I did -1 you.

Obama is a huge deal maker, perhaps the largest in history. Just not with the other side in the US. You recognize this right after saying he is not a deal maker by stating he is making a deal with Iran.

Trump is more than himself. If elected, there may be hope for Congress as insiders fail with normal tactics, like in this election.

You're right! It should be perfectly acceptable for 16million babies to be aborted with taxpayer money. Oh! Those evil "Social Conservatives"! What else are those evil people guilty of? Not wanting to sign a document that is at variance with their core beliefs?

I for one am not a "Social Conservative" per se, however I do admire anyone that has core values and is willing to stand for something! Unfortunately, today people have little core values and their actions and beliefs reflect that in daily living!

Perhaps if you explained what your core values are we might understand your damning statement above. BTW, look at those souls who call themselves "Progressives" and perhaps for the sake of balance, comment on their extreme "Coercion"!

Compared to what we have today I would favor Monarchy as long as the people reserve the right to head chopping.

Good response, most do not answer that question. Thanks.

Remember: Obama can still make an Executive Order to suspend elections as the global economy crashes.

Apparently you have failed to read my other posts.

I want someone that will do things based on the constitution. Separation of powers would say that the president has to work with congress, and that the members of congress have to work out with one and other a "deal". Its not the presidents role, unless he is a tyrant, to work out what the laws will be.

Trump has no respect for the separation of powers. He will deal right and left with executive order (from his own mouth) just as Obama has. Guarantee another tyrant here. An autocrat as you put it.

I do not want a Tyrant, that is why I do not want Trump and do not like Obama. They are both Tyrants.

I want a president that will adhere to the constitution and provide executive leadership while enforcing and behaving based on the laws that have been passed. Its the only way not to get a tyrant, and the only people a president is authorized to make deals with are in the role of an ambassador and executive.

Obama is not a deal maker, unless you qualify him being willing to appear to agree with someone who is willing to go along with what he wishes as a "deal." Obama is a narcissistic, rigid ideologue, or from the view of the left, is one who engages in "principle based decision making," as you put it. Cruz appears to be of similar makeup, but from the other end of the ideological spectrum, and much more talented speaker.

Any competent national leader will engage in dealmaking. The question has to be whether or not such deals are within the bounds of principle, or whether the deal maker is abdicating the national trust. The Iran deal was such an abdication.

Have you read Trump's book? It deals with how to gain a person's trust, and make them feel you understand their needs. It also points out when to play hardball with someone not willing to compromise, when to accede to less than your original goal, and when to walk away. Sounds like he understands more than you think.

We can't live with extreme socialistic liberals, and we can't shoot them, so we need someone who has a grasp of how to influence them to give ground, at least when it's important. The alternative is an immobile government, given the near equal balance between left and right, and that's what many of the people are fed up with.

The Tea Party spent a lot of energy and resources getting conservatives elected, and to what end? It may be admirable to stand on principle, to no effect, but it doesn't serve the people who elected you. Like it or not, populism and a desire to see real economic recovery is what's driving the Trump supporters.

national review...where were you when they promised if you elect us, we will stop Obama Care!! and all the other things they promised. NATIONAL REVIEW PLEASE SHUT UP!!!

Well! Forget about integrity and doing exactly what you say you are going to do! Narcissistic Conservative! Does that mean that because he promised his constituents that he would be conservative and he followed through, that is a negative?! That doesn't make any sense at all!

So, what you want is someone to say everything you want to hear, then not follow through because his word means something but rather that would somehow make him (or her) not narcissistic?

I have some bad news for you, I would say without hyperbole that Trump very easily fulfills that description himself! So, why is it ok for Trump to be a bit of a narcissistic but not Cruz (although I don't see you argument there)?

As for Trumps business acumen, the same argument was made in NJ when it erroneously elected Jon Corzine (a deal-maker himself) who went down as one of the worst governors or senators this state has ever had however he was worth 1/2 billion dollars!

