Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Campaign 2016

I do not think it is very likely at all that any person in the heat of a presidential campaign would seriously change their mind on any issue. I believe they come into the race with a set of "principles" and a set of "beliefs". They design a set of policies based on those principles and beliefs and try to sell people on them.

Mr Trump's outreach to blacks should be seen for what it is, pandering. If he wanted to demonstrate his "authenticity", he should have had a history minority community visitations and dialogue.

I believe people do not change their core beliefs overnight. It takes years of introspection and inner argumentation to convince a people to change those positions.

As a related aside, I should note Mr Trump's inability to maintain a coherent position on immigration should be not only a warning but an omen of what to expect from his possible election.

Not so much interested in Trump who I think, as Loggy said, is a snake-oil salesmen.
But Hillary was for the TPP now she's against it. She was slow to come around on LGBTQ issues as well. She has changed her position on many issues.
The Repubs do the same (don't mean Trump).

So my question is: which are the real deeply held (core) positions (if any) and which are not?

Like I said, principles and beliefs are not easily changed for anyone. In the examples you mention it stands to reason she would slowly change long held deep beliefs. Anyone who snapped theirs fingers and said I just changed my mind on that issue never had any core beliefs.

TPP is just a specific example of the larger position that free trade is beneficial to not only America but all the trading partners. It should be and probably was always the position of anyone involved in negotiating these treaties to get the best deal possible. As in all negotiations there is compromise. I suspect Mr Trumps sees countries as small businesses which can be intimidated into agreeing to treaties which would only benefit America. I believe it is more a case of mathematical economics. As someone says .... do the math.

More broadly, any issue or position which speaks to the national benefit and is firmly based on the Constitution should be a principle worthy of discussion.
Free Trade
Foreign involvement (nation building)
universal healthcare
universal higher education
energy - depletion or renewable
infrastructure - building and maintenance
job creation - job incentives
etc

are these and many more, items which promote the general welfare? these would be my principles

I think your list is a good start. Note, though, my question is a general one about all politicians, not just Hillary or Trump. They are mere examples.

Why should I believe any politician?

This may be an excercise in futility, but here goes:

Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton Diffen.com

Compare the candidates: Clinton vs. Trump on the economy Politifact

Inside Gov

Donald Trump v Hillary Clinton: what are their key policy differences in battle for the White House Telegraph

It saved me time.

I forgot:

Clinton Campaign Issues Page (Be prepared to get 'wonky')

Trump Campaign Issues Page Although the Positions page may be somewhat more useful.

Just because... you might want to peruse this list: Politifact Obamameter.

Ok, one more time with gusto:
My question is how many of the reversals of position- not promises- are actually changes of heart or just the result of political expediency. And how does one gauge that?
Example: someone changes their position on gay rights. Is it because they actually believe in those rights or is it political expediency? Did they not support them before because that could cause political damage? There are many other issues like that.

Campaign promises aren't a good measure- for example in Obama's case there was clearly a lot of obstruction to anything and everything he wanted to do.
And there are several examples of obstruction during other presidencies as well. So that is not so interesting.

If Trump supporters are any indication of how voters get riled-up with broken promises...

I get the impression that Trump is sort of a seat-of-the-pants guy (a kid giving a book report on a book he never read): He has not held any deep policy positions for long because he never thought about them before. When he had to announce a platform he probably spent a few minutes with somebody else's list and just used his gut reaction to proclaim his positions. Then (much) later he actually was given a few relevant facts and possible implications, so he changed some of those positions.

I think we have certainly seen that on immigration. He started out with the simplistic: "Build a 30 foot wall!" But right in one of his "wall" speeches he brought up the possibility of a 31 foot ladder. His current position is tending toward a much more physically possible plan.

All of his flip-flops might be such. "Trust me" might actually mean "I'll think of something".