go on...

It means people are so tired of listening to self-interested politicians toe the party line that they're willing to elect a candidate solely based on how crazy his ideas are and how much he won't backpedal on them, even in the face of adversity.

In terms of fearless leaders, he definitely is one.

Of course, I also think his ideas are mostly inane and that within fifteen minutes of his inauguration he would have already started World War III. But I can understand why people want to elect him.

Excuse my ignorance as I'm not American and perhaps miss all the nuances.

- Wants to stop illegal immigration. Not immigration. Only illegal. i.e. people not paying taxes but living there undocumented

- Non-citizens giving birth in USA and then automatically the baby is USA's problem until it dies

- Tax reform that wants to stop corporate inversion and bring money back to USA (Google, Apple, etc.)

- Wants a more competitive health care system than Obamacare

- Wants USA to make better trade deals because there are crazy trade deficits.

Why are any of these ideas seen as being crazy by Americans?

The second is a result of the United States being based on the principle of jus soli, as opposed to the more common jus sanguinis.

It's not some incidental issue. Resolving it would mean completely overhauling what American identity is.

Not sure if you have ever paid attention to politics but what politicians say is not what they usually do. Especially the claim: "Tax reform that wants to stop corporate inversion and bring money back to USA (Google, Apple, etc.)" is very unlikely as he himself is part of that system and so are his friends and stakeholders.

First off, I'm not American either.

It's crazy because you've just given the entire substance of his campaign. He hasn't actually given any more details than that, and the points are ostensibly chosen because they're easily latched onto by people who can't be bothered to pay very much attention. Also the wall thing.

But I don't see anyone on the internet writing articles rebutting any of the points. I.e. I'd expect someone to write an article where they negate each point on that list e.g. "Illegal immigration - I think Trump is crazy to bring this point up because there is nothing wrong with illegal immigration. The reason we should not be against illegal immigration is because ..." and so on and so on, for each point. The wall is an implementation detail. I see people focus on that but then it's almost like they're trying to avoid the topic.

Trump seems like a very pragmatic reasoner. Keeps things simple. His way of reasoning seems to go something like this: "Illegal immigration. Are you for it, or against it? Against it? Ok. Would a wall help? Yes or no. Yes? Ok but you seem apprehensive about it. Why are you apprehensive? It's going to be expensive? We have a trade deficit with Mexico. I bet I could force them to pay for it by using strong arm tactics and adding taxes onto things they like exporting here. I'm good at negotating shit like that. Are you still apprehensive?" And so on.

I just simply can't find any coherently written rebuttals other than articles that go "Trump is crazy. He's an narcissist. He's a racist" basically just ad hominems. No one is being critical about any of his points. So it's very weird when I see all the hostility against him but no actual counter arguments.

Because of the how and why

I think his election would result in... nothing. No change at all. The office is almost a chair warmer position at this point.

See Jon Gnarr, who started an openly satirical joke political party in Iceland called the Best Party, but actually ended up winning the mayoral post of Reykjavik. At which point the Best Party became a serious effort.

Nation state fully intact. Donald Trump is far less dramatic and just another cookie cutter populist.