Trump has also discussed lowering corporate tax and tax amnesty on returning foreign cash holdings to the U.S. (view the Wall Street Journal interview on YouTube). His discussion of punitive tariffs during the debate was, like so many of his prior inflammatory statements, aimed at a voting audience that is currently thinking about Sanders. Notice his outrageous flaming of President "Dubya" over Iraq. Just emphasizing his statement on record of being against the Iraq war would have been sufficient to satisfy moderate Republicans, but he's again aiming for Democrat and independent voters. The man views this contest like any other business marketing venture, recognizing that you appeal to the biggest potential "buyer" audience, so he's already prepping the general voter market, having satisfied himself that the primary is "in the bag."

Trump's strategy is a gamble, and it could backfire, giving another candidate an opening. This looks like the "go big, or go home," strategy he's used in many business ventures. Jeb Bush is also gambling, betting that he has enough cash to outlast all the other competitors, being the "last man standing" as a Trump competitor when Trump's outrageous behavior turns enough voters (like yourself) away from the current leading candidate.

I'm not particularly a Trump fan, having been a Rand Paul supporter, but I base my opinions on a track record and probability of success. Johnson, Cruz, Sanders are all ideologues, with a vote for them being a guarantee of failure: Johnson doesn't have a prayer of getting elected; Cruz is like Obama, but from the opposite end of the fanatic spectrum; Sanders is the most dangerous, as he only dimly hides his preference for a dictatorial, autocratic socialist Executive that would destroy the republic. Trump, Kasich, Bush, Rubio, and Clinton are pragmatist: Trump is the least objectionable, since he favors a strong economy as a solution to most of the national problems; Kasich and Bush have good record in government, but are also big government statists; Clinton is completely untrustworthy. I didn't mention Carson, as he falls into the same bucket as Johnson: not a prayer of election, primarily because he's failed to educate himself on foreign policy.

For those reasons, I'm remaining undecided, leaning to Trump. Engaging my logic and reasoning skills is my "bulletproof vest" against the completely distorted campaign images coming out of the media, attempting to influence my emotions.

You believe Trump is lying about the tariff to scare the Chinese?? How do you know he is lying? And if he is lying, is that not one of the major problems in politics today? Elected officials saying one thing to get elected and doing another once in office. What would stop him from reversing his position on any or all of the other things he has stated? You would really vote for someone knowing that they are lying? Huh??

We want to avoid the same things, but Trump is at least as ethically challenged as the other politicians. Saying Hillary is bad is not a reason to vote for Trump. Its the same false reasoning that the GOP has used for 30 years.

4 years of trump's telling us like it is will be good for the country. I am tired of the back door deals, the hiding and manipulation of most of the other candidates, particularly Hillary. From a selfish standpoint, I dont want the socialist crash as in Venezuela (which will happen eventually) to ruin the few years I have left. Following that crash there will be many many years of wallowing in a post industrial dark age of government controls and roving hordes of entitled people attacking as in walking dead TV series.

Its going to be either Trump or Hillary/Sanders. If you keep bashing Trump, you are essentially voting for Hillary/Sanders. Check out Venezuela and see how that worked out for them.

it bothered me too. One just hopes that you dont wind up on one of these lists, as its very difficult to get off the list once on it. Flying "under the radar" is devinitely a good thing these days. I read this morning that the government is ordering apple to spend its resources to develop a back door to the iphone and then "give it to the government" so they can invade any iphone in the world and get the encripted info on it.

I think its time to bring Snowden back to the usa and sic him on exposing the NSA on a continuing basis. The government is trying to protect itself from us and have ultimate SS powers.

Trump's playground tantrums and theatrics may impress those not able to discern his sleazy innuendo/retraction/rumor style of campaigning.

Saying Trump is a businessman does not make him ethical in business or supportive of proper values. (Sorry, but I'm having flashbacks to a variation on "The Mummy" film..."businessman, businessman....")
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bb-rE...

That is a very dangerous bill that Cruz is pushing. I can see it easily turning into the same disaster as the No Fly list, with at least tens of thousands denied rights either because their name sounds like someone else's, or simply because ... no one knows or can explain. And the legitimate benefit? No one knows that either.

