The article that the OP posted was kinda terrible, but its really easy to find the full report with a simple google search. Here it is (the more in depth analysis is available for the older tax plan, but it still largely holds for costs so you can check that out too): http://crfb.org/papers/promises-and-price-tags-preliminary-update

You are also free to read more tax specific analysis:
Tax Foundation: http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-tax-reform-plan-september-2016
Tax Policy Center (not yet updated): http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-donald-trumps-tax-plan

From your second source:

Key Findings

• Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s tax plan would significantly reduce income taxes and corporate taxes, and eliminate the estate tax.
• According to the Tax Foundation’s Taxes and Growth Model, the plan would reduce federal revenue by between $4.4 trillion and $5.9 trillion on a static basis. The amount depends on the nature of a key business policy provision.
• The plan would also significantly reduce marginal rates and the cost of capital, which would lead to higher long-run levels of GDP, wages, and full-time equivalent jobs.
• After accounting for the larger economy and the broader tax base, the plan would reduce revenues by between $2.6 trillion and $3.9 trillion after accounting for the larger economy, depending on the nature of a key policy provision

• The plan reduces revenue by substantially less than the plan proposed by Trump last year, on both a static and dynamic basis.
• On a static basis, the plan would lead to at least 0.8 percent higher after-tax income for all taxpayer quintiles. The plan would lead to at least 10.2 percent higher incomes for the top 1 percent of taxpayers or as much as 16.0 percent higher, depending on the nature of a key business policy provision.

Lets see:

Trump wants less taxes: Well yes. His tax plan has tax cuts pretty much across the board, however the ones who benefit the most are the ones in the top income brackets. I don't remember the exact figures, but its something like you save under 1% if you are in the lower income brackets and closer to 17% if you are in the top income brackets.

He wants to tax my income less: Yes, or more accurately, it depents on how much you make. If you make are in lower income brackets you might have an extra $100 in your pocket each year, while if you are in the upper income brackets you would have significantly more. 

He would give the government less money to spend: Well not really. Government spending is independent from government earning. That is why we have a national debt. Reducing the revenue of the country does not reduce spending, it simply inflates the national debt more quickly.

Largest part of his assumed debt from repealing obamacare: From what I can tell, this is false. You can see where the debt comes from in any of the tables showing the breakdowns of revenue vs spending. Repealing Obamacare would decrease spending by $1.65 trillion and would decrease revenue by $2.15 trillion, which results in a net difference of $0.5 trillion added to the national debt. That isn't anywhere close to the majority of the assumed debt. The majority of the assumed debt comes from his tax policies which would decrease revenue by about $ 5 trillion. (See below quote)

"Trump would repeal the entire Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”), which we assume to mean all of the Affordable Care Act regulations, subsidies, Medicaid expansion, Medicare savings, and tax increases. Based on CBO’s score of legislation repealing the law, we estimate there would be $1.65 trillion less spending on insurance coverage. However, this would be more than offset by eliminating nearly $950 billion of Medicare savings and more than $1.2 trillion of revenue increases (including those related to coverage)." -Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

I misread the obamacare bit, but the point on that still stands that half a trillion dollars from that supposed debt comes from the repeal which is rather significant. The rest of your reply just seems like nitpicking (to me) 

I was just answering your questions, not trying to argue. Glad I could clear some things up though.

I'd just like to point out that your earlier post said that "a large part (the majority) of his assumed debt over 10 years would be from repealing obamacare".  But his reply said that obamacare's repeal would add $0.5 trillion, compared to $4.4 to $5.9 trillion from the tax cuts—in other words, far from being over 50%, it would be more like 10%.  I consider that more than nitpicking. 

I completely agree that half a trillion is still far from chump change, though.  It's not insignificant at all.