The facts point otherwise. Unlike the WSJ, NR has argued against illegal immigration and VDH has been the most ardent critic of amnesty. Same goes against gay marriage with some calling for resistance. Has Trump done so? Has Trumped called for the immediate defining of Planned Parenthood? No. Lowry et al did not provide boatloads of cash to the Clintons, Schumer’s etc. Trump was part of the system of crony capitalism.
"The facts point otherwise. Unlike the WSJ, NR has argued against illegal immigration and VDH has been the most ardent critic of amnesty. Same goes against gay marriage with some calling for resistance. Has Trump done so? Has Trumped called for the immediate defining of Planned Parenthood? No. Lowry et al did not provide boatloads of cash to the Clintons, Schumer’s etc. Trump was part of the system of crony capitalism."
Illegal Immigration and Amnesty don't appear out of thin air. They are the end product of earlier mistakes. These issues needed to resisted and fought along the entire timeline, in Congress and The White House, since 1988 and obviously earlier.
They did not get fought at the early steps precisely because of the party purifiers that weeded out each and every "loose cannon" and "crazy" that was vaguely courageous enough to address such issues.
Whenever you run someone like Keyes or Bachmann or Palin or [others] up the flag pole, you can quickly expect the first shots to be fired from our alleged friends at our Think Tanks. Thanks to this not so "friendly fire" phenomenon of screening out the "nutjobs" the (R)etard party was in place constantly ( at least until the first wave of pushback with the 104th Gingrich Congress ).
Immigration and Illegal Alien Invasion was toxic until Trump came along. But make no mistake, it is NOT Trump driving it at all, the people are and Trump is their vehicle. Ask yourself why the (R)etards never even tried? They weeded out almost every single one who had a spine.
I am positive there are lots of checklist conservative issues that Trump is weak to soft on. But how many are within the Constitutional boundaries of Presidential power? Very few. Drop abortion right away, and gay marriage, since with the Supreme court decisions as firewalls you are wasting time mentioning them in the context of the President. Get busy in Congress and don't confuse people by obfuscating hard Constitutional limitations.
It's too early to endorse anyone so I'm not, but on the biggest three: taxes/jobs and defense/offense and the Supreme Court appointments, I see no problem whatsoever. Immigration is questionable, but it is less questionable than with the others, especially the (R)inocrats.
He does offer some extra bonus in that I easily could see a major shift in the Justice Department focus onto real corruption, and a huge turnover in the establishment civil servants running the District Of Criminals. I look forward to lots of political secrets being uncovered, those that currently enjoy the wink/nod (D)/(R) protection that each President does with his predecessor.
But let me turn it around and put all the concern trolls on the spot. Name the specific issues that fall under Presidential purview that separate these guys? When handwringers and trolls throw out all these philosophical litmus test items, it is either from massive ignorance or for intentional confusion. In short, they don't matter. And I care about as much about meaningless items ( for the President, NOT the Congress ) as I do what his favorite team is or how he wears his hair. What things as President would they actually do differently.
P.S. I need a source of those campaign donation numbers. I heard him detail the numbers on Hannity radio I think, and they were evenly split (D) and (R) over time. Besides, I'm not sure what the point is. Is it better if he never gave? Is it desirable that it was only to (R) candidates? What is the specific point? The numbers are literally chicken feed for him, especially compared to others like Gates and Buffet and Soros and many more.