Virtually all of the "bullying and physical force" at Trump rallies is initiated by his opponents. You don't see Trump supporters rioting at Hillary or Sanders rallies. And it is neither "racist" nor "xenophobic" to seek to protect one's self and one's family from becoming surrounded by people hostile to one's values (and often to one's safety). Would you care to live every day among those who disrupt Trump rallies, waving Mexican flags and threatening peaceful citizens who seek to exercise their First Amendment rights by attending such rallies?

Gary Johnson is a silly duffess! I wish there was a serirous Libertarian candidate running.

One thing I have never understood is that idea that Hillary would be so much worse that Trump. Don't get me wrong. I absolutely despise them both and I will not be voting for either of them.

Here's the rub as I see it.

In Hillary, you have a hard core progressive Democrat from the Saul Alinsky school of thought whose inner belief system couldn't be further from my own. I believe she's also a criminal (with or without future conviction) several times over whether it be Whitewater, Vince Foster, Clinton Foundation or State Department email server related. There is one redeeming quality to Hillary as it relates to Donald Trump. She is utterly incompetent when it comes time to getting things done. Whether it was her own version of state managed health care back when Bill was president, her spectacular failures as Secretary of State, or he unbelievably poor showing against an old doddering fool like Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary. In short, no matter how much I loathe her politics, at least she has a proven record of failing to get her agenda done. The fact that she has all the personality of a doorknob probably has alot to do with that.

Donald Trump largely shares Hillary's politics no matter what lies he had to sling to win the GOP primary. You can't tell me that a guy who has leaned heavily Democratic for 69 years of his life is somehow all of the sudden some kind of reborn conservative on his 70th birthday.

Let me step back for a second and talk about Barack Obama, and I will draw that forward as to how it relates to Donald Trump. Earlier, I mentioned how much I despise Hillary Clinton's political views, so you can imagine the outright disgust that I have for Obama. That said, I do admire one thing about the man. However much I disagree with his ideals, I admire his neverending ruthlessness in getting his agenda canonized as law. Some people thing that B.O. is a weakling and a failure as president, but I suggest that he is doing exactly what he wants to do in order to "fundamentally transform America" into the statist, non-superpower of his imagination. Crushing debt, weak foreign policy and a massive expansion of the welfare state are all part of his agenda, and he has fought like hell to enact every bit of it, with or without the benefit of having constitutional backing.

Although Obama and Hillary share many of the same ideals, they do not share the same backbone and ruthlessness in getting the job done, however wrongheaded that "job" may be. Donald Trump, on the other hand, share an awful lot of Obama views, insofar as Trump has any principled beliefs at all, and he (Trump) is ruthless as hell, just like Obama.

Neither Hillary or Trump have any regard for the Constitution. In fact, if either has any feelings at all on the matter, it may be more in line with contempt for it. If both Hillary and Trump share many of the same political views and one is ruthlessly effective while the other is not, which of the two is the better bad choice?

As far thanking Donald Trump for bring this issue or that issue to the forefront, I'll pass. I couldn't care less what Trump has to say, because he is little more than a empty suit con man with a big cult of personality behind him. If he actually does manage to get that wall built, let alone have Mexico foot that bill, I'd be amazed. Even if it he did, what's the point of building a wall? Are Mexicans so dumb they don't know how to build ladders or dig tunnels? If they want to cross the border, they will cross the border. The real question has more to do with why they want to cross the border in the first place and how do we make that less desirable.

I know I'm rambling here, but the short version is that I cannot bring myself to support Donald Trump under any circumstances. He's a liar and a bully and a litigious thug. At the end of the day, I see him a being little different than the garbage currently occupying the Oval Office. I'd rather just write somebody in knowing my vote is lost than to have the support of Donald Trump weighing on my conscience for the rest of my life. At the end of the day, all I can do is to take care of me and mine and the government with all of their "help" can be damned.