I for one takes a person by their actions as opposed to their words!!! I suggest others perhaps try that as well.

Peaceful: Abandon the statist party. Vote for independents/libertarians. The best way to hurt powerful people is to turn them into powerless people. Don't buy products from sources that support the state. Reduce your consumption of resources as much as possible. If you can, start a business or avoid employment by any business that supports the state. Freedom isn't free or convenient.

I can see your point, but there is another part to Trumps character that has be part of any evaluation of him.

He has said repeatedly that he would use executive order. He wants to be king. He want to rule by pen and phone, not by negotiation through constitutional laws and processes.

I personally prefer not to have a king. To steal a line from a movie I rather like "Why trade 3000 tyrants 1 mile away for 1 tyrant 3000 miles away?" because 3000 tyrants must have a majority agreement in order to steal your work from you. 1 can do it on a whim. Trump will do it on a whim, he has said so.

I didn't downvote you, but the one thing I would say is that at least with Cruz we have a Constitutionalist who has done his homework. Cruz actually has argued and won at the Supreme Court to protect both the First and Second Amendments under original intent arguments. That to me is pretty impressive and indicates someone who wants a return to original intent - a really good thing in my book. I'd personally love to see Mike Lee on the Supreme Court and Trey Gowdy as head of the Justice Department.

And everyone who runs for President is going to be passionate. It's one of the reasons Romney lost: he showed the passion in the first debate, then lost it (and the race) afterward. I don't fault Cruz for his passion - nor Trump. I admire Trump for being willing to buck the establishment and be politically incorrect, I just see a few major holes in his stances that are a serious concern for me.

The President must either act autocratically, running the country via executive orders or make deals with congress to achieve his goals.

If you want someone who makes decisions on principle and not negotiation, you wish a tyrant. And we all rather like tyrants when we agree with them.

Appreciate your comments.

While I can understand your viewpoint, I could not ever vote for the man. He has stated repeatedly that he will use executive orders as well, his will just be for good things.

He makes it clear that he has no respect for the constitution, or the law. He wants, like obama, a society of men, a king. Not a society of the people through law.

I too like much of his rhetoric but there are bits of truth that come out as well that make clear he is another constitution burning tyrant.

I agree! Trump (as was Romney) are Crony Capitalists who have always used the government to their advantage, not necessarily to do the right thing.

Trump may make a good president however I don't see it as being for the art of the deal, but rather sticking to principles and fighting where and when the fight is needed.

Deal making means that you are trading one thing for another and as we have seen, the Republican Establishment Leadership have been deal making with Obama only they have nothing to show for it other than the thought that Americans will like to see them be collaborative with this president.

The deal here is that the suckers will think R's are nice guys (and girls) and deserve their votes because of the "Cocktail party or Country Club etiquette", after all, isn't that where the deals are all cut?

I had a sudden thought the other day: the problem with the current political system is the lack of diversity caused by two parties. The Progressives basically just commandeered the Democratic Party: they ousted all the Blue Dog Democrats who could have been called libertarians in modern parlance. Then they (the Progressives) just concentrated on their base. What this did was essentially reject the compromises that had taken place in order to focus on a more radical and hard-core ideological stance. It's actually quite brilliant (and effective) from a marketing standpoint.

What this did was leave all these others out in the cold. Since there are only two parties (Independent really doesn't mean much) and with the consolidation of the Progressives into a cohesive unit, it kind of forced the Republicans to try to cater to a whole new set of voters that historically they had ignored. As such, it has effectively split the party along ideological lines and divided them against themselves.