Tax cuts are sexy. Regulations are the real key to removing barriers from business competitiveness, but that means firing thousands of career government employees (and their bosses) and really alienating special interests who have spent millions on erecting those regulations. No one on that stage is brave enough to get into that fight.

Absolutely.Tax cuts certainly help you retain capital -- if you are making a profit. If you are just making ends meet or maybe a little better then tax cuts don't help.

Regulations cost you money even when you don't have a profit at all. All the candidates keep talking about tax cuts to stimulate business but cutting out the excessive overhead would stimulate business without increasing deficits.

for all the noodles I've fixed for my wife, I salute
you, sir! -- j
.

Getting the government out of anything and everything would be nice - but don't count on it as long as people are unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions and would do anything for someone else to think for them (government).
Now, as far as MFN status - picture yourself buying a car from a car dealer. You are one notional entity (country), the dealer another entity (country). Someone comes into the middle of this transaction and, rightly, says that the transaction is unbalanced. The dealer is giving you a new car. That's value. You are giving the dealer a promise to eventually pay for the car. That's dubious value. So, the solution is that there needs to be a 20% tax (tariff) on the transaction, which will be given to someone who has no direct connection to this transaction (actually, most of it will be spent on the needs and desires of that third party and a little given away for high visibility "causes"). So, your cost on the car is now 20% higher, all of which you now have to pay up front. Would you agree that the value that you have gained for this help is at least negative 20% (add administrative and other expenses, and it becomes more than 20%). So, who benefits and who loses with the "tough" stance against free trade, even if in one direction only?

I would not have granted China MFN at WTO. End Vendor-Finance. But forget all that. Only a monumental global crash will cleanse the wounds for a rebirth. Then get government out of trade. With like minded countries trade will be private.

Cruz is an acceptable compromise - religious, but tempered by his adherence to the Constitution. Carson is perhaps close, but he is really uneducated. Bush and Kasitch are both socialists; why even pretend otherwise?

Your describing creatures like the pope...now that's dangerous. I get what your saying.
Our constitution was solely based on the teachings and lessons learned, not upon the mysticism's or the organization of them...Thomas Jefferson would be a good example of this.
Cruz is staunchly constitutional...rule of law, with temperance. The others either are ignorant or out right reject it...we've got to go with principles.
I like Gary also, he's clearly guided by reason and constitutional principals also...but what chance do we have of getting everyone on board. True, a significant vote for him may make a statement, but at what cost? I'd rather take at least a baby step in the right direction than lose our restoration all together...just my thoughts thus far.

Jabuttrick: You might be right.
I would add that the government IS the problem. And if we could somehow call for it to be reduced to bare bones it would "serve" us all well- as it was originally meant to be.

However, may I just say that you could be "rounding out" some of Trump's open-ended statements that are not necessarily meant to take that direction. Just a thought.

I am not saying that Christian values are not good; what I am saying is that not good values could very well be justified as Christian. Professing to believe in good does not necessarily equates to doing good.

Post script: trumpet and obobo are not guided by anything good, neither are they "Christian". Truly they are nothing, true pagan barbaric bicameral s nor are they human in the same sense we are... yet they are the most mystical of all.

That describes perfectly the general population of the worlds kakistocracies.

No, not by justification...but doing the honest thing because of an ultimate accountability, whether that be mystically derived or quantumly understood. (angels? Interpretation? - Silly, actually very few are bicameral in that way. Cruz may express it that way but he is far from bicameral...he is conscious and extraordinarily integrated as many are )
There are far to many in the anti civilized world that believe there is no basic right or wrong, doesn't matter one way or another...their desired ends justifies the means to that end.

I guess the problem is that the person you describe has nearly infinite faith that the government (read Trump) can solve all our problems. He is wrong, of course, and he may do much more harm than good, I fear.

I'm not quite sure how to interpret your comment. Everyone is guided by something. But, what does it mean to be "guided by the christian religion"? Does it mean justifying any act with one's interpretation of the scripture or does it mean that whatever one does, it's quite fine because the angels said so? And it could very well be the best, most pious and unselfish guidance that leads to a disastrous result. All I'm saying is that this a dangerous path.