The Republicans are in an impossible situation. They have spent decades loathing the fact that the closest thing they have to an ideology is Conservatism, yet they have always regarded that wing of the party as nuts. So then the socialist Barack Obama comes along, and the only thing they had that could battle him was the principles of Conservatism, and who do they put up to battle him in the presidential elections? Establishment candidates John McCain and Mitt Romney. Why? Because they wanted to court the "Independent" vote, and the political consultants told them that you can't get that with a Conservative candidate. Well, Mitt Romney won the Independent vote in 2012, but lost the election because the Conservative base stayed home.

The Republicans basically adopted a stealth strategy to win back the House and Senate in the 2010 and 2014 mid-terms, depending on the conservative base to turn out in off years when the voter turnout is low. When they won the House back, they kept saying "we can't oppose Obama with control of only one house." Then they won the Senate in 2014, they caved again, and gave the Dimocrats more than they expected in the 2015 budget. They have never stood up to Obama's abuses of power because they didn't want to be called racists or be blamed for a government "shutdown". They must have expected to win the 2016 presidential election by stealth means

Well, the American people got tired of waiting for the "party of limited government" to stop the out of control descent into tyranny, and decided to select Trump as the presidential nominee. The Republicans brought it on themselves by repeated failures to act according to their ideology (such as it is).

I'm am old man. My first vote for President was for Goldwater. I see the slide, in this society and in civilization, in general, toward collectivism, as inevitable and irreversible and Trump is not going to stop it. But he will be an interesting and entertaining speed-bump in the slide while the other choice is simply more grease.

Our unofficial policy on immigration has been to look the other way. It's almost border control theater.

I'm in favor more open boarders. I support rules that make it easier for parts, merchandise, and workers to cross borders without gov't permission. I find it annoying that instead of opening our borders by having a debate we do it by secret agreements in remote locations and by just looking the other way from an underclass of 15 million undocumented people living here. I can only imagine the anger of people who do not want open borders. It's not like we had a debate and they lost. Rather we said, "sure we'll protect the borders," didn't actually do it, and just ignored the law.

So I think agree 100% with Robert Gore. I disagree with trade barriers, can't stand Trump, but there's more to Trump than just racism.

Yes, there are times that tact is overrated. However, that is something quite different than the litany of dumb-ass, knee-jerk remarks and lies spouted by Trump.

He has brought attention to a number of issues like a deadly bomb going off in a public market highlights flaws in prevention and response. He's oblivious to, or unconcerned about, collateral damage.

The tragic irony is that many of his supporters are far more consistent on issues than he is.

I worry that the GOP will try to tone him down to be more like them. It would be a shame, and he will lose to Hillary if he does that. Watch the youtube video of the town hall with anderson cooper and trumps family. Anyone who raises a family like that is not a cartoon character.

Will do, sometime between now and the election, probably as a piece on 3rd parties.

I couldn't agree with you more on that.

Hello straightlinelogic,
I hear you. I like straight talk and have no use for PC. Unfortunately there are many politicos and media talking heads that will use every possible opportunity to take things out of context and read into one's words meanings not intended in order to distort and defame. I make it my business to try to ascribe no more meaning to a statement than the literal meaning without further implications until I have elaboration. Every day we are subjected to talking heads that go out of their way to look for the worst possible connotations and implications, if it serves their agenda. It is a propaganda tool used quite effectively by all sides.
Regards,
O.A.

Well, we all knew he had your vote, you've made that clear. He can secure a LOT more votes if he maintains an anti-establishment position and stops taking unnecessarily extreme positions and behaves like someone we want as the icon of the US, rather than a cartoon character.

When Trump opens his mouth, the leftists just pounce on him with hundreds of pundits plying the airwaves trying to knock him down. At this point I turn off the news when they start in on Trump. I just dont want to hear "stop Trump", when it should be "Stop Hillary".

