CDZ Alright Trump supporters, sell me.

[LoneLaugher]

You think the people in China work for a bowl of rice per day?

 

[320 Years of History]

We currently have a trade deal with China... I profess, I do not know the terms of that deal but generally speaking, trade deals are done for long periods of time because of the capital investment involved.

What trade deal have you in mind? The U.S. has no free trade agreement with the PRC. We do have agreements with China that affect trade. The agreements address intellectual property rights, technology, energy, trade statistics and business cooperation. The only thing I can find specifically is H.R. 4444; it has no stipulated end date. China is not a participant in the TPP.

• Trade & Investment Framework Agreements | United States Trade Representative
  
• TAC Program - Making Trade Agreements Work for You!

 

[320 Years of History]

You think the people in China work for a bowl of rice per day?

It's funny what folks think about the PRC. I have met scores of folks who think all manners of things, few of which derive from any facts, but many of which issue from what they've heard from others who have some sort of "axe to grind" re: China.

 

[Boss]

We currently have a trade deal with China... I profess, I do not know the terms of that deal but generally speaking, trade deals are done for long periods of time because of the capital investment involved.

What trade deal have you in mind? The U.S. has no free trade agreement with the PRC. We do have agreements with China that affect trade. The agreements address intellectual property rights, technology, energy, trade statistics and business cooperation. The only thing I can find specifically is H.R. 4444; it has no stipulated end date. China is not a participant in the TPP.

• Trade & Investment Framework Agreements | United States Trade Representative
  
• TAC Program - Making Trade Agreements Work for You!

Well, like I said, I don't profess to know the details of our trade agreement with China. I do know that Nixon went to China in 1970 and opened trade relations with them after years of isolation. I do know that we currently import over $400 billion from China and we export around $100 billion. I assumed we had some kind of a formal trade agreement because Donald Trump said it was a terrible one.

So either, we have a trade agreement or we don't... Trump can't renegotiate a trade agreement that doesn't exist. So what is all the hoopla about?

 

[320 Years of History]

Are you serious? Russia doesn't have $400B per year. PERIOD

As for how do you renegotiate? Easy. "no more Chinese ships allowed to dock until we reach a new deal" They'll redeal, they wouldn't last a month. That's a fact.

No... that's NOT a fact... that's your bullheaded opinion.

One thing you're failing to understand is that China is a communist country. The government doesn't give a solitary shit about how much their people suffer. You pull your strong-arm shit on them, they will bring their ships back home, cut a deal with Russia (and others) and even if it doesn't match the deal they had with us, they will get along just fine... just as they did for years before we traded with them.

And in the process, we lose about $100 billion in exports to China.

Red:
It is not. It is a socialist country. No country has ever achieved communism.

Blue:
You claim that based on what?

• FSI | CHP/PCOR - China provides universal health insurance at a fraction of the cost
  
• China’s Demographic Trend Reshapes Its Economic Future

Based on the results of a survey of Chinese citizens, "substantial percentages of [Chinese] view the behavior of local officials as bureaucratic and self centered." That doesn't strike me as being all that different from how Americans perceive their government and its elected officials.

In evaluating China, it's important to understand that culturally the Chinese people are very different from Westerners. Their government operates much as most other countries governments do, by attempting to align government policy intrinsic and long standing cultural values. If one begins any analysis with the premise that the Western approach is "best," not only will one find differences, one will necessarily not evaluate the other culture/government from a relevant context.

• Chinese culture has a degree of objectivity that is hard to come by in the U.S. The Chinese -- people and government -- can see what works and what doesn't and they'll adopt what works to the extent they can, no matter whether an "enemy" or "friend" figured it out before them.
• The methods of governance necessary to evolve a nation of 1B+ people from where it was in 1950 to where it is now are not going to resemble anything we're accustomed to in the U.S., and for good reason. Consider that in 1949, ~80% of the population was illiterate. Imagine a democracy comprised of a billion children empowered to make all the decisions by voting for their equally novitiate peers. Where is the sense in such a thing?

 

[I amso IR]

I am reminded of an old military "saw" from years ago. It seems Mr. Trump has the support of voting public and the fear of established government and it's supporters. My thought is as follows, "Lead, Follow, or Get out of the way"! The Government was forewarned that it was facing a severe defeat, that the Constitution still has teeth and it will bite the Government. It has and is going to continue to do so. Get smart, folks, you want four more of Obama(?) vote Clinton/Sanders. If you want Congressional change, vote Trump. That is why Trump is important, should he win and then expose the Congress for what it is, the Congress will change, at the hands of the People. That is what you want after all, to change and reign in the Congress, right? Or do you want more of liberal defeatism? " I'm ok, you are ok, we are all ok".