What we really need are new political parties to participate in representative government. I think this is one of the reasons there are so many Republican nominees for President on the Republican side. If they were split into different parties, here's how I see them breaking out:

Tea Party: Ted Cruz (social conservative, fiscal conservative, foreign policy conservative)
Libertarian: Rand Paul (fiscal conservative, social centrist, foreign policy isolationist)
Big Business: Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina (fiscal conservative, foreign policy free-trade advocate, don't care much about the rest)
Establishment Republican: Kasich, Bush, Rubio(?) (in it for power and money after leaving office - don't really stand for anything)
Evangelical: Huckabee, Santorum, Carson(?) (social conservative, focus on Biblical source of law)

On the Progressive side, you do have their pet issues: environmentalism, gun control, population control, but they generally fit within the larger Progressive mantra.

I am tired of all this Trump hype! It is as bogus as is his record in believing in anything that he now espouses! I understand the disgust with the Establishment and the direction that our country is on however I for one am not ready to blindly (with hope in my heart) throw my support behind him.

Instead, I applaud his rhetoric (whether he believes it or not) because it is helping shape the argument! Even if he is only (as a politician is want to do) telling us what 65% of us wants to hear, he is at least keeping that out there for all to see (and digest), even the Establishment RINOs!

I suggest that before anyone get's wacky with their "unbridled" support for Trump that they make him truly earn it by promising without qualifications, even signing a contract with America, that he will in fact stand behind his rhetoric if he is elected.

If he does that and he continues (showing that this is not just a vanity run) his unbridled quest for the WH, then I might also throw my vote to him!!! For what its worth!

How do you propose to strike?

While that sounds wonderful in theory it is an avoidance of reality. There is no real world place to go to, you either deal with the mess and attempt to fix it or you do a declaration of independence and, unless you have sufficient support, go to Jail and change nothing.

How do you propose to go on strike?

Well Said

A bigger threat than the Progressives who want to overthrow the Constitution entirely by stealing all my money, telling me what I can buy and what I must buy and telling me how to think? You're concentrating on the molehill while the glacier is about to run you over...

Do you want someone who makes deals? Isn't deal making rather than principle based decision making exactly why we are where we are today?

What you list as Trump's strength is exactly what I view as his greatest weakness. He makes deals that seem good in the moment.

I had the same problem with Romney. He is a man who has made a life, and millions by making deals.

Obama is a deal maker as well, not with the other side, but with the unions, selectively some rich business guys as well, and terrorist countries that state while in negoriation that they want to kill the great Satan. He makes deals.

A deal maker is not what we need, its not what the world needs. Highly destructive is what these deal makers have been.

We need someone with some principles that wont make a bad deal. Clinton handled Milosevic and Kosovo with the kind of deals we need. They were based on the interests of America and the people in the effected countries. It was handled well. II am not a huge Clinton fan overall, but he did handle this situation well.

How is Trump going to handle a negotiation with a person who does not need or want his money. When he cant buy them off through donations, move them behind him as a competitor through government favor how will he deal with that? Those are the two goto strategies for this guy through his life. What kinda deal will he make with those strategies behind him? I would rather not ever find out.

Trump is a buffoon and Cruz is a theocrat. The rest of the GOP pack would just give us the same as we've been getting. The system is broke and there's no fixing it. Time to go on strike, friends!

While I agree with you that they are a threat (anyone who wishes to use force is a threat) they are far from the biggest threat.

Lets see, force doctors to perform abortions, or force women not to get them. BOTH are the identical threat, just different results. You can do this on nearly any topic on the two dominate sides. BOTH push a progressive control agenda for their respective talk boxes. BOTH are equal in the threat they pose on most issues.

Social conservatives generally do not take your money to give it to someone else. On issues such as welfare, medicare and social security they tend to be less of a threat. These are some of the major threats of our time.

BOTH of these groups pale in comparison to the American Exceptionalism haters. That wish to fundamental change America into a EU socialist state. That group is more dangerous than the social conservatives or the social liberals. Neither of the other groups propose fundamental change away from freedom and the constitution, but these nut jobs (like Obama) do. Far greater threat.

Others like the Isis fundamental Islamist are also a bigger threat as they wish to force there values on us all, and kill any who will not accept their values. A bit more extreme and determined than either the social conservatives or the social liberals, also a much larger threat.