pandering, demagogic Pragmatist.

Regarding the 69 year old Prince of "They are so mean to me", it's surprising how many people give him a pass and just accept whatever he says. These same people would Never tolerate his degree of double-speak, innuendo, rumor, insult, and 'thin skin' in any other candidate.

I despise the Clinton political machine; but I fear for the Republic if it elects someone that feeds on popularity just to enhance his power. Our country will rue the day if it decides to elect Trump; it will make putting up with Obama seem like child's play.

DT would redefine the "bully pulpit" of the Presidency. He is unafraid of 'torching' anyone or anything, public or private, if he thinks it will translate into more popularity/power. He is also a master of the "Big Lie". Listen to how many times he spews "I heard", "I think, maybe", "they say", or "it could be". The deniable smear or the unfounded 'truth'...he twists it to suit the moment.

I implore anyone considering voting for him to put your finger down your throat and throw up the koolaid. Take a closer look at what you could lose, if he wins. A mirage has no substance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU-TS...

So Walter, you express your low opinion of Trump as a candidate. But do you think his favorability in the primaries is due to him and the many statements he's made without regard to the policy, or lack thereof, ramifications--or is it more or less likely that Bush/Chaney, McCain, and Romney, and Boehner may well have demonstrated the political elite's total disregard of their true base of the every-man?

Personally, I think the Republican base, whatever the hell that is, may be a tad more intelligent than the intelligentcia of politics and media think they are and have had enough of the games. It's time to blow it to smithereens, maybel

You might want to consider this from Vox, posted here in the Gulch about Donald Trump and the authoritarian response:
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/...

Donald Trump's ideological inconsistencies are a result of his personal philosophy. He makes many statements, each of them attractive to some assortment of individuals who read themselves into the rest of the story.

Politics is like that. You find a party you "mostly" agree with, and accept the rest of the agenda while at the same time expecting that this party reflects all of your values. When they do not, you might try to reform them internally - giving money; becoming active - or you might accept that as part of the game, which it is.

Donald Trump reminds me of the opening scenes of Citizen Kane. He's a communist... A menace to every working man in this land...Kane's a fascist... " Donald Trump is a pragmatist in the sense that you and I understand that. He has no moral compass.

You want to ask him questions? Dagny Taggart had one: "What's your plan for the day after tomorrow?"