 

[PredFan]

He isn't hilary. That should be enough right there.

It's not. He sounds a lot like Hillary. He believes that big government is the answer to everything, he has no use for personal rights if they get in his way, he espouses many of the left's ideas.

His views on immigration is the only difference, and I doubt he will be able to do anything about that.

Interesting, please cite examples of him not having any use for personal rights?

1. Eminent Domain, one of his favorite government actions.
2. His desire to force businesses to do business where he says.

Just two for starters.

 

[320 Years of History]

We currently have a trade deal with China... I profess, I do not know the terms of that deal but generally speaking, trade deals are done for long periods of time because of the capital investment involved.

What trade deal have you in mind? The U.S. has no free trade agreement with the PRC. We do have agreements with China that affect trade. The agreements address intellectual property rights, technology, energy, trade statistics and business cooperation. The only thing I can find specifically is H.R. 4444; it has no stipulated end date. China is not a participant in the TPP.

• Trade & Investment Framework Agreements | United States Trade Representative
  
• TAC Program - Making Trade Agreements Work for You!

Well, like I said, I don't profess to know the details of our trade agreement with China. I do know that Nixon went to China in 1970 and opened trade relations with them after years of isolation. I do know that we currently import over $400 billion from China and we export around $100 billion. I assumed we had some kind of a formal trade agreement because Donald Trump said it was a terrible one.

So either, we have a trade agreement or we don't... Trump can't renegotiate a trade agreement that doesn't exist. So what is all the hoopla about?

Red:
Those are private sales contracts between buyers and sellers. They are not trade agreements of the sort governments negotiate.

Blue:
Well, that's among the things that can happen when relying on a person like Trump who (1) will cite things based on what the National Enquirer reports, (2) will say anything because it sounds good rather than because it's actually true, and (3) knows what most folks think and will parrot their thoughts to get their support.

Green:
Winning an election. It's certainly not about anything else.

It's just about doing and saying what he thinks, what he must, to win the election. It's certainly not because Trump knows what he's talking about. How anyone actually checking into what the man has been saying for the past nine months can not realize that is beyond me.

Pink:
It's usually not a good idea to discuss that about which one knows little. Donald Trump is not alone in failing to observe that basic tenet of maturity and wisdom.

 

[PredFan]

This thread has kind of gone off the rails. Let me address my OP to sum up:

I am sold...barely.
The thing that sells me is that he owes no allegiance to either party. He isn't bound by a party's ideology and therefor can act in a way that he thinks is best. It is my fervent hope that his ego is big enough that he wants to be the man that saved this country. This is very thin, and it is very easily destroyed by Trump with words and actions coming up during the general election run.

Thanks all for your input.

 

[Boss]

Are you serious? Russia doesn't have $400B per year. PERIOD

As for how do you renegotiate? Easy. "no more Chinese ships allowed to dock until we reach a new deal" They'll redeal, they wouldn't last a month. That's a fact.

No... that's NOT a fact... that's your bullheaded opinion.

One thing you're failing to understand is that China is a communist country. The government doesn't give a solitary shit about how much their people suffer. You pull your strong-arm shit on them, they will bring their ships back home, cut a deal with Russia (and others) and even if it doesn't match the deal they had with us, they will get along just fine... just as they did for years before we traded with them.

And in the process, we lose about $100 billion in exports to China.

Red:
It is not. It is a socialist country. No country has ever achieved communism.

Blue:
You claim that based on what?

• FSI | CHP/PCOR - China provides universal health insurance at a fraction of the cost
  
• China’s Demographic Trend Reshapes Its Economic Future

Based on the results of a survey of Chinese citizens, "substantial percentages of [Chinese] view the behavior of local officials as bureaucratic and self centered." That doesn't strike me as being all that different from how Americans perceive their government and its elected officials.

In evaluating China, it's important to understand that culturally the Chinese people are very different from Westerners. Their government operates much as most other countries governments do, by attempting to align government policy intrinsic and long standing cultural values. If one begins any analysis with the premise that the Western approach is "best," not only will one find differences, one will necessarily not evaluate the other culture/government from a relevant context.

