First it was sticking his nose into state’s rights on which restroom transsexuals (and opportunists) should use. Then it was a list of exceptions on his less than “very pro life” stance he says he’ll impose upon the party. And now he’s walking back the amount of time he’ll need to pay off the nation’s debt. Does this man hold any core positions that are not “evolving” in one form or another depending upon which day he’s asked? Is it any wonder Todd Starnes over at Fox News—aka the media arm of the Trump campaign—penned a scathing article laying out precisely why Mr. Trump is no conservative? Let’s take a look at his latest progressive positions. Just this week:

On eliminating the national debt:

“You have said you plan to pay off the country’s debt in 10 years. How is that possible?” a reporter for Fortune Magazine asked the Republican presidential front-runner in an interview published Friday.

“No, I didn’t say 10 years,” Trump said. He then suggested that instead of paying it all off, he would pay off an unspecified “percentage” of the national debt as president.

Uh, fact check!

He continued:

“It depends on how aggressive you want to be,” he said. “I’d rather not be so aggressive. Don’t forget: We have to rebuild the infrastructure of our country. We have to rebuild our military, which is being decimated by bad decisions. We have to do a lot of things.”

I like aggressive. Particularly when it’s my child’s future we’re talking about. Is he suggesting we should pile on more debt? Is he suggesting we not make the debt a priority? Is he saying we can’t cut irresponsible spending and rebuild our military at the same time? As with every one of his positions, I have no idea. Still, to be fair, he’s correct. He’s just playing a game of semantics. Just weeks ago, he said he’d crush the mountain of debt in a mere eight years, the inference being he’d require a second term to complete that monumental task. So, technically, he’s right. He didn’t say he’d complete the feat in ten years; he cited two sets of four. How Clintonian of him. “Is is,” or something. Or maybe he’s realized it’s all horse pucky.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAhu4ini3cA

During a town hall this week, Trump said this when asked about abortion:

Q: Would you want to change the Republican platform so that exceptions would be made on abortions in the case of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother?

A: “Yes I would. Absolutely, for the three exceptions, I would,” he said. Trump was then pressed further and asked if he would make an exception to protect the “health” of the mother. “I would leave it for the life of the mother, but I would absolutely have the three exceptions.”

Screeeeech. Wrong answer. First, aside from the monumental insult to those conceived in rape and incest, he’s saying he’ll follow in the tyrannical footsteps of Barack Obama and unilaterally implement a party-wide platform change, all by his lonesome, apparently, forcing those of us who vehemently disagree to adopt his position on this bedrock conservative issue. All Hail the King.

Secondly, life is life, Donny. The sin’s of the father, if you will, are not the responsibility of the child. So why would you advocate punishing the baby? Oh, wait. Why am I even asking that of a man who just weeks ago suggested women who abort should face punishment? My bad. It all makes sense when you understand Mr. Trump’s positions shift depending on whether or not he’s facing a tongue-lashing. Still…might I introduce you to international pro-life speaker and attorney, Rebecca Kiessling. She may have something to say about your bone-headed platform change.

“I do hope that, as a child conceived in rape, I can help to put a face, a voice, and a story to this issue.” –Rebecca Kiessling

On North Carolina’s bathroom law, Trump said this during the same town hall:

“I had a feeling that question was going to come up, I will tell you. Well, look, North Carolina did something that was very strong, and they’re paying a big price, and there’s a lot of problems… North Carolina, what they’re going through, with all of the business that’s leaving and all of the strife — and that’s on both sides — you leave it the way it is. There have been very few complaints the way it is. People go, they use the bathroom that they feel is appropriate. There has been so little trouble.”

Groan. So much for shunning political correctness. He bear-hugged it with both arms. And kissed it square on the mouth. What Trump should have said is that it’s a state’s rights issue. Period. And left it at that. And, in typical Trump fashion, he did just that. A few hours later. On Hannity, who reportedly twisted himself into a salted pretzel providing cover for his Chosen One. Following, I assume, a consultation with an advisor aware of this little thing called the Tenth Amendment. Rather than opting not to comment, in the tradition of Barack Obama, Trump leaped before he looked, and stuffed his sized-twelve shoe right into his gaping pie-hole, looking like the ignorant, liberal con man that he is. Again.

In addition to the three cringe-worthy policy “evolutions” that would tank any other candidate, Trump channeled his inner Bernie Sanders, expressing his full support for “Tax[ing] the Rich!” I mean, if I wanted a Socialist POTUS, I’d support the guy who’s at least relatively honest about who he really is.

And those are just the bursts of punctuated equilibrium he’s performed this week.

Donald Trump has swindled millions of Americans. And he looks poised to continued that trend in Pennsylvania and Maryland this Tuesday where voters, according to polls, are buying his snake oil. But he’s no conservative, and we have no reason to believe, if by some miracle he actually won the general, he’d govern as one, either. No, the word “constitution” isn’t found in Trump’s lexicon, nor does he ever discuss shrinking the federal government, or eliminating unconstitutional agencies. He simply proposes better managing of the beast. How gullible are we? Well, it seems pretty darned. This election should have been an easy win for Republicans. It should have been an in-your-face slam dunk, with an extra foul shot for good measure. Instead, against perhaps the worst Democrat nominee in recent history, we’re on the verge of sending an ignorant third-string demagogue onto the court against a woman who should be spending the remainder of her life in a federal penitentiary, but will appear a competent expert in comparison. Should Donald Trump become the Republican nominee (in name only, mind you), his very own self-inflicted fouls just may cost us all the final series.