Explaining Trump to non believers

As my partner noted I am a Trump supporter and I suspect her post is her gentle way of prodding me into defending my choice. Trump is actually my third choice. I began favoring Rick Perry who I like and I figured could redeem himself from his fatal lapse of memory in the debate 4 years ago when he could not remember the third cabinet level department he would eliminate. I was wrong about that as Perry wilted in a Trump counter attack. With some disappointment and misgivings I turned my attention to Scott Walker who for some reason offered no personal attraction but certainly had a conservative record. By late September he had run himself out of money despite a large beginning balance leaving me without a candidate.
By this time it was evident to me that Trump was a different breed of cat. He said the most outrageous things and his polling strength only increased. This guy was magic! Bulletproof! Every attack backfired leaving the attacker clinging to his political life.

They put arsenic in his meat
And stared aghast to watch him eat;
They poured strychnine in his cup
And shook to see him drink it up:
They shook, they stared as white’s their shirt:
Them it was their poison hurt.

It wasn't what Trump said but rather what his supporters said that attracted me. They are aggrieved and for good cause. They have paid the price for inept and corrupt trade and immigration policies. I have watched my community's largest employer, Whirlpool Corp, cashier out thousands of loyal employees and flee to Mexico. I am watching a huge aluminum smelter in a neighboring county simply close. I have seen whole neighborhoods ruined by vacant homes, homes that have not been occupied since the financial melt down 8 years ago when it uncreditworthy sub prime owners just walked away. The Washington establishment should consider itself lucky if all the voters do is vote them out. And what did the GOP field of candidates have to offer? More of the same.
When the congressional debate on TPP hit peak angst in early summer slimming down the field of possible candidates was made easier when I stumbled across a Wall Street Journal editorial written by future Speaker Paul Ryan and Senator Ted Cruz entitled Putting Congress in Charge on Trade wherein the made they made the dubious argument that giving Obama fast track authority on the treaty gave congress leverage. They even used the tried and true platitude "a level playing field". Good-bye Ted Cruz. Nothing would please me more than to see you and your good friend Paul Ryan picking oranges in Florida. By July the constitutional scholar from Canada had joined Glenn Beck at the border to pass out teddy bears and soccer balls to newly arrived illegal aliens. Maybe he could just throw sand in the voters' faces or tread on the flag and save himself time.
So by default here I am a Trump supporter but just because the choice was not clear in the beginning does not lessen my loyalty to the man. The question is, or rather was, frequently asked why Trump supporters are oblivious to his many shortcomings. Have you ever heard of blind rage? It's not totally blind but when he is compared to the remaining candidates he alone is addressing the issues they care about. They will overlook 3 marriages and Twitter tirades at Megyn Kelly as part of the bargain. His tone at his rallies is beginning to be shopworn if one has viewed a score or so on live stream but each seem to offer a surprise personal aside as he interacts with a veteran, a Nicaraguan  emigree or points out a Sikhs for Trump sign. Yes, Sikhs, Muslims, Hispanics and blacks are frequently seen at his events. How deep that support runs will eventually be determined but who has seen a Sikhs for Hillary sign? Diverse religious and ethic supporters are drawn to Trump for the same reason white Christian voters are. Nationalism, rage and a hope to find a voice not available anywhere else.
But the violence at the rallies? Putting aside the violence in recent weeks that has been fomented by outside groups and their frequently paid demonstrators Trump supporters are hardly terrorists. To those who say some have been handled roughly I would ask about the decorum of their union meetings. I remember vividly the first annual general membership meeting I attended. Probably not by accident the meeting hall was above a Moose Lodge so much of the membership had, as my dad would have said, taken libation. If there were any actual fist fights I missed them but the shoving and shouting, the standing on chairs to be seen and heard left an indelible memory. After the meeting was adjourned members laughed as they recounted the spirited antics. When people who get their hands dirty argue they frequently use their hands to make their points. Fists are slammed on tables, walls are punched, fingers wag in other's faces. Slapping someone's hat off borders on the extreme but I have seen Rand and Ron Paul supporters just as excited as any Trump devotee. No one is conscripted to attend a Trump rally and if the speaker sounds like a union bull steward that's what you get. One hundred proof whiskey is not for everyone.
Trump's tax proposals are a mixed bag but merely the starting point. I find reducing the corporate tax rate to 15% downright exciting. While some may argue legitimately that it would produce a 15 trillion dollar short fall over 10 years they do not take into account the 2 to 21/2 trillion in corporate profits sitting offshore which would most probably be repatriated in the first two years giving total tax revenue a pleasant but one time bounce. Still 15% of 2 trillion is preferable to 0% of 2 trillion. Another benefit of a 15% rate is almost all tax loopholes are meaningless. Why would a corporation try to reduce its effective rate from 39 to 24 percent by donating to to Planned Parenthood, National Review or the World Wildlife Fund when it could simply pay 15%? Furthermore when it becomes apparent to the shareholders that a donation to the Kasich for President Campaign Committee is coming out of their dividend check corporate money will play a smaller role in political campaigns.
The other side of the lost tax revenue coin is never mentioned. Does a corporation suddenly finding itself awash in profits simply burn the cash? No. Lost tax revenue to the IRS is the other side of cheaper prices and higher wages and more stock dividends.
Trump critics have expended much verbiage on the cost and futility of building about 1,000 miles of border wall. Oh, it would run over private property, it would displace some people, it would bother the sand lizards but it would not encounter any problem not faced in the construction of the new Interstate 69, the so called NAFTA Highway, nor would it cost a fraction of that project. He would deport millions of illegals. Yes, it's mandated under existing law and if he does not get all 11 million it does not mean he is a failure. This would be the only federal program that is pass / fail in a country where TSA fails to detect contraband more than 90% of the time and Obamacare in spite of hundreds of billions in cost leaves 30 million Americans uninsured.
Have you in the past 5 years ever made an inquiry about your credit card, sought technical support for your printer or tried to make sense of a bollixed up online order and reached someone who spoke understandable English? This massive offshoring of American labor has not yet surfaced in the trade debate but it is part and parcel of the same trickery as the H 1 visa scams. One of the subtle change in the World Trade Organization's language was to expand the agreement not only to include the exchange of good but also the exchange of services. Ergo short of withdrawing from the World Trade Organization there is nothing Congress can do to prevent more of the same. As the constitution entrusts to the president the power to conduct foreign policy it would be within the power of a President Trump to demand changes to that or any other treaty, NAFTA included, as the price for continued U.S. participation. Also as president, Trump could suspend all trade with China and demand restitution when a U.S. institution, governmental or private is a victim of Chinese hacking.
Could Donald Trump keep all his campaign promises? He probably will not be 100 percent successful. On the other hand he is the single candidate of either party who has offered to try.