Then it seems you are either unwilling or unable to have a conversation in the spirit of this thread. The point is that this here is supposed to be focused on the supporters and detractors, not Trump himself. That’s how I interpret it.
Ahem:
Basically the same argument I made, pre-election. And so far, I still think it would be the right choice. While there’s a lot of soft stuff like consumer confidence, international stature, etc. that have been affected since the election, there is very little substantive things that have happened. Travel bans have been blocked, executive orders have been not very good, but not very impactful either. Lots of bluster and not a lot of action. In that regard, I think my analysis from way back still holds. The more controversy and outrage, the more scrambling the administration has to do and less effective it will be. That’s a plus for me - I want the federal government to do as little as possible.
Of course Trump is incoherent. That to me is part of the package. It doesn’t really matter what he says or proposes as long as it is stymied. The details don’t matter if in the meta sense nothing really bad gets enacted. So far so good.
I really do wonder after Trump is no longer president, if those who supported larger government take a step back and rethink that position. To me a safeguard against the worst of Trump’s actions is a weaker federal government, one that doesn’t accrue to itself so much power, and is limited in its ability to act. I think one of the best results that could come from a Trump presidency is a newfound appreciation for limited government. So every time in the future there is a proposal that the government solve some problem with its huge swathe of powers, people first consider what a person like Trump could do with those powers, or someone even worse.