I have no issue with anyone who supports a given candidate or not. I'd like to see Trump and Cruz do well, and I had great hopes for Walker until he dropped out.
However, you flatter yourself by your criticisms of others. You also employ the straw man. You have no way of knowing to what degree I or anyone else has employed critical thinking in regards to Trump. You have no way of knowing what I (or anyone else) views as the most pressing issues. You could not unless you'd discussed the framework for deciding with any Freeper, and I've seen no evidence of such.
You've shown no recognition that any candidate is a compromise, and no recognition that no one will accomplish our laundry list. We can hope for three or four big things, and anything else is golden.
Others who speak as you do point out Trump is no textbook conservative, and if I support him I mistakenly think he is. Horse biscuits.
Ted Cruz is not a textbook conservative; Walker was no textbook conservative. There is no textbook conservative in the race. The only person I would agree with 100% is me, and I'm not interested in running. Ronald Reagan wasn't a textbook conservative.
I've compiled my own list of what a president needs to be successful; IOW, how likely they are to accomplish what I want to see. It includes the ability to go around the establishment and the media, not persuade them.
Trump has that in spades. Check in the yes column. Some criticize Cruz because he doesn't play well with others, Rand Paul for example. Again, a successful president doesn't have to get along with the establishment or the media, so that's no great loss.
I've seen a willingness in Ted Cruz to go around the media and the establishment. He's not shown he can successfully do so.
Since no candidate is perfect, it comes down to weighing pluses and minuses. It come down to deciding, not who is the perfect candidate, but who is the best candidate for the times. It comes down to weighing the most immediate and pressing needs, and which candidate is most likely to accomplish them. It's not as simple as checking boxes; it's also a matter of judging the man.
All this whining about Kelo...I believe it was wrongly decided, but it is decided. Any fixes will have to come from the legislative branches. By definition, he can't make it any worse, so quitcherbitchin.
So you have no way of knowing if someone is unwilling to take a critical view of a candidate. They may have already done so and weighed and judged. They may view your questioning as insipid and simplistic, echoing the criticisms we've heard from the media and the establishment...and various site trolls we can all name.
Perhaps it is you who should be more thoughtful?
That was a tour de force. I am also wondering if anyone will answer your previous question: i.e.: has anyone in the legislature even attempted.to head off future Kelos. Suddenly it’s the only issue worth talking about, but where have our most principled conservatives been on fixing the problem in the many years since it happened?