He is unelectable. 

"Barack Obama reportedly won the 2012 election due to his campaign’s mastery of Big Data. Hillary Clinton and the DNC have access to that data. It cost a fortune to build and they will use it effectively.

The Democrats will make a series of short videos and post them to Facebook, Google, Twitter, You Tube and Instagram. The videos will be microtargeted to the right demographic. Big Data makes it easy to target voters. My view is that the mother lode is on immigration and that the MSM will attack Trump’s (or his subcontractors) use of illegal alien labor in the hotel, golf course, restaurant and construction industries. Social media will amplify this MSM attack. The MSM ignore social media and the use of Big Data because Facebook and Google are eating their lunch on ad dollars. That’s why you don’t read much about how the campaigns use it to win elections.

Trump’s coarse and at times outlandish language and behavior can only drive his unfavorable numbers even higher. Jean Kaufman, for example, has written about Trump and eminent domain here. Kelo is practically a litmus test for conservatives and Trump is on the other side.

Think about what the Dems did to that fine man who is Mitt Romney. When the Dems got finished with Mitt, many thought he was a heartless murderer. A false accusation, to be sure, but it worked. In my opinion, the anti-Trump social media videos will result in a landslide loss for the GOP.

The GOP must win this election. Trump is not electable. Vote for a candidate in the primaries who can win in November. You have a number of good candidates to select."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/01/live-from-council-bluffs-its-donald-trump-2.php

Ah yes, more of the DNC "talking points".


Wonder why the DNC is so afraid of Trump, but yet wants the GOP to nominate an "electable" candidate?

Over the last 227 years, that has overwhelmingly been the case with both success and failure, with obviously most being successful. Over those 227 years, there have only been 11 presidents that were not either lawyers, or career military. Of those only two were businessmen, but they both held elected office prior. They are Bush Sr. and Jr. How well they did at the job is seriously debatable.

In those 227 years, only 4 presidents have come to power without serving as an elected official previously. Taylor, Grant and Eisenhower all were career military prior. Hoover was only Secretary of Commerce prior under Harding and Coolidge, so not elected. He also was the only engineer to be president and sadly, was considered to be a pretty lousy president. The only other president that came to power with little previous experience was Chester Arthur. He was elected to Vice President of the US under Garfield and served in that position for only a year before Garfield was assassinated and he became president. He was of course though, a lawyer.

So maybe we have been insane and getting it all wrong for the last 227 years. IDK. However I see nothing at all presidential about Trump. I see no qualities in him that make me think he would be any good at the job and he has no experience at all as an elected official. Voting for him just because "He's not one of them." seems poor logic too me. Also, I felt (both times) that Obama was an incredibly poor choice and that a large number of people voted for him for the wrong reasons too. I hope we can vote this time in a more analytical way rather than emotion.

"Well, we've always done it that way, so no need to change now"...........

Seriously?

Put another Washington politician, another party "elite" or a career politician in and the voter gets the government he deserves. 

Career politicians and party loyalist have got us in this mess.  It's time to think "outside the box".

He's just another career politician, ready to fall in line with whatever the GOP "elites" dictate for him to do.

I'll take a converted one.  However, I'd like to see at least some commitment to the cause over an extended period of time.  As Churchill said "If you're a conservative at 20, you have no heart.  If you're a liberal at 40 you have no brain."  Plenty of good conservatives converted at some point in their life.


That said, someone who "converts" upon announcing his candidacy is more likely an opportunistic charlatan than a true convert.

Just curious, you advertise yourself as a "libertarian", so are you?   Shouldn't you be supporting one of these guys since they adhere to your party's principals?  https://www.lp.org/candidates/presidential-candidates-2016

Not at all. 

It is just one of my pet peeves when people keep using the word "loose" when they should be using "lose'.  And rather than criticize those that use it incorrectly,  I chose congratulate someone that used the word correctly.

Or are you "looseing" your mind?

As if anyone should give a shit about your "pet peeves".

Why aren't you supporting Carson or Fiorina?  They could use your
help.


.

Carson is a nice guy, but he's outside his realm running for president.

Fiorina is a whiny bitch.

So stick with the career politicians (lawyers). 

BTW, how's that been working out for you so far?