You are making the assumption that idealogies are merely a collection of randomly selected end positions. and those end positions belong to "left" or "right".
different idealogies can reach the same conclusions for different reasons.
His idealogy is not schizo, it is very much a coherent one.
"America First" sums up his idealogy.
Take the marketing shit to someone who cares.
"Stupid pet peeves first" is what sums up this ideology, i can play this game too.
Let us look at an individual position he had mentioned.
people who want to send money to israel include:
> oligarchs who use it to line their pockets
> jewish dual citizens
> christcucks "I <3 Israel"
> simps of the oligarchs "the american economy benefits if we send our tax money there so they can then use it to buy weapons from our military industrial complex
> NPCs programmed into this position by a news outlet
people who want USA to not send israel money:
> american tax payers who do not want their money stolen and given to other people
> muslims living in america
> literal nazies
> woke retards
> pacifists
> isolationsits
> NPCs programmed into this position by a news outlet
and various other groups.
as you can see, there are a wide variety of groups on each side of the issue. No single group "owns" either position.
the fact that woke retards/nazies/isolationists/whatever agree with him on one thing and disagree with him or another does not make him a "schizo".
Yes it does. Any of the existing group will call his policy schizo nonsense and will want a different one. The first group will think the obsession about not sending money is retarded - nothing wrong with sending military aid to allies, which by supporting diplomatic help he even agrees Israel is, USA sends aid to more questionable countries like Pakistan, Iraq and at least half of Africa yet he doesn't obsess about that.
The other hate giving any help to Israel, even diplomatic, and most of it would in fact want USA to oppose Israel instead. This plan is an attempt to form a coalition out of people who hate what the other half stand for.
It's also stupid from rational purely fiscal conservative side, because the sums of money involved are ridiculously small in the scale of US budget, small fractions of a percent, so they aren't worth much attention and trying to form practically impossibly coalitions just for that.
Nor does it mean his position is an impossible one.
Merely that it will be harder to achieve his goal.
"Harder" taken far enough is indistinguishable from "impossible".
As he would need to convince a lot more people if he wishes to have hope of it becoming the actual policy of the USA.
Yes, he would need to create set up his own faction and t hen make it outnumber half of the many you mentioned above, taken together. Not happening, considering how bad he is at arguing his position even here, and how you need to scrounge for weak arguments to even make it sound reasonable.