• Chinese culture has a degree of objectivity that is hard to come by in the U.S. The Chinese -- people and government -- can see what works and what doesn't and they'll adopt what works to the extent they can, no matter whether an "enemy" or "friend" figured it out before them.
• The methods of governance necessary to evolve a nation of 1B+ people from where it was in 1950 to where it is now are not going to resemble anything we're accustomed to in the U.S., and for good reason. Consider that in 1949, ~80% of the population was illiterate. Imagine a democracy comprised of a billion children empowered to make all the decisions by voting for their equally novitiate peers. Where is the sense in such a thing?

LOL... I am not getting into a pissing contest argument with someone who is only armed with his opinion and a bunch of propaganda from a communist government. Sorry... just not feeling it today.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

This thread has kind of gone off the rails. Let me address my OP to sum up:

I am sold...barely.
The thing that sells me is that he owes no allegiance to either party. He isn't bound by a party's ideology and therefor can act in a way that he thinks is best. It is my fervent hope that his ego is big enough that he wants to be the man that saved this country. This is very thin, and it is very easily destroyed by Trump with words and actions coming up during the general election run.

Thanks all for your input.

I also think that is one of his best attributes. I think he'll equally tell both parties to shove it when he feels necessary.
Now, if only he had a line item veto..............

 

[320 Years of History]

Are you serious? Russia doesn't have $400B per year. PERIOD

As for how do you renegotiate? Easy. "no more Chinese ships allowed to dock until we reach a new deal" They'll redeal, they wouldn't last a month. That's a fact.

No... that's NOT a fact... that's your bullheaded opinion.

One thing you're failing to understand is that China is a communist country. The government doesn't give a solitary shit about how much their people suffer. You pull your strong-arm shit on them, they will bring their ships back home, cut a deal with Russia (and others) and even if it doesn't match the deal they had with us, they will get along just fine... just as they did for years before we traded with them.

And in the process, we lose about $100 billion in exports to China.

Red:
It is not. It is a socialist country. No country has ever achieved communism.

Blue:
You claim that based on what?

• FSI | CHP/PCOR - China provides universal health insurance at a fraction of the cost
  
• China’s Demographic Trend Reshapes Its Economic Future

Based on the results of a survey of Chinese citizens, "substantial percentages of [Chinese] view the behavior of local officials as bureaucratic and self centered." That doesn't strike me as being all that different from how Americans perceive their government and its elected officials.

In evaluating China, it's important to understand that culturally the Chinese people are very different from Westerners. Their government operates much as most other countries governments do, by attempting to align government policy intrinsic and long standing cultural values. If one begins any analysis with the premise that the Western approach is "best," not only will one find differences, one will necessarily not evaluate the other culture/government from a relevant context.

• Chinese culture has a degree of objectivity that is hard to come by in the U.S. The Chinese -- people and government -- can see what works and what doesn't and they'll adopt what works to the extent they can, no matter whether an "enemy" or "friend" figured it out before them.
• The methods of governance necessary to evolve a nation of 1B+ people from where it was in 1950 to where it is now are not going to resemble anything we're accustomed to in the U.S., and for good reason. Consider that in 1949, ~80% of the population was illiterate. Imagine a democracy comprised of a billion children empowered to make all the decisions by voting for their equally novitiate peers. Where is the sense in such a thing?

LOL... I am not getting into a pissing contest argument with someone who is only armed with his opinion and a bunch of propaganda from a communist government. Sorry... just not feeling it today.

You clearly haven't read the material I linked into that post.

 

[Never3ndr]

This thread has kind of gone off the rails. Let me address my OP to sum up:

I am sold...barely.
The thing that sells me is that he owes no allegiance to either party. He isn't bound by a party's ideology and therefor can act in a way that he thinks is best. It is my fervent hope that his ego is big enough that he wants to be the man that saved this country. This is very thin, and it is very easily destroyed by Trump with words and actions coming up during the general election run.

Thanks all for your input.

Actually the fact that he has no close ties to either party is one of his greatest dangers. If Trump gets into office we could face a likely scenario of a government shut down due to a total lack of cooperation between government branches. As it is right now, at least there are two sides of the battle...a Democratic president with a minority in Congress versus the majority Republican Congress. If Trump gets into office it will devolve into a free for all with the executive branch battling the entire Congress while Congress splits itself with its partisan divide.

