Imagine you need to hire someone to guard a big red button. The best that can happen is nothing; but the worst that can happen is that they themselves decide to push the button.
The Executive branch effectively only has the purpose of destroying, stopping, blocking, canceling, and annulling things. The president vetos bills; stops foreign invasions with military power; commutes federal prison sentences created by the judicial branch; stops legislation from applying by signing trade agreements or granting amnesties; etc. And every department within the Executive, like the FDA or the SEC, exists solely for the purpose of blocking people from doing things.
So the President is effectively just sitting there in front of a control panel consisting entirely of big red buttons. Sometimes, rarely, situationally, it helps to press one of them. Pressing one at random, though, would almost certainly do damage and serve no purpose.
Obama's status quo was done by just avoiding pressing the big red buttons. That's bad in one way. But it's an entirely different kind of bad to start pressing lots and lots of the big red buttons. That's what George W. was actually hated for—what he did, not what he didn't do.
Trump couldn't accomplish much good, certainly. But he would have full access to a panel of big red buttons. Do you trust Trump there?
The conclusion here doesn't quite follow from the premises :). Obama didn't do what he said does not imply vote for Trump any more than it implies vote for tajen.
Now I'm going to delve into specific politics more than I normally like to do, but I think there are important ideas to consider. Even if a president doesn't do what he/she promised to do, the attitude of a president does have an effect on the country. Judging from the attitude of Trump and the raucousness of some of his rallies, I don't think Trump's attitude and that of his more violent supporters should be spread across the country. That alone is enough reason to vote for someone other than Trump.
It's pretty sad, though, to have several elections in a row where more and more people are voting against a candidate rather than for a candidate. I can only think of one current candidate who I would vote for positively, rather than to just to avoid another candidate who is more negative.
The good news about Trump is that he's not bought or sold. He is what he is, which from my viewpoint is better than the unknown that we currently have.
You don't become a billionaire without having deeply entrenched political and business connections. Donald Trump may be "self funded" but I don't believe for an instant that his persona is any less calculated than that of any other politician, or that his agenda is entirely his own.
Because he is a politician, and by definition a very successful one. Just because he wears a red baseball cap and is willing to use vulgar language and encourage violence at his rallies in the name of denouncing political correctness doesn't mean he's an anti-establishment maverick and hero of the common man, or that anything he says is sincere. He's simply found a gimmick that works.
To his credit, it seems to work extremely well. But that doesn't make him qualified for the office.
Ok, it might, to a degree because it's a political office, but... he seems like a charlatan. I don't understand why people trust him, he seems like the most obviously political figure in the entire field.
There is a large segment of the population (in every country) that responds very well to power figures. The same reason why people in Russia like Putin, and so many other dictators have been quite popular at times. Trump is trying to reach those people by acting like the power person in the race. On the other hand, a big part of the population is also adverse to power figures, myself included. I would never vote for an authoritarian figure and there are many others like me.
I've read this so many times I am starting to think this makes sense to the people saying it: "Trump may be [insert whatever], and [policy X] is ridiculous, and [statement Y] went over the line. But [X] won't ever happen, so I don't have to worry about it."
Don't get me wrong, using policy and public statements to judge fitness for public office isn't perfect, but it seems in this case we are substituting policy and public statement with something that has little or no relationship with executing a complex and demanding job.
You act like his entire life hasn't been "executing a complex and demanding job"? Running a small business is hard enough, I can't even imagine running an empire.
Trump has been one step ahead of every last person this entire election cycle. It's been fascinating to watch and I'm done doubting him, underestimating him, or second-guessing why he does or says anything. Now I'm simply at the point where I'm just trying to learn from it, because there are lessons for any business owner or public figure inside.
In fact, if he were to win, I'm not even convinced [X] "won't happen".
It doesn't have to be hard to run an empire badly.
A shell script that just repeats "Sell all assets and invest in SPY" would outperform Trump at running his empire, and it would have the side bonus of not being a crazy asshole.
If what you're trying to learn is how to manipulate people, then I agree, he is a master. There is a name for this type of people, they're called con men. Trump is a sales person. He has trained himself to sell anything, and he is just selling a quick solution for people that feel disenfranchise by the current political system.
He is selling exactly what a serious amount of people in this country want. If you don't know that then you don't understand America. Go work in a factory for a year.
How come? Polls & numbers (whatever value they have this early on in the "general" cycle) state otherwise. In fact, it looks like Bernie has a much better chance at the moment than Hilary... Don't you think Trump would dominate 24/7 news cycle on digging up Hilary's old wounds? What does he have on Bernie? "He's a communist you're voting for a communist!"?
Interestingly enough, the polls say otherwise. [0] [1]
As the Politifact piece notes, (1) it's early in the campaign; (2) Bernie is much less well known than Hillary, and his perceived negatives might become more important in the general election; and (3) polls can always be wrong. Nonetheless, it doesn't seem to be correct to say he has far worse odds against Trump than she does.