Matt Evans: Are You Ready To Vote For The Donald?


Donald Trump’s website now has THREE issues!

Since we last discussed Donald Trump’s website, he’s added two more positions. His previous position paper on immigration policy (which was really written by Senator Jeff Sessions) didn’t receive near as much as his shooting from the hip comments on immigration. But the policy paper was good. It had some audacious features, but it was good. It was bold, and it didn’t tip toe around the issues.

What Trump has added since then are a tax plan and a statement about gun rights.

Trump’s website is bang-on regarding gun rights. Bravo to him. I wonder who wrote this position for him, because it’s great stuff.

Of course, you never know what version of Trump you’re listening to. Trump’s current website reads very differently than a statement of his a while back, where he claimed to support an assault weapons ban, and explained that he was a good friend of notorious gun grabber Bloomberg.

So, if we get the Trump of the 2016 Presidential Race, then I’m pleased with what his website says about the Second Amendment.

Trump’s tax plan takes some debugging. It claims to be much simpler, and it claims to reduce a whole bunch of exemptions and deductions.

The Tax Foundation has done an analysis of it.

The short version is: most people pay lower taxes. Very wealthy people that are currently using a variety of tax avoidance schemes will allegedly pay more. Small businesses pay less. Large businesses may pay less. Ultra large businesses that have been successfully avoiding taxes may pay more. Foreign capital can be repatriated under advantageous circumstances, meaning certain off-shoring schemes may be less interesting for large businesses.

Oh, and it adds 10 trillion dollars to the defecit over 10 years.

What else does the plan buy for 10 trillion in defecits?

Allegedly, the Trump plan will buy an 11% GDP increase and create 5 million new jobs.

I’m not sure I love this plan. I think it’s possible to do better.

Rand Paul outlined a much more detailed tax plan earlier in the year. Paul’s plan basically makes all tax rates for everything 14.5%, and then eliminates as many special circumstances as possible.

The Tax Foundation says that the Paul plan will grow GDP 12.9%, add 4 million new jobs, and, will increase federal revenue by 700 billion after 10 years.

Paul is also, as it turns out, better (and more trustworthy) on Second Amendment issues than Trump. He’s never flirted with an assault weapons ban, for instance.

[mks_pullquote align=”right” width=”300″ size=”24″ bg_color=”#ffffff” txt_color=”#000000″]In a previous column, I wrote that Trump is the only candidate that is looking at immigration seriously. I should revise that to say: Trump is the only person getting attention for talking about immigration bombastically.[/mks_pullquote]

In a previous column, I wrote that Trump is the only candidate that is looking at immigration seriously. I should revise that to say: Trump is the only person getting attention for talking about immigration bombastically.

Paul’s immigration plan also makes stopping the flow of illegal immigrants top priority. He introduced legislation all the way back in 2011 that dealt with trying to restrict birthright citizenship for anchor babies. But he’s also said some things that are pretty realistic: for instance, the cost of rounding up millions of people and deporting them is probably prohibative, and so he doesn’t plan on doing much of it.

So, between the two, Trump’s policy hits the right notes with people who are tired of politicians capitulating or avoiding the problem, but, I think everyone agrees that aspects of what Trump wants to do are unworkable. Paul gives a bit less detail on his campaign site, but he’s been talking about the issue and pushing legislation for a few years now. I think he delviers the important points of what the Trump/Sessions plan has, while being more realistic overall.

Marco Rubio, by the way, doesn’t even list “immigration” as an issue on his campaign website. He’s in a tough spot.

I still refuse to take Trump seriously; I think other people in (and out of) the race would do a better job.

However, the interesting question for Republican voters is this: suppose that Trump somehow wins the GOP nomination?

Well, if he does, it looks like he’s going to be up against Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. And so no matter what you think of Trump’s _real_ stance on the second amendment, it’s going to be at least as good as his opponents’, right? Same for taxes. Same for just about any issue. Even the most absurd thing Trump has said lately, which was his support for universal healthcare – is no worse than what we’d get from Bernie or Hillary.

So what about Trump’s “character”? Do you dislike him because he’s dishonest? Well, stack him up against Hillary, and how does he look? His demeanor? His relatability to “normal” Americans? His authenticity? His ability to deal with foreign powers?

I find Hillary much worse than Trump on all of these as well.

Bernie, I’m not sure about. I think Bernie thinks of himself as a nice guy, trying to do a good job. But man, he definitely has that communist knack for knowing what’s best for everyone else. Someone who continues to flagrantly tout their own socialism just isn’t trustworthy. I’ll add in a quote from Robert Heinlein here:

“I don’t trust a man who talks about ethics when he is picking my pocket. But if he is acting in his own self-interest and says so, I have usually been able to work out some way to do business with him.”

So the astonishing bottom line is this: in a contest between Trump and either democrat, I’d have no problem voting for the untrustworthy celebrity buffoon, Donald Trump. And more Americans are apparently feeling that way; a poll question asking if people could see themselves voting for Trump has had double digit growth since last month.

I’m hoping that we can we find someone better than Trump to go and beat the democrats with. That would be nice. But if Trump is who ends up beating them, that’s still (probably) better than losing.