I think that we have a lot of overlap in how we view Trump. I agree with you that in most cases “people act as they feel much more than they act as they think, or as they’d like us to think they would act. Also, I much prefer (as I believe you do) a president with no dichotomy between thinking and feeling, who can express his or her thoughts in cogent and clear words.”

I thing that where we differ is our take on this particular case and scenario: that of Trump as president.

More precisely, I infer that you believe the risk of Trump often acting highly contrary to his published policy position is extremely high, whereas I believe that the risk is rather less (although higher than, e.g., for Cruz, and more akin to, say, McCain). There is a lot of subjectivity in these risk assessments, and even post facto it can be difficult to determine if a risk was justified.

I do think that it is reasonably clear that, in cases where Trump’s written policy differs significantly from and is much better than that of the Progressives: in those cases the likelihood of a better outcome is higher with Trump than with Clinton/Biden/Sanders/etc. Since there are a fairly large number of these, I find it an easy choice to take a risk on Trump (should he be nominated) than to face a sure negative consequence with Clinton/Biden/etc.

Whoever (Trump, Cruz, other) gets the nomination, I think that we can be sure that (1) (s)he will be savaged by the Democratic media; (2) the Democratic media will encourage supporters of non-nominees to feel angry, feel hurt, and to stay home or try to form a third pary; (3) there will be (are) a lot of strong, hurt feelings within the various conservative and Republican groupings that will have to be considered; and (4) the Democratic candidate will be portrayed highly favorably by the Democratic media (including Yahoo and Google). Just facts of life. I do cringe when many of us–and the candidates (very much including Trump)–demean the motives of those who disagree. I appreciate that many, such as you, are wont to stick to issues and make logical cases.

Within the next few months, someone will be nominated, and at best almost 50%–likely more–of us will be disappointed. How people handle that disappointment will, I think, have a great impact on the outcome in November.

Aristocrats were often that way as well, good patrons. But they were the patrons and the patronized were still the patronized.

Tales of such private generousness are legends within the Trump employee ranks.

It has been asserted that Trump’s way of instilling pride and performance — is by way of folded $100 bills that he slips into handshakes for swell performance.

He’s known for putting up recovering employees (from an operation) at his Florida super estate… for weeks at a time.

Clinton is well known for corrupting the media — by planting her paid agents in the public eye — pretending to be dis-interested parties — proclaiming thus and so on matters important to Clinton.

The recent AP piece on how the DoJ is never going to indict her smacks of such somnolent propaganda.

( Nothing to see here, move on, move on, move on… )

I am having a hard time getting my head around the idea of a “down and out” man wandering onto a beach where he would find DJT grilling. Sooner believe that Jack climbed up a bean stalk and…
***
Yeah, does sound that way.
I just reported what I read.
However, if you want to get a handle on the initial story, he goes by the handle oscarwilde on the (pre FB) Hot Air.

I think a lot of people are guessing about Trump (including you and me). You seem to think that Trump would govern more according to how he supposedly thinks, as expressed by the words he chooses to place on his website, words written by others for the most part. You say (and I agree) that his spoken extemporaneous words express how he feels. I would also say they express what he REALLY thinks, as opposed to what he’d like us to think he thinks (the written words on his websites). The spoken extemporaneous word is a guide not just to feeling but to thought.

In general, I find that people act as they feel much more than they act as they think, or as they’d like us to think they would act. Also, I much prefer (as I believe you do) a president with no dichotomy between thinking and feeling, who can express his or her thoughts in cogent and clear words.

I had commented that I pay more attention to a written policy paper than to an off-the-cuff reaction in part because the former is, by definition, better thought out and, therefore, more likely to be implemented over the long run.

You responded:
My answer is very similar to what I wrote in the post: better thought out by whom? Trump often doesn’t even seem to have read his policy statements that are written by others. And I repeat that the ex-post-facto statements are a much better guide to a person’s mind that statements (or speeches) written by others.

I think that some of the other comments here shed some light on this particular disagreement we have. I think that Trumps speeches — which are unscripted and off-the-cuff (no speechwriter) — present a fair reflection of what he feels. On the other hand, I believe that the written policies better indicate what he thinks upon reflection and, yes, upon receipt of valued advice.

My impression is that Trump is aware of the significant differences between those two modes, knows that “think” trumps “feel” when one wants results, and would preside in a manner seeking good results.

Since I tend more toward the “say what you think, not what you feel” persuasion, that is one reason I resonate more with Cruz: that’s how he usually talks in public. Trump is more on the “feel” side of things in most of his appearances, although at times he does move more into “think” mode. And, personally, I believe that, when it comes to actions, the “think” should dominate the “feel”–although the latter can help much with motivation.

I have commented elsewhere that Trump has many positions similar to a JFK-Democrat: lower taxes, border controls, etc. (I think his policy papers are better than JFK’s would be, but I’ve not done an exhaustive study either.) Overall, I’m not campaigning for Trump, and prefer Cruz by a good bit. But I don’t find Trump to be so bad as to warrant the strong feelings so often evident in attacks on him by other conservatives and libertarians. I believe that, while Cruz would make a better president, Trump would still be much better than Clinton, Biden, Sanders, Warren, or anyone else I can think of from the Democrat stable.

I am having a hard time getting my head around the idea of a “down and out” man wandering onto a beach where he would find DJT grilling. Sooner believe that Jack climbed up a bean stalk and…

I conclude Mr. Dino is a saboteur, adept but ill-intentioned, and not alt-right; but an agent of the left. Note his/her recent arrival, just when the field narrowed. I see K-E and a few other Trump apologists as sincere. I may disagree with them, but we all come across well intentioned people we may disagree with. I detect no sincerity in Mr. Dino.

His/her reasoning, such as it is, is based upon nothing more coherent than DJT’s recent interview with WaPo. Populists seek the lowest common denominator. The mob is not prescient, its just a mob blinded by emotion, however understanable the emotion of the mob maybe; it must be resisted. Mr. Dino is not blinded by emotion, he/she has a clear agenda of destruction as does DJT.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/16/trump-appears-to-have-heavily-plagiarized-op-ed-from-carson/