I think that if he wins, I would rather him take some time to assess the lay of the land, look over the information that would be available to him as president, and then formulate a specific plan of action. Politicians today just make promises to get elected, and NEVER make good on them. Take a look at Obama and the war in Iraq for example. We are still there, and in AFghanistan too. Trump is going to shake things up in the government and put in some good people, as he has done in his business.

yeah, Trump has shown us that political correctness has reached its end as a way to control the masses. Now, I say what I think, period, whether its politically correct or not. We only live once.

With her powerful establishment friends and money, Hillary is going to crush Trump unfortunately. Trump is getting SO MUCH negative publicity for everything he does and says that its disgusting. Hillary is an evil power hungry witch, but the liberal media lets her skate on all that she has done. If Trump wins, its going to be because of trememdous pent up upset with the system that explodes out in the quiet of the voting booth. He has my vote for sure.

Today Trump has caused me to think of a scene in High Plains Drifter.
Clint Eastwood's character walks into a saloon and asks for a beer and a bottle.
Pulling a beer tap, the bartender says, "Ain't much good but it's all we got."
I would prefer a having walked the walk conservative like Ted Cruz.
Shortly after I voted for Cruz, he very disappointingly blamed Trump for rally violence he had to know was bought and paid for by George Soros and friends.
Must admit I was emotionally turned off about "Lyin' Ted! Lyin' Ted!" but "all Ted got" is now out of the "all we got" equation this time around.

I have always held that some things cannot be said politely. Some things, when the establishment ignores them for so long, are rude to mention by definition. (That is, the establishment defines "polite" and "rude.") This is an example. Donald Trump does not use euphemism. I appreciate that. Euphemism is a waste of time and an insult to my intelligence.

Robert...thank you for part 1...after part 2 can you turn your spotlight on the libertarian party...now polling 12% of the vote (15% gets you into the presidential debates)...(after gaining 1% of the vote in 2012)...

Good note. I really hope Trump calls attention to this in the general election and moves his rhetoric to discuss the elephants in the room with less extreme, ineffective positions.

If he doesn't, Hillary is going to crush him like a bug.

As a comment to the article, those who want tighter immigration are either racist or xenophobic. The only reason they should come in freely, according to these people, is either their race, culture, or place of birth... None of which predetermines a person's character. It is inherently prejudiced and collectivist to make the claim.
Trump, like those supporting him, is an authoritarian who gets his way through bullying and physical force.

Trump is all of those things, and that doesn't stop him from being an ass

When you had to be a free, white, male, literate, property owner, a candidate could be expected to be a real gentleman. I am submit that today's electorate responds to a little more directness in their rhetoric.

Tact is way overrated.

Hello SLL,

"Today’s decidedly unfree world means that so-called free trade arrangements augment the power and wealth of governments and their cronies at the expense of everyone else, just as “open immigration” expands welfare states with resultant political and economic advantages for the few."

True. Trade and immigration policies have become tools of the politicos, cronies and power-brokers.

On these issues, Trump is much like McCarthy in that he is perhaps the wrong messenger, in-artfully pointing out some truths. It is his lack of tact and choice of words that undercut his message and may be his undoing.

I look forward to part 2.
Regards,
O.A.

I would be greatly relieved if I believed that Trump was doing this on purpose because that would imply a strategy to change the forces causing these political and economic disruptions. Open borders and free trade are natural states of man and only muddled by corrupt politicians. If a nation that offers freebies has a problem attracting moochers the solution is not how to handle the moochers, it is to stop offering freebies. If foreign goods are better and cheaper than domestic products the answer is not to erect trade barriers but to take down barriers making domestic goods more expensive. If all goods are made by the most efficient, unfettered producer regardless of where they may be and who their political leaders are, all mankind's standard of living is elevated. Political states are the cause of all man's problems other than some natural disasters and the answer is to utilize the statist system as little as possible, not to grow more powerful governments.
If Trump only effects this by portraying it in the theater of the absurd, leading to revolt, he is doing us all a service. It would be even better if he offered an alternate plan.