No one's asking him to be wonkish, but it would help if he showed ANY substance.
Like Ross Perot, he is very good with one liners and entertaining generalities.
But getting him to provide substance on his views is an exercise in frustration.
Its an act that will eventually grow old and then the bottom will drop out of his run for the White House.
No one remembers Perot except as the funny guy who ended his campaign one day and paved the way for Clinton.
What are you talking about? People are realizing that evidence of substance is in actual accomplishments in the brick-and-mortar, Main Street private sector empire Trump has built, not in the polite gum-flapping the others do.
Trump has shown a better grasp of the big picture than anyone—and that is why he is leading.
You don’t want a details man (like Carter, for example) in the presidency.
...not to mention the fact that he pulls no punches on the real issue of the illegal invasion; Rand Paul even acknowledged that Trump was precisely right last night on the anchor baby/14th amendment argument, and that Fiorina was dead wrong. Substance, my FRiend.
“No one’s asking him to be wonkish, but it would help if he showed ANY substance.”
It is interesting what you are saying, but you’re wrong.
I’ve noticed Trump does not think like a politician, or talk like one. A politician telegraphs his “substance” first and foremost and will try to make even insubstantial things substance.
Trump’s substantive things come out almost as asides. He thinks like a business man entrepreneur where it is already a given that substance will be there, because why even talk otherwise.