Donald Trump would be a bad president

First of all, thank you for accepting the challenge, and good luck. Sorry about my previous argument; I was mostly going over the very bare bones of my argument. I agree that illegal immigration can be a problem. However, there are more Mexicans leaving the US than entering. In fact, the number of Mexicans caught entering the US illegally in 2014 dropped to 230,000, the lowest since 1971. Trump is exaggerating the threat posed by immigrants. Also, to call Mexicans 'aliens' is dehumanising. To understand the problem, you need to understand the minds of the people crossing the border. Much of the time, they are living in poverty, and are trying to get a better future for them and/or their children. In their situation, many Trump supporters would also do the same as them. Plus, even if they were a major threat, a wall would not be the way to go. Throughout history, border walls have failed, because people will just go around. The ancient Chinese built the Great Wall to keep out invaders, who went around and conquered China. In World War 2, the French had a wall called the Maginot Line, which the Nazis went around to conquer France. Even with a wall covering the entire border, which would be hideously expensive, people would just go around around in another way, by tunnelling under the wall http://www.nytimes.com... On the topic of veterans, I agree with you. One of the good policies Trump has is his stance on veterans. We agree on one thing at least, which is a good sign. True, Trump is anti-establishment. But is that necessarily a good thing, when he is being influenced by someone like himself? So Trump's economic plans will be good for the US? Just on the issue of debt, Trump would increase debt 26 TIMES MORE than Hillary Clinton, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which is non-partisan. Trump wouldn't help the average citizen; he sometimes doesn't even pay his workers. http://www.cnbc.com... https://www.quora.com... As for the issue of gun control, it's a myth that guns can protect Americans from tyranny. Maybe once it could, but not in the age of tanks and planes. Gun owners could put up a spirited resistance, but they wouldn't win. At the heart of the matter, guns are DESIGNED to kill people, so there should be tighter controls. I live in Australia, where there is gun control. In 1996, there was a mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania. It killed 35 people. Afterwards, the Prime Minister introduced gun control, and it worked. From 1979 to 1996, there were 18 mass shootings. From 1996 to 2015, there were NO mass shootings. I think the evidence is pretty clear. http://www.gizmodo.com.au... There are a few issues with the military argument, which I will rebut. 'Our navy is smaller than it was in 1916': size isn't everything. North Korea has the world's largest submarine fleet, but their navy is very weak, because they chose quantity over quality. The USAF is also smaller than in 1947, but that is because they had just fought a world war. The 1947 USAF didn't have F-22s, so it's once more the issue of quantity over quality. To have the military on a total war footing would be monstrously expensive. We may be using parts from plane graveyards, but why make new parts when you can reuse another part. That's just being efficient. The US military is not depleted at all. The military has 10 aircraft carriers, 5 times more than Russia and China combined. The military budget of the US is as large as the next 8 countries, 5 of whom are close allies of the US (Saudi Arabia, Britain, France, Japan and Germany. A Carrier Strike Group has more firepower than most nations. Across the world, the US is still overwhelmingly powerful. Excuse the pun, but China and Iran (especially China) are just testing the waters. China is not disrespecting the US, they are trying to test the resolve of the US. The West should stand up to China, but also be prudent, for China is nuclear-armed. Trump would make America a laughing stock, to the Europeans at least. The Europeans generally didn't respect the Bush administration, but they really think Obama has improved America's image. In their eyes, Trump would reverse all of that. Trump is also an appeaser to Putin. He has said he would lift sanctions on Russia over their annexation of Crimea. He has even said he wouldn't come to the aid of NATO members unless they made payments, which is breaking Article 5 of NATO. In saying that, he opens the door to Russian annexation of the Baltic States. The biggest player in NATO is the US. Without them, what's to stop Russia? This is why Trump would be terrible for NATO. https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.theatlantic.com... http://www.theatlantic.com... Once again, thanks for accepting the challenge, good luck and I look forward to your response.