Maybe you should read this for his positions.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump....

Let's wait and see what he has to say before writing him off.

They all say they will not have any strings attached to contributions. Reagan was elected Governor of California twice and failed at one presidential bid before getting the nomination. And he had virtually no business experience. He was an actor and pitchman for General Electric before going into politics. His resume and Trump's bear no resemblance to one another. As for Trump as negotiator, I really don't know how he would work out, but I know I do not rank that factor highly in voting for President. I'm guessing he has no respect for the Constitution or belief in limited government. I could be wrong. What does he say on those subjects??

By self funding I meant he will not need to take contributions with strings attached. He will still get contributions. I don't consider Regan to be a politician. Do we need someone with political experience or CEO experience? I agree on trade agreements, I also believe in fair trade but that is not what we have. I used a poor example of the need for someone who can negociate. In this world deals are made by the government all the time. I wish it was not true but if we have to have them, I want the best negotiator on my team.

Yes :)

Hmmm. He is going to "self fund"? It would cost several hundred million dollars to do that. Does he have liquid assets in that amount? Many have fallen for the non-politician businessman rhetoric before. It does not always work out. Willkie fooled Rand with such talk. The best Presidents in the last century all had governmental experience. Coolidge, Reagan. As for "change" we have one of those guys now. Finally, you cite negotiating trade deals as a strength. Personally I do not want the government making "deals" for me. How about free markets for a change?

He has made many statements on where he stands on issues from debt to immigration. His biggest selling point is that he is not a politician. He will self fund his campaign and therefore not be beholden to any special interest groups "I believe this is a major selling point". He will not run to make more money because he could make more by not running. He believes in America and the Constitution and would become our best cheerleader since Ronald Regan. He has proven he is a great manager and entrepreneur. As an entrepreneur he is against bureaucracy. He would hire good people to reduce the bureaucracy and FIRE them if they didn't.

He knows how to negotiate and would not let us be outmaneuvered in trade deals. He would stop China from manipulating their currency and therefore bring back good middle class manufacturing jobs to the USA. He is against the immigration debacle and would take swift action to secure our borders.

He has great name recognition and would be a strong candidate against Clinton. Anybody that has been in business as long as he has will have a lot of baggage. We must look past some of that and his ego. I think everyone in the gulch should give the guy a chance to say what he will do if president before condemning him or writing him off. He is not the perfect candidate that we all want but he will be the best bet at this time. He will make chage happen.

The Donald craves publicly, but hates losing. He will tease people with running for POTUS but is ultimately very unlikely to run for the simple reason that he couldn't stand being an also ran.

these folks are good, gaiagal. . really good. -- j
.

Well, I see both sides of him becoming president. Yes, he does have an outlandish ego, sometimes buffoonish, and has thrown around the ideas of running for president for a few times, yet backing out of it. But on the other hand, almost all presidential candidates have had big egos. He is also NOT a politician where he's not running for his next office after winning the last election. He's definitely got more business experience than just about anyone else running. Part of running a business is knowing when to let a bad idea die. Sometimes you start a business with a great idea that just doesn't catch on and you end up closing it. That is part of running a business. The problem that I see is that we have too many candidates with "commitment issues", and by that, I mean they stick with something a whole lot longer than they need to. The Department of Energy started out as a great idea that quickly ended up overly regulating a good part of the economy without performing the task it was set to do. Department of Education, has allowed our education system to "dumb down" our populous. The list goes on. Like him or not, I do believe that if Trump becomes officially a candidate, he should be at least given a fair listen to before we make up our minds.

No. Mr Trump is yet another big spending, big government Progressive. There are too many of those already running.

At least Trump would say it like it is. I would have voted for Joan Rivers for the same reason. At least they would stick up for the USA, as opposed to Obama who apologizes for us being alive. If there was gridlock in government as a result, so be it. If they cant vote, they cant either take from me or give to me- which is all government in the USA is now.

He's not even close to being in the front of the pack. To get a single vote outside of New York, he would have to articulate his stance on religion, gun rights, etc. I don't see him having a chance at all.

What are these "Qualifications" so many mention?

Lying, cheating, sneaky back door deals with an eye on the future money to be made is about all the qualifications I see Zero and HillBilly demonstrating. Ethics, honesty, character and some other important traits have been lost I fear forever because far too many who have the right to vote are either not informed well enough, are too dam stupid or just don't give a shit about who they elect to lead this country off the cliffs ahead. Donald Trump could be just the guy to get our financial house in order but don't think for one second that he or any of the other power mongers don't also have their eyes on the money.
The right guy would be a tough SOB with a set of balls the size of a gorilla and an honest to God attitude where he just does not give a hoot about getting re-elected, mostly because such a fellow never would get elected. His own party dinosaurs would drive a stake through his heart.

Gotta love the Gulch, we even get spelling lesson's here. Oh no! Should I have said 'Got to, or Got too? Either way, it's a good thing I don't suffer from egotism. Heck, it's probably ' Have to, or is too? LOL. I'm so confused!

If he does get elected by some miracle I see a new TV show where all of America gets to chime at once Your Fired within the first year.

I confess to being uninformed about Trump's politics. I vaguely remember that he ran for the Reform Party presidential nomination many years ago. What political principles does he espouse? What does he think the proper function of government is? I'll even settle for a couple of issue statements. Anyone have any info?

Chutzpah is the correct spelling...but the incorrect spelling didn't detract from the meaning at all :) It was certainly used correctly :)

Trump is a clown. That doesn't mean that he's a fool. In the past, a clown was always taken as a fool. That hasn't been true for a long time. I don't think he would rise to the level as a politician to a Cruz or a Rubio, but the Repubs could do worse. A lot worse.

As the world's foremost authority on spelling Jewish words, it is spelled with the "ch" and no other way. In modern Hebrew, the H sound is often substituted for the CH in order to make the language less sibilant. Not however, in the case of "chutzpah."

He is as well qualified as the current president - so maybe he'll win after all :-(

All of what I have seen written by Jewish authors has been the "ch" version. I will admit, albeit grudgingly, that I can be wrong. (As anyone here who remembers me from my earlier incarnation will tell you, this last was tongue in cheek.)

I have seen it spelled both ways.

It's "qualities."