Trump is not fit to serve, due to his volatile, immature and dangerous personality

For the record, the evidence I was referring to was his treatment of black people in his casino and refusing service on the basis that people were black. Let me remind you, however, that this occurred in the 70's and 90's - roughly 40 and 20 years ago. Opinions change in such an enormous amount of time. The Mexico example is an interesting one - in context, he was very clearly referring to illegal immigrants from Mexico in particular, and regarding them in particular, he is not only correct ( https://goo.gl... ) but not racist in saying so - to call an insult to Mexicans racist is much akin to calling an insult to Americans racist ( https://goo.gl... ). The presumption that Trump is racist for supporting the birthers has no rational evidence supporting it. Birtherism wasn't even an inherently racist idea - at worst, it was disrespectful, but far from racist. Huffington Post continues to believe that comments against Muslims are racist when Muslims are not a race. At *best* I will concede that the comment regarding the Mexican judge could be *perceived* as racist and had a basis in a disdain for Mexicans. Huffington Post cited the two incidents I was referring to earlier. It is not racist to have racist supporters (were this the case, the anti-white racists scattered among the left would've had most Democratic candidates deemed racist). They *were* ultimately condemned, as well. Nitpicking at language to derive unintended meanings does not support Huffington Post's case. Huffington Post continues to cite 20-30 year old incidents. Yes, Trump was racist then. Condoning of the beating of a BLM protester shows more violent behavior than racism to me, considering BLM's track record. Supporting the most positive stereotype possible would hardly be racist, and considering Trump's overwhelming support of Jewish people recently, especially in his recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, the story seems more likely that he either genuinely was ignorant about the meme's meaning, or has changed his mind about them. I have conceded that Jackson was racist - hence why I pointed to him as an example of why Trump is not unfit for this reason, even if it were true for him. Certainly, Jackson had his faults, but as POTUS, he brought both economic and military strength to the U.S. Furthermore, he showed that despite his racism, he was incredibly able to carry out the duties of POTUS ( https://goo.gl... ). You are correct in saying that a racist president would not be completely unbiased in their decision making. Ultimately, however, they do not *have* to be to be fit for office. It is, perhaps, an unfortunate truth, but a truth nonetheless. Furthermore, if the goal is to have him deemed unfit to fight racism, this is a poor method of doing so. He had to be elected into office, and those of his supporters who were racist will still be there to vote in the next election. Racism's roots must be attacked, not its supposed metaphorical flower. Opposition of the electoral college is driven by the common knowledge that most American cities, containing the bulk of its population, are overwhelmingly liberal. A popular vote system gives every ounce of power in the U.S. to democratic cities, giving fewer people a voice in the government with any real weight. However, this debate is not about this - it is about Trump's suitability for office of POTUS, and the fact remains that he was elected with an electoral college system by people who knew what he supported and were with him on those issues. I further refute your claim that Trump is xenophobic. It takes much more than a disdain for the people of *one* foreign nation to make one xenophobic - he would have to have a disdain for *all* non-Americans solely on the basis that they are not American. This is *clearly* not the case. One cannot assume that he is homophobic despite having made no recent statements and/or policies singling out gay or lesbian people simply because he said he wasn't homophobic. It is a claim that lacks evidence, especially when his meetings with Christian groups (no homophobic label needed; after all, they are *American* Christian groups and one would be hard-pressed to find many such groups that *aren't* homophobic) are further analyzed. Christians are a critical part of the Republican support base, and their faith in him wavered quite a bit during the election. It seems much more likely that these meetings were to regain their support post-election than to plan some anti-gay agenda (for which, he would not need them). Yes, he could simply order the military to stop paying for these surgeries, but how much better would an order to stop paying for medically necessary surgeries be than the ban itself? The simple solution would be not to retroactively ban transgender service members. Considering the costs of discharging them, simply stopping more from enlisting would be the most effective method of saving money. I respond to your point about his supposed "network of homophobic hate groups" above (which, for the record, homophobia is not the primary concern of these groups - it is a minor aspect of most of them that few focus on). The complete shifting of political opinions over a period of 10 years is by no means rapid or unpredictable - it is, on the contrary, probably somewhat normal for a politically-minded person in an age of rapid change. Personally, I would be more worried if he *hadn't* changed his personal or political beliefs between 1990 and 2010. Your cited source contradicts your point. Not only does it state that this is not the case for the majority of people (as it can't be, due to their not knowing their parents' politics in many cases), but it further states that they only (and incorrectly!) inherit their party affiliation *and* that the study ignores the possibility of the child being politically active of their own accord. I had no plans to "pull out some obscure quote that says he wants to work with Mexico". He has been rather rude to some foreign leaders and shown unwillingness to continue in things such as the UN, the Paris Climate Treaty, etc. - this is a valid point to which I will concede to some degree. Bear in mind, however, that these decisions are ultimately typically founded on the idea that "America's getting the bad end of the deal" and not simple disdain for working with other countries. Furthermore, Trump has shown that he is capable of adequate focus in the very thing he is often bashed for - his Twitter account. On it, he clearly demonstrates an ability to stick to one line of thought, oftentimes across several large tweets. Seeing as he has demonstrated his ability to focus on lines of thought, I very much disagree with your claim that his thought process is too irrational and unfocused to fulfill the duties of POTUS. Again I question why lying would make Trump, or any POTUS, unfit for office. Trump's lies are legion, but he is not the first, nor will he be the last, POTUS to whom this statement applies. Comparing his lies to those of a president who told relatively few lies compared to other presidents is somewhat unfair. Your cited source regarding climate change proves my point, not yours. Considering Trump is unlikely to be re-elected (focusing little on that compared to everything else), it would take over 20 times the length of his time in office for the world to "descend into a living hell created by nature". Exclusively speaking short-term (ie: 4 years), climate change is a non-issue. I agree that he shouldn't have left the Paris treaty, but this does *not* make him unfit for the office of POTUS. Perhaps if the end were on our doorstep and he still ignored it, but it's not. Of course I won't defend LBJ. I can't, and doubt that anyone can, but are you truly going to stop at the first man on the list? What of Theodore Roosevelt? JFK? Bill Clinton? Andrew Jackson? All of those people, regardless of whether you or I agree with them, proved to be very capable presidents. No, a comedian's act is not a good source for comparison. I agree that racism and sexism should be fought. If they are to be fought, deeming a POTUS unfit on these bases would not be the way to do it, especially when the evidence supporting those bases is shaky at best.