So far his only concrete proposals are:
Build a wall - this won't stop illegal immigration.
It won't stop it, but it will make it considerably more difficult. It would probably be a more successful measure than anything anyone else is proposing though.
Deport 11 million undocumented. - clearly pandering as this is impossible with out going full dictator.
True, though I would imagine he will announce some kind of process by which those "undocumented" could be legalized - immediate registration, no criminal record etc etc - during the campaign, if he wins the nomination.
Ban 1.5 billion muslims from entering - Yet more impossible pandering.
Not really, its impossible only because it would never get past Congress. They do however already operate a fairly savage no fly list / difficult visa system for Muslims anyway (as that family wanting to go to Disneyland found), so its a bit much to suggest he is that far outside of the ballpark on this one.
Erase state lines for health insurance companies - this would create massive ins. companies, almost certainly causing costs to sky rocket.
Not sure that it would tbh, at least not in the medium term (I suppose increased costs would probably follow as the market shrunk and monopolies emerged in the same way that they have in the rest of the healthcare sector). As an aside, he is probably the only Republican candidate in years
to praise the NHS.
And absolutely everything else is covered by vaguely alluding to 'deals'.
True, though whether that is any worse than Ted Cruz's absolutism is questionable.
So, even if you ignore his racist, misogynist, xenophobic bloviating,
If you ignore his continuous incitements to violence,
If you ignore his pathological lying,
He has absolutely no substance.
But hey, he has words, he has the best words.
This is why I think he will probably win - not because you are right or wrong, but because criticizing him along those lines will only ever benefit him because it suggests the wide gulf between him and "the establishment". Calling a politician a pathological liar is akin to calling him a politician, people accept it - indeed its probably the case that people respect absolute fibbers more (given how many get elected compared to less whopperish candidates - see Cameron, Bibi, Sarkozy, Bush II, Blair etc).
Or take him being a racist, for instance - which is largely based around his statements on illegal immigration, the wall and "the sort of people that Mexico send" (or however he put it). Now, criticizing him for this would be a lot more valid if those dealing with the criticism recognized that much of the trade in illegal migration is in the hands of some utterly vile gangs (who have form for murdering dozens of people at a time), that migration in this way is emphatically not how migration should happen (or has happened in the past, especially compared to the boom years of the 19th and early 20th centuries), that there is very little to be gained for anyone by having a large underclass of undocumented and socially/economically vulnerable migrants in the country, and that no other measure taken or proposed by anyone else has had any real effect on dealing with it. There are very real issues here that need to be tackled.
Instead, the commentariat over there just jump up and down and call him a racist - which might appeal to a certain sort and make them feel better at dinner parties, but when the issue of illegals is on TV news and the wider media (and presented as a problem) every single day, usually followed by "nothing is being done about it" (by the establishment), its perhaps not a surprise that he gains support - even among Hispanic voters - as a result (edit) of suggesting something tangible should be done about it.
I should point out that I do not want Trump to win - I would vote for Bernie - but watching the way this is being handled reminds me a lot of the doomed way in which Livingston tried to take on Boris twice.
