Donald Trump would be a Terrible President

Your response reveals not only the sexism of your presidential candidate, but of yourself. You say Rosie O'Donnell is a jerk. This of course, is not necessarily sexism; you may just not like Rosie O'Donnell. However, if we are to assume that she is a jerk and that she deserves to be personally insulted (I disagree with both of these points), then wouldn't the most logical way to insult her be to attack her on why she is a jerk? The idea that you should viciously and ruthlessly insult women that you don't like based on their physical appearance is, to be perfectly frank, one of the most horribly sexist, misogynistic things I've ever heard. You, sir, need to get your act together.Secondly, about Donald Trump's remarks about his daughter: Simply watch this video: . The context: Trump was talking (for whatever bizarre reason) about Ivanka possibly posing nude for Playboy Magazine. He goes on to make several somewhat crude comments about his daughter's body before making the aforementioned statement. And another thing: She was in her mid-twenties at the time. He was almost sixty. How creepy is that?About the Muslim ban: I am not misquoting your argument. Here is his proposal, quoted exactly, verbatum: "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on." A "total and complete shutdown" means everybody. Immigrants, residents, citizens, seniors, children, men, women, Sunni, Shia. Also, after Trump made his outlandish proposal, he was asked by a reporter if he would except Muslim soldiers--American citizens who bravely fought in the service of our country--he thought for a while, and then said that he would. The only other exception is London Mayor Sadiq Khan, who has said that he would not visit the United States if Donald Trump was elected. The fact that he had to make these exceptions, especially the military exception, obviously means that he would also be banning the reentry of Muslim Americans who had been traveling abroad. So all of my arguments still apply.I notice you're still continuing to claim that Islam is not a religion. I would like to point out that Islam does have a moral code. All religions, with the possible exception of Buddhism, are extremely contradictory. For example, there is some obscure phrase in the Bible that says gay people ought to be killed. The contradicting argument is the command to love your neighbor as yourself and forgive people their sins. The latter is stressed and repeated throughout the book and is obviously more important; therefore it is the one you should heed. The same idea applies to Islam. The five major teachings of Islam are Shahada, or Declaration of Faith, Salat, or Prayer, Sawm, or Fasting, Hajj, or Pilgrimage, and Zakat, or Almsgiving. It's the perfect mix, in my opinion, of worship of God and service towards the needy. Yes, there is a part of the Qur'an that calls for infidels to be killed. But, seeing as that contradicts the core tenets of Islam, it means nothing. Also, let's say Islam does not have a moral code, for the sake of argument. It would still be a religion because your definition says, "...often containing a moral code..." A moral code is not necessary for it to be considered religion. So therefore, Islam is a religion and is protected under the First Amendment.Finally, these two Bible verses are ordering the killing of infidels. From Deuteronomy 13: "If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet...And that prophet...shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God...If thy brother, the son of thy mother or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods...Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare...But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people...And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die...If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, ...Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known...Than shalt thou enquire...and ask diligently; and behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain...Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword...and thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be a heap forever; it shall not be built again." There is no part in this passage that states that these laws only apply to the people of Israel (the Jews). They apply to all of Christianity and, since it is in the Old Testament of the Bible, also to the Jews and Judaism as a whole, as you pointed out. Secondly, you will find no mention of a legitimate trial in this verse. It also says that if even a few people are found to be practicing a religion other than Christianity, the whole city in its entirety shall be burned and all of its inhabitants be killed. How unconstitutional is that? You say, "Deuteronomy 13 and 17 aren't commanding people to kill infidels, it is ordering Jews to kill any Jews who worship other gods..." This is the very definition of an infidel! When you are asking people to kill someone who is worshiping another god, that is asking to kill infidels. This is an indisputable fact. Now for Deuteronomy 17: "If there be found among you...man or woman, that...hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven...and it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain...then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die." Again, this is indisputably calling for the killing of infidels. Again, there's no way around it. It does, later in the verse, say two or more witnesses need to have seen the sacrilege for the infidel to be killed. However, this in no way constitutes a civil trial and is still in violation of the Fifth Amendment.I also did a little research into major religions and discovered that all of them--Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism-- with the exception of Buddhism, call for the killing of all infidels. So you'd be preventing everybody except for atheists and Buddhists from becoming American citizens. This makes absolutely zero sense. Again, check out the First Amendment. It's helpful sometimes.Finally, you have not provided any reasons as to why Donald Trump would be a good president. You've only provided (extremely shaky) arguments as to why my points are wrong. So an unbiased observer would get the impression that Donald Trump would be, at best, a mediocre president. Since this round is the last, I urge you to put in some reasons as to why Donald Trump would actually be a good president. If you do not, you are, in effect, conceding the debate to me.