As a conservative I will agree the government more often than not is the obstacle to achieving most economic goals. At the same time the government does have certain legitimate functions that the Citizen cannot perform. The government sets limitations on immigration. The government raises an army to defend us from our enemies foreign and domestic. The government manages and negotiate the trade deals that we have with our international partners. Those are the legitimate functions of state as expressed in the Constitution. When it comes to taxes I don't necessarily know that you can call him a progressive. Every tax plan that's ever been proposed to have some type of accommodation for the poor. Would you call Ronald Reagan and progressive on taxes because they were the lower bracket? Would you call Ted Cruz a progressive because his 10% flat tax starts at above $36,000? Of course not. These people understood that taxation is a hindrance to economic growth not the driver of economic growth. On foreign policy Donald Trump is never express himself to be a hawk. He's constantly and consistently express the fact that he would not have gone into Iraq. He expressed his fundamental believe that's the bility is greater than instability. When it comes to current foreign policy models he believes that we should do something about Isis. That's the same position is Rand Paul. When it comes to Syria he said that we should develop a safe zone for the refugees to stay in their own country. He's also said that he believes instability and that he would not advocate the unilateral toppling of Assad's regime. That's the same position as Ron Paul and then actually put them to the left of a guy like John Kasich. That's a car that's a far cry from an authoritarian warlord. In my belief I think there is a fundamental difference between advocating that the fundamental roles of government are executed with competence versus believing the government is the solution to every problem.

---