Question for Never Trump Republicans..........

[hopper]

Platform wise I think being against Free trade and increased immigration is insane. But that is not the deal breaker with the Donald. Policy is secondary, he himself is not qualified to be commander in chief. He lacks the experience, intelligence, character, and gravitas to be our envoy to the world.

I do not understand how anyone can look past this. A person whose life achievements are: two failed marriages, owning a bunch of hotels and golf courses, and producing a trash TV show is simply not qualified to be president. It wouldn't matter if I agreed with him on every issue.

If you're for free trade and increased immigration, there is already a party out there for you - it's called the Democratic Party.

Whether or not there are merits to it, a sizeable portion of American voters do not like free trade or increased immigration, so it's not shocking that a political party would ultimately give an audience to those people.

I think the Republicans are basically damned either way as far as immigration is concerned. They say they need to champion immigration reform so they can win over Hispanic voters, but the reality is that that's going to do nothing to help them in that department. Hispanics who are already here legally and were probably born here are not going to vote for a party that is so antithetical to their economic interests and personal views. Being a pro-immigration party is just going to piss off a sizeable chunk of the GOP's white voter base. Being an anti-immigration party at least allows them to maintain the coalition they have.

A case could be made that the GOP is now just a depraved perpetual-motion rage machine with an "anti-establishment wing" that stokes the fury of the white working class and an "establishment wing" that pursues economic policies that make those voters worse off and more receptive to the anti-establishment wing.

Free Trade and the Democratic Party-Thats hilarious since Congressional Dems ever since NAFTA Passed in 1994 have been hesitant to support Free Trade Agreements even with Obama as President. Its like the Republicans barely supporting any tax increases ever since Bush H.W. broke his pledge of "Read My Lips, No New Taxes" in 1990 by raising taxes. Its the same thing.

Economic Policies that make voters worse off-Democrats have done that well the past 8 years.

Immigration Policy-55% of Republicans per Pew Research favor immigration reform. Yes the GOP voters probably want immigration decreased though.

[hopper]

#NeverTrump Republicans should just become Democrats. The reason Trump won the nomination is because most Republican voters agree with the things he says.

Even when Trump loses in November, it's not like those Trump voters are going back into the closet. They're empowered now. They'll nominate Trump again in 2020, or someone like him. The days of McCain/Romney-type nominees are over.

No way. The Democrats support too many government programs. I was just thinking about this today on that there used to be Democrats(mainly Southern Dems(Charles Melancon(D-LA) that supported both government and free market as answers to economic problems. Today those Democrats don't exist as they think government is the solution to every problem.

I like some of Trump's ideas or thoughts like 1.) Getting Tough on China, 2.) Super Pacs are stupid, and 3.) stop making horrible trade deals. I could vote for a guy like that but his statement about Mexicans is insulting. Its like Goldwater in 1964 in that Trump's packaging of himself as a candiate is horrible but in 1980 with Reagan the packaging is right on running basically on Goldwater's platform.

[hopper]

I'm not a Republican, but I side with them more often than Democrats.

I'm voting Hillary this November.

Trump is far more dangerous, and anyone who cannot see this is incredibly blind and ignorant.

Or, perhaps, you are blinded by your hatred of his style and not thinking straight about substance.

Trump's campaign has no substance.

What does the highlighted sentence really mean?  Does it mean that there's an absence of wonkishness on the part of the candidate?

Trump's campaign has LOTS of substance; substance that scares the excrement out of GOP Establishment types.  He has proposed (A) a more critical approach to Free Trade agreements, (B) a retreat from the Neocon interventionism and Nation Building in foreign policy, (C) actual enforcement of our immigration laws, (D) refocusing immigration policy to where its primary focus is the interests of the American citizenry, and (E) a reassessment of our foreign entanglements to determine if they are in the best interests of America (beginning with NATO).  These are issue positions that are not only what differentiate Trump from the Democrats; they are issues that differentiate Trump from a large bloc of Republicans as well.

Trump's campaign has the look and feel of a hostile takeover of the GOP's Presidential Nominating apparatus, and it is, but it came about through free, fair elections, and it happened because the rest of the GOP candidates had serious disagreements on some, or all, of the issues mentioned above with the other GOP candidates.  These voters didn't want a party where the name of the game was "Who's the REAL conservative?".  They wanted a party that used government to address THEIR issues and problems, not "less government, less regulation, more freedom".  The GOP had a deaf ear to all of this for years, and they got caught flat-footed by Trump.  Too bad for them.  But to say that Trump's campaign "lacks substance" is ridiculous.  Trump's campaign has more substance than any campaign in recent memory, and it has had (and will continue to have) profound policy implications for the National GOP in the future.

Ok let me break the post in bold down.

1.) Yeah too often the GOP always wanted to nominate the most conservative candidate and not "The Most Electable Conservative". Thats mostly happened imfamously during "The Tea Party Phenomenon" from 2010-2012.

2.) I think you are overrating "The Trump Campaign" since I have haven't heard a vision from him like Reagan did in 1980 and Obama did in 2008 with their respective campaigns. I do agree with you that he wants to do smart free-trade agreements. I haven't heard an immigration proposal from him other than he wants to "build a wall" which and deport all illegal Mexicans back to Mexico but some good illegal mexicans can come back to the US. Thats all I have heard from him on immigration policy. Foreign Policy-I didn't hear a vison there from him in the past year since he has been in the Presidential Race. Yes the GOP got caught completely flatfooted by "The Trump Campaign"I agree there. I don't agree that "The Trump Campaign" has much substance. It seems like Trump is good for an interview like tonight on "60 Minutes" he was very nonchulant and actually sounded like a serious candidate for the Presidency. It seems like he doesn't go bombastic in an interview setting like he does when he is campaigning.

[hopper]

The next president is likely to be a 1 term president regardless, because we are almost certain to enter a recession in the next year or so.

I think Hillary would do less to upend the status quo, and I think she's be better with foreign policy than Obama, in the sense that I see Obama has a failure when it comes to his middle east policies.

With Trump, you just have no idea what you are getting, and Pence is much too right winged for my tastes, all things considered.

The Supreme Court isn't a major issue for me. As we have seen in the past, conservative presidents don't always pick conservative justices.

I agree with your foreign policy assertion that Hillary will be better than Obama in that department.

Pence-I was a fan of his until tonight on "60 Minutes" when he agreed with "A Muslim Ban". A Muslim Ban is too rigid idealogically for my tastes. I have had disagreements with Pence in the past like on tax cuts as I do with the Republican Party as a whole.

Conservative Justice Picks-Roberts is a conservative except for his decesions on "ObamaCare" as was Scalia and Thomas is a Conservative. Kennedy sometimes can be a Social Moderate. I think Sandra Day O' Connor was a Moderate even though she was a Reagan pick. Bush H.W. picked Souter which was a dud pick by him.