That's my point Mike/Proof (BTW which do you prefer?); Give Trump enough of a platform, and he'll bring the rope and hang himself. More visibility on Trump will help him reveal himself as definitely-not-the-guy.

…Or alternately, cause him to smarten up. That's a lot less likely. But either outcome is better than spitting back in his face and forcing his hand on the third party option. That's the worst case scenario.

More people know me as Proof, but I'm transitioning over to my real name. Either one works for me! Call me anything but late for dinner!
I'm afraid the Donald will go 3rd party no matter how many kid gloves we use. He hasn't got what it takes to become the nominee.

Dean can reply at his leisure. Typically a third party, nominally Republican/ conservative splits the conservative vote. Unlike liberals who will often coalesce around a candidate for the sake of gaining or retaining power, conservatives will too often split their votes or sit the election out on principle, as happened in 2012 with Mitt Romney.

Thanks for the question, unapologeticprophet. I probably owe you a longer, more detailed response but I've been short on time lately. For now, as close to point form as I can muster:

1. A not strong enough Republican candidate is all but assured. Since Reagan, there's been Bush Sr., Bob Dole, Bush Jr., McCain and Romney. None of them were strong enough candidates. Both Bush's won not because of their own doing, the rest were dreck, to put it mildly.

2. the media will turn on Trump as a viable option as soon as a third party run becomes the case, just like their 'love' for McCain suddenly disappeared when he was the GOP nominee. Like it or not, the media does influence a lot of low information voters.

3. I too would consider myself a conservative (with some libertarian ideals). I have no love for the GOP as it looks today. There are some good people in the party but not enough of them. Too many establishment, crony capitalism sellouts. Having said all that, Trump would not take votes from Hillary, just from the GOP candidate. Unlike some pundits and readers, I believe that no matter how diluted a Republican candidate might be, they are more desirable than a Democrat, particularly a progressive liberal in moderate's clothing. Why? They are beholden in some small part to conservatives, rather than unions, socialists, environmentalists, etc. And while a liberal will continue to cause further damage to an already weakened America, even a RINO will have the potential to hold the line. Not ideal, but preferable to the alternative.

It's not about the GOP ultimately, it's about the country.

Sorry that's it for now, when I have time, perhaps I can write a post about it with a more detailed answer.

Likewise I respect your thoughtful responses and arguments unapologeticprophet. Reasoned discourse is always worthwhile, and disagreement even if passionate, can always be done in a respectful way – even with progressive liberals (not referring to you) who may not return the respectful manner of dialogue. Let me also add my gratitude for your service to your country (even though I'm Canadian, I have an American heart). Your nation has served liberty around the world, not just at home. Know that many people do realize that, even outside of America.

With respect to your point about GOP loyalty to conservatism, I have two considerations: (1) some within the GOP actually are conservative, and do serve those ideals, they deserve our support and (2) as an example, while Obama is likely to ultimately approve the Keystone pipeline, a Mitt Romney probably would have done so by day 100. There is a difference. And where no amount of conservative pressure will move Obama or a Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush did reverse his decision on Harriet Myers and appointed what was perceived to be a solid conservative justice in Roberts. Okay weak example, but the intention was there. I say somewhat beholden.

My issue with voting third party is that purity while always well-intentioned, can lead to ruin. For over a decade in Canada liberals and socialists ran wild as the conservative vote was split between the equivalent of the GOP and Tea Party parties. It wasn't until they joined forces that we were able to start rolling back the horrible policies. I don't see it as compromise but rather a necessary tactic at times. The GOP can be pushed in the right direction, from within. The Democrats will never be pushed in that direction unless they are pushed from power for long enough. My 2 cents.

You definitely have my respect and I can see your points. I believe we want the same goals, we just disagree on how to get there. Thank you again for your thoughtful, reasoned comments.

There is merit in that argument. Conservatives should proudly fight for their beliefs. They should not be afraid to articulate and EXPLAIN the rationale behind their positions. The GOP has far too often lacked that quality. Trump does embody that fight, and certainly much (not all) of what he states has a visceral appeal to conservatives.

Conversely, what is lacking so far at least visibly, is detail and a command of the issues. It may be there, it has not yet been displayed by Trump. Whether that balance matters enough to enough voters will be seen in time, just as whether his combativeness is seen to cross a line at some point. The same can be said for his conservative bona fides.

For me it's not about Trump specifically, it's about nominating the most conservative, electable candidate. The GOP is responsible for providing conservatives with both in its candidates. They err on the side of electable time and again, not realizing that frequently true conservatism does mean more electable. But while it's a very sad state that the GOP establishment doesn't realize that, it's equally sad that conservative voters are willing to settle for just fight without conservative substance. To be fair, it's too early to tell on Trump. I'm not convinced he's the answer, but I'm not yet convinced he's not.

Dean L.,

You said: "I'm not convinced he's the answer, but I'm not yet convinced he's not." — And there is where I am, as well. I'm totally not prepared to dismiss Trump, and totally not prepared to fully back him.

I understand your mindset, thanks to your explanation using small words (I'm apparently an idiot), and while I do not endorse it, it did give me pause to consider. Nicely done, sir. You did say it was about nominating the most conservative, electable candidate. At this point in the game (I loathe calling it as such, but politics has caused governance to become a petty game of trifling rhetoric), I am prepared to streamline my conservative/libertarian ideals around a candidate who matters to me. I am 110% pro-Life, but Trump, for example only, has said he would allow abortion for rape, incest. I disagree. But would my disagreement be enough to prohibit me from voting for Trump? Does his disagreement with me mean I dismiss him outright? No. I cannot be a "one-issue voter" any longer.

With Carson, he and I do not see eye-to-eye totally on legal gun ownership. Does this mean I dismiss him? Nope. (You get my drift, I'm sure)

The thing I have been keeping in mind is that no President can take office and then the next day just sit down and make new laws on the White House stationary to give to Congress (or not, ala Obama). There is yet separation of powers in this Nation. At least, I think there is….

Anyhoos, your responses have been pleasant and detailed, and a pleasure to read. Do we agree? Nah. But it's okay, right? You are a conservative. I'm a conservative. And the rest is just details. 🙂

Btw, thank you for acknowledging my military service, even if you are a filthy Canadian. Take off, hoser. (I keed, I keed!)

It's healthy to have disagreement among conservatives. It makes us unlike lockstep Democrats who don't bother to think for themselves. That's dangerous. That was probably the most pleasant debate I've had to date. Very appropriate for a Canadian sensibility 😉