In fact, this is such a realizable danger that Trump's presidency is listed as one of the greatest threats to the economy recently...as dangerous as a large jihadist attack. The government is already barely operating...why people think that inserting a third player into the game is going to make it any better is absurd.

 

[Boss]

This thread has kind of gone off the rails. Let me address my OP to sum up:

I am sold...barely.
The thing that sells me is that he owes no allegiance to either party. He isn't bound by a party's ideology and therefor can act in a way that he thinks is best. It is my fervent hope that his ego is big enough that he wants to be the man that saved this country. This is very thin, and it is very easily destroyed by Trump with words and actions coming up during the general election run.

Thanks all for your input.

Actually the fact that he has no close ties to either party is one of his greatest dangers. If Trump gets into office we could face a likely scenario of a government shut down due to a total lack of cooperation between government branches. As it is right now, at least there are two sides of the battle...a Democratic president with a minority in Congress versus the majority Republican Congress. If Trump gets into office it will devolve into a free for all with the executive branch battling the entire Congress while Congress splits itself with its partisan divide.

In fact, this is such a realizable danger that Trump's presidency is listed as one of the greatest threats to the economy recently...as dangerous as a large jihadist attack. The government is already barely operating...why people think that inserting a third player into the game is going to make it any better is absurd.

You seem to think a Trump presidency will be like a 3rd party president. You may be right but I have a sneaking suspicion there will be a contingent of Republicans who will rally around Trump as "their guy" and carry his water. Politicians are whores... you know that. As soon as he is elected, there will be a line of people who want to be on the bandwagon... in fact, I predict you will start to see that in the coming weeks before he becomes the official nominee.

 

[Correll]

We have restrictive trade policies now. They are just in nations that we are trying to trade with, targeted at US.

If they pass cost on to the consumer, then any American producer, or even any producer from a nation that has a better trade policy with/for US, will become competitive and those jobs and profits will end up somewhere else.

Maybe, maybe not... we don't know. It didn't work back in Hoover's day because there wasn't any money to start new businesses. It just caused prices to skyrocket and certain things to become in short supply. Protectionist trade policy isn't good for a consumerist nation. Hey, I am all for having fair trade deals and Trump makes a really great point about the deals we've made being stupid deals made by stupid people. I can't argue with that... but I am not so sure that what he has in mind is any kind of acceptable solution to the problem, it might make things considerably worse... but hey, you can't tell a Trump supporter that-- they won't listen to reason on anything anymore.

So, you agree our current trade deals are stupid.

That's good.

Hopefully we will see how Trump does in the actual negotiations.

At least he will be TRYING to represent American interests.

And he won't be the only person in the room.

Hell, most of the negotiations will be handled by lower level people with only a goal provided by the President.

Well, the truth is... most of our trade deals aren't going to be renegotiated.

You see, these trade deals involve billions and trillions of dollars in capital investment, therefore, they are generally set up for 20 years or more with very few caveats for renegotiation. Unless both countries mutually agree to renegotiate, we're stuck with the deals we've made.

Now... our previous negotiators... I don't think they weren't trying to represent American interests. It's like sending a moron to buy a new car.... he may have your best interest at heart but he's a moron so he probably won't make the best deal for the car you want. Still, once he has made the deal and you've taken ownership of the car, you can't go back to the dealer next week and say... let's renegotiate this deal! Doesn't work like that.

Well, that's not really true.

If the deal is bad enough, we don't have to put up with it.


Just breaking a deal, though t,hat would be the most drastic action, which will probably not be needed.

I suspect that if we look at our trade with the nations that are really screwing US, valid grounds can be found to force renegotiation.

China is the bulk of our trade deficit.

Intellectual property theft alone could probably be used to justify any renegotiation we felt was needed.

 

[Correll]

Here are my problems with Donald Trump:

1. Yes he knows business and it's a good thing, but I fear he will throw the baby out with the bath water.
2. I believe very strongly that Trump will betray all of you supporters in the end.
3. He is a liberal in his heart, and will advance many destructive liberal policies.

One additional thing, my inclination is the vote against Hillary in the general, but I am at this point, not 100% sure that I will.

You know that Hillary will be a leftist with leftist policies and appointments. 100%.

There is a non-zero percent chance the Trump will not.

Yes. I fear however that that is one of the worst of the "lesser of two evils" that I have ever witnessed.

That is the worst case scenario.

