I mean you can't spend 2 hours telling me that Donald Trump has no policy or plans whatsoever, defrauds people all the time, bankrupts businesses regularly, and would be a complete and total failure of a president, and then at the end of all that tell me you'd support him over Hillary Clinton.
You really can, and it's really not a hard concept to grasp:
1. Donald Trump would be a very bad president.
2. Hillary would be a worse president than Donald Trump.
3. I would support Donald Trump over Hillary.
Like I said, you may disagree with point 2 (I do), but pretending to be shocked by the logic is bizarre.
I think you would have to have a serious lack of judgment to actually believe 2. I get why the candidates all fell into line, since they have a rabid base to appease, but I don't really think they believe Donald Trump would be a better president than Hillary Clinton.
I think anyone would have to have a serious lack of judgment to actually believe that Trump would be a better "head of state" than Hillary. But I think if you're truly committed to the conservative principles and policies you've been espousing for the last year or two, a Trump presidency is far more likely to enact more of them than a Hillary presidency.
From a policy standpoint, Trump and the rest of the GOP field don't appear to be all that different. The method of accomplishing those goals vary widely, but not as much as they do compared to Hillary.
What sort of conservative principles are you referring to?
Dlew is exactly correct. And these principles would include (a) repealing and replacing Obamacare, (b) enacting stricter immigration enforcement, and (c) reducing the size of the federal bureaucracy, to name just a few. All are at least
possible with Trump. So Point 2 above is not only logical, it is reasonable from a conservative point of view.
On foreign policy, it is possible that Trump could be worse than Hillary (she's got a pretty terrible track record, FYI), but I think his advisors and generals would keep him in check.