I think you are reading Donald Trump entirely wrong. I will explain my rationale.
Let's say the situation is that you see the problems of large swaths of possibly criminal fundamentalist Muslims streaming into US. You are concerned for the National security this would pose to the US and wish to avoid this. You feel that there are not good enough checked in place to counter this threat at present.
(This is obviously a hypothetical).Now if you are diplomatic you may say something like:
"There is a very real and pronounced problem within the greater Muslim immigrant community. Whilst many victims of horrible devastation are fleeing war torn lands and are wishing to start a fresh life elsewhere. There is an element who may flee with them. An element that is a risk to Americans and a danger to society. A small percentage of rotten apples and truly wolves in sheep's clothing. Rather than victims, these are the perpetrators of violence and crime and would use their countrymen as a shield to hide them from being detected until it is too late and they are already not at our borders, but inside our borders and amoung us.
We are therefore deciding to place a freeze on certain immigrants from certain countries until such time that we are in a position to better check the background and associations of potential migrants into our country."
You may get blowback and perhaps insinuations of racism or xenophobia BUT it would not be very unpalatable and may open up discussion.
Compared with what sort of thing Trump may say:
"The Muslims are criminals and trying to come into our country to do crimes over here. Not on my watch. I am not letting them in"
It is a PR Agents nightmare.
What I am saying is that maybe, if pressed "Donald do you actually mean ALL Muslims or that there is an element of Muslims who are criminally motivated." You would find he was talking shorthand. Maybe not too. That is what I get the impression of.
So he is seen as a bigot and xenophobe. Any possible nuance was never conveyed and the message is killed off in a rage of blowback. BUT I think people misjudge him.
I do not think he is a fascist or against free speech. In fact I think he is FOR free speech. Sure he criticises people being critical of him, but that is not being against free speech. Yes he does get protesters at his rally removed but why allow them to disrupt him. It is not doing him any favour and its his rally to share his message not their rally to convey their message.
I think a lot of this bluster and bullshit will fall away IF he is ever sitting down in the big chair (I DO NOT think he will win against Hillary). I think he will be teachable and malleable. I do not think she will be.
Well, yes. There is the obvious suggestion that Trump doesn't really mean it, and that he's only saying what he's saying to appeal to the lowest common denominator. As soon as he gets into office, he'll get a grip and start behaving like a proper human. That the whole bigoted behaviour is just an act that he thinks has the best chance of securing his place in the White House.
It's perfectly possible, but:
1) The media can't report on what Trump might become when in office. He has no political experience and a history of changing political views, so they certainly can't judge him on his history. They can only judge, and report, on what he says, and the "policies" he lays out, during elections. The things that he's said so far have been awful.
2) If indeed he is only presenting a vile bigoted face, to appeal to the base prejudices of a large chunk of the electorate, only to become a moderate when elected, then that would make him a fraud.
Compared with what sort of thing Trump may say:
"The Muslims are criminals and trying to come into our country to do crimes over here. Not on my watch. I am not letting them in"
It is a PR Agents nightmare.
What I am saying is that maybe, if pressed "Donald do you actually mean ALL Muslims or that there is an element of Muslims who are criminally motivated." You would find he was talking shorthand. Maybe not too. That is what I get the impression of.
Being able to talk in shorthand is not a luxury that a President possesses. Yes, man on the street may speak that way, and he'll get away with it because his words are irrelevant. The President on the other hand, has to be clear about the meaning of his words. Especially on such a highly charged subject as race relations.
If he was speaking in shorthand, and he really didn't intend for his words to be taken at face value, then such a misjudgement alone should show that he lacks the tact necessary to take on such an important role. Especially a role where what you say, and the image that you present, is almost as important the things you do.
(I DO NOT think he will win against Hillary)
I'm not so convinced. At the moment, he's a rank outsider, and it looks highly unlikely that he'll win. I think he will have a few tricks up his sleeve though. His team will be digging through Hilarys, and Bills, past looking for every bit of dirt. They won't have to dig too deep, but if they do, imagine what they might find
Bills history of alleged sexual assault, and possible rape, will be under the microscope. Every bit of corrupt dealing that Hilary, or Bill, perpetrated while climbing the greasy pole will be investigated. By the time of the election, much of the electorate will be convinced that Hilary should in jail.
Add to that, that Hilary is just genuinely not a likeable person.
Almost any other Democrat would be guaranteed a win against Trump. Sadly not Sanders, but any Democrat with a fairly wide appeal. Hilary is probably just about the worst candidate that the Democrats could put forward.