And as I pointed out, in the WORST CASE scenario, it still makes more sense to vote for Trump.

Now,

Imagine just a few ways, it could be better.


1. He could successfully lower the number of illegals and visa workers, thus reducing supply for labor and thus increasing wages.

2. He could successfully negotiate better trade deals to bring back significant numbers of manufacturing jobs.

3. He could reduce tensions with Russia, to the increased safety of US all.


There is no chance that Hillary will do ANY of these. She is against those policies.

1. Increased wages will lead to increased prices.
2. Trade deals aren't what causes jobs to go over seas.
3. Russia is not a threat to us.

But, your point about voting against Hillary is of course a good one, if he ends up actually being different from her. We must hope.

1. Somewhat. Minor prices hikes spread over the nation as a whole, to the benefit of the Working Class, and Middle Class AND the Balance of Trade, imo, would be a net positive.

2. Bad trade deals certainly are part of the problem.

3. Well, depends what you mean. If Turkey makes a habit of shooting down Russia planes and it leads to war between Turkey and Russia, with NATO drawn in, it would be pretty bad for US interests, what with lots of Americans killed, and vast expenditure of treasure, for no real benefit to the US.

For one example.

 

[Fishlore]

We have restrictive trade policies now. They are just in nations that we are trying to trade with, targeted at US.

If they pass cost on to the consumer, then any American producer, or even any producer from a nation that has a better trade policy with/for US, will become competitive and those jobs and profits will end up somewhere else.

Maybe, maybe not... we don't know. It didn't work back in Hoover's day because there wasn't any money to start new businesses. It just caused prices to skyrocket and certain things to become in short supply. Protectionist trade policy isn't good for a consumerist nation. Hey, I am all for having fair trade deals and Trump makes a really great point about the deals we've made being stupid deals made by stupid people. I can't argue with that... but I am not so sure that what he has in mind is any kind of acceptable solution to the problem, it might make things considerably worse... but hey, you can't tell a Trump supporter that-- they won't listen to reason on anything anymore.

So, you agree our current trade deals are stupid.

That's good.

Hopefully we will see how Trump does in the actual negotiations.

At least he will be TRYING to represent American interests.

And he won't be the only person in the room.

Hell, most of the negotiations will be handled by lower level people with only a goal provided by the President.

Well, the truth is... most of our trade deals aren't going to be renegotiated.

You see, these trade deals involve billions and trillions of dollars in capital investment, therefore, they are generally set up for 20 years or more with very few caveats for renegotiation. Unless both countries mutually agree to renegotiate, we're stuck with the deals we've made.

Now... our previous negotiators... I don't think they weren't trying to represent American interests. It's like sending a moron to buy a new car.... he may have your best interest at heart but he's a moron so he probably won't make the best deal for the car you want. Still, once he has made the deal and you've taken ownership of the car, you can't go back to the dealer next week and say... let's renegotiate this deal! Doesn't work like that.

Your description of the trade deals and why they aren't likely to be renegotiated makes a lot of sense from within the American political establishment. I'm not disagreeing with you; however, Mr. Trump is explicitly espousing a more radical proposal. If signatory nations will not agree to our new terms, he proposes that we withdraw unilaterally. This would mean a trade war, but would not mean a real war. Trump believes, or at least he says, that a dramatic rupture followed by a large reduction in imports and exports, a kind of economic isolationism, would revive American manufacturing and stimulate the domestic economy dramatically.

Is Trump right about this? If he is the Republican candidate, we will surely hear a great deal more about this plan. The idea is a core article of faith for those who have voted for Trump so far. Can he persuade a majority of voters to his idea? His election could well hang on that question.

 

[Never3ndr]

This thread has kind of gone off the rails. Let me address my OP to sum up:

I am sold...barely.
The thing that sells me is that he owes no allegiance to either party. He isn't bound by a party's ideology and therefor can act in a way that he thinks is best. It is my fervent hope that his ego is big enough that he wants to be the man that saved this country. This is very thin, and it is very easily destroyed by Trump with words and actions coming up during the general election run.

Thanks all for your input.

Actually the fact that he has no close ties to either party is one of his greatest dangers. If Trump gets into office we could face a likely scenario of a government shut down due to a total lack of cooperation between government branches. As it is right now, at least there are two sides of the battle...a Democratic president with a minority in Congress versus the majority Republican Congress. If Trump gets into office it will devolve into a free for all with the executive branch battling the entire Congress while Congress splits itself with its partisan divide.

