Let's take a look at Trump's closing argument, 28 things he'll do as President. It's a long list, so I'll put it after a jump break.
1) Proposing an amendment is fine, but the President has nothing whatsoever to do with the amendment process. Seriously, check Article V. It's a dead letter.
2) This one is solid, and as head of the executive, he could theoretically effect it.
3) I love this idea better than almost anything I've read lately.
4) Not sure that the President could effect this, although I suppose contracts could be rewritten. Still, it's dodgy.
6) This would have to go through Congress, and it's hard to imagine the Republicans or the Democrats backing it.
7) Good idea; NAFTA hasn't worked as advertised for us or Mexico.
8) Very solid idea.
9) This can certainly be done, and it's true as a point of fact.
10) Just the first part of this would be an interesting exercise. I'd like to see what they came up with.
11) Insofar as these are executive branch regulations and orders, it can be done. This one might get through Congress, though, depending on its compositions.
12) Doable. There are some genuine concerns about some of these things, though.
13) Probably a good idea. UN projects are always a waste, and we do need the work.
14) This is fine in theory, but without a list of what these "unconstitutional" orders are -- and better yet, an argument for just why they are not constitutional -- it's throat-clearing.
15) Most of those judges would make decent choices.
16) Nice concept. Sanctuary cities are one of those areas where left-leaning local/state gov'ts can nullify Federal law, but right-leaning ones get the knife if they try it.
17) This was always Trump's core argument. It's not surprising to see it again. I think there is a lot more to be said about immigration than has been said by anyone, but I haven't space here to begin to say it.
18) It is actually impossible to "vet" people fleeing from Syria or parts of Iraq right now. Many refugees from other regions simply cannot be vetted: where are the storehouses of records we can call and check? Where is the stable bureaucracy that can help us understand if their claims match up with their documented history?
You either have to decide that accepting refugees is a Christian duty (or something of similar moral weight), and do it in spite of the danger; or you have to admit that bringing in people who cannot be vetted even in principle is not in the national interest.
19) You can work with Congress all you want, but they're gridlocked and incapable of performing their basic functions. And this is the best we can hope from them, as when the are capable of performing they do things like Obamacare.
So, some good ideas here. Some places where the execution looks problematic at best -- maybe more than half of this is practically impossible even where it's desirable.
But it's better than what you'll get from Clinton. I don't know if she'll be more effective, but wherever she is, you can be sure she'll be doing the wrong thing from the perspective of a free America devoted to self-government. Neither conservatives nor true liberals have any reason to support her: just read her Goldman Sachs speeches, now that they're in the clear.
I don't know. It's hard to think of voting for a man like Trump, but his ideas are better. They're better even when they're foolish.