In fact, this is such a realizable danger that Trump's presidency is listed as one of the greatest threats to the economy recently...as dangerous as a large jihadist attack. The government is already barely operating...why people think that inserting a third player into the game is going to make it any better is absurd.

You seem to think a Trump presidency will be like a 3rd party president. You may be right but I have a sneaking suspicion there will be a contingent of Republicans who will rally around Trump as "their guy" and carry his water. Politicians are whores... you know that. As soon as he is elected, there will be a line of people who want to be on the bandwagon... in fact, I predict you will start to see that in the coming weeks before he becomes the official nominee.

I think that there will be a lot of Republicans who back Trump in the general election. I actually think that they should present a unified front to fight against the unified Democrat front backing Hillary. However, the issue is that I don't think that Trump will "play ball" with them if he gets elected. Generally you need do favors to get favors done in return, there is such a common and accepted practice that it has its own term, "logrolling." The issue I have with Trump is that I don't think he will participate in this (at least given his general demeanor and campaign rhetoric). Now, if Trump gets into office and acts like a normal person and falls in line, then I actually don't have a big issue with him, politically at least, being in office. However, if he tries to buck the system and just push policy that he feels needs to get done (as Obama did early during his time in office), then we are likely to see an even bigger shit show in Washington than we have been seeing. People aren't going to keep backing him if they won't get anything out of it.

So what you really get is a lose-lose situation here. Either you get the situation where Trump keeps being Trump and we have the potential for a real government shut down...or you get the situation where he plays ball and gets voted into office based off of this independent stance that he has no intention of holding.

 

[Correll]

This thread has kind of gone off the rails. Let me address my OP to sum up:

I am sold...barely.
The thing that sells me is that he owes no allegiance to either party. He isn't bound by a party's ideology and therefor can act in a way that he thinks is best. It is my fervent hope that his ego is big enough that he wants to be the man that saved this country. This is very thin, and it is very easily destroyed by Trump with words and actions coming up during the general election run.

Thanks all for your input.

Actually the fact that he has no close ties to either party is one of his greatest dangers. If Trump gets into office we could face a likely scenario of a government shut down due to a total lack of cooperation between government branches. As it is right now, at least there are two sides of the battle...a Democratic president with a minority in Congress versus the majority Republican Congress. If Trump gets into office it will devolve into a free for all with the executive branch battling the entire Congress while Congress splits itself with its partisan divide.

In fact, this is such a realizable danger that Trump's presidency is listed as one of the greatest threats to the economy recently...as dangerous as a large jihadist attack. The government is already barely operating...why people think that inserting a third player into the game is going to make it any better is absurd.

IF the republican leadership is that much of dicks, then don't worry, you'll have your ONe Party State as soon as Trump's term(s) are up.

 

[Correll]

This thread has kind of gone off the rails. Let me address my OP to sum up:

I am sold...barely.
The thing that sells me is that he owes no allegiance to either party. He isn't bound by a party's ideology and therefor can act in a way that he thinks is best. It is my fervent hope that his ego is big enough that he wants to be the man that saved this country. This is very thin, and it is very easily destroyed by Trump with words and actions coming up during the general election run.

Thanks all for your input.

Actually the fact that he has no close ties to either party is one of his greatest dangers. If Trump gets into office we could face a likely scenario of a government shut down due to a total lack of cooperation between government branches. As it is right now, at least there are two sides of the battle...a Democratic president with a minority in Congress versus the majority Republican Congress. If Trump gets into office it will devolve into a free for all with the executive branch battling the entire Congress while Congress splits itself with its partisan divide.

In fact, this is such a realizable danger that Trump's presidency is listed as one of the greatest threats to the economy recently...as dangerous as a large jihadist attack. The government is already barely operating...why people think that inserting a third player into the game is going to make it any better is absurd.

You seem to think a Trump presidency will be like a 3rd party president. You may be right but I have a sneaking suspicion there will be a contingent of Republicans who will rally around Trump as "their guy" and carry his water. Politicians are whores... you know that. As soon as he is elected, there will be a line of people who want to be on the bandwagon... in fact, I predict you will start to see that in the coming weeks before he becomes the official nominee.

There would be nothing "whore like" about Republicans who have been talking about deporting illegals for years, to support Trump in actually DOING it.

For one example.