Trump is bad

I have my own contentions with the President Elect, but these contentions don't involve the usual baseless chants of "racism", "sexism", or any of the other isms that the political left seems to use in lieu of an actual argument. While this type of rhetoric and general lack of an argument is abundant today, my opponent in this debate can't even seem to muster this minimal amount dialectic ability. First, my opponent states that Trump "will cause wars in the future." Other than being a complete lack of an argument, this statement falls flat from the beginning. Trump, like every single presidential candidate, has expressed the need to address ISIS and other extremist groups in the middle east, often with military action. Now I'm not sure if my opponent was a Hillary Clinton supporter, but I'm curious why he's afraid of Trump "starting wars". Unfortunately my opponent hasn't provided any substance for his argument, which is extremely telling. In complete contrast, let's look at his opponent in the general election. Mrs. Clinton openly called the hacking of DNC and other Democratic emails "acts of war" from Russia, saying that such acts should be treated "just like any other attack", and that "we will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses." All of this was in response to the hacking of emails, which may or may not have been committed by Russia. You have LITERAL threats of war from the Democratic nominee, yet all we've heard is this nonsense from mainstream media outlets claiming Trump is the warmonger that we all should fear. This rhetoric seems to be parroted by my opponent, which should enlighten the audience as to the level of sophistry in his "argument". Are you saying that Trump is going to start wars, even though he's publicly criticized neo-con warmongers from the past? Do you think that he is more hawkish on foreign policy than Mrs. Clinton? The bottom line is that this election provided us with limited options, but if we can take ONE thing from the election, it's that we got the LEAST hawkish candidate out of the two. If my opponent's concerns are truly about future wars, perhaps he should be thanking the US for electing Trump over Clinton. Next, my opponent claims "[Trump] will also probably get assassinated which I think MAY be true ... and will corrupt the US even more which is just stupid." Aside from being a horrendous run-on sentence, this statement is again void of any reason or supporting evidence. To start, let's just examine the funding for each presidential candidate in the most recent election, if for nothing more than a comparison. Trump, a political outsider, raised a total of $306,930,980 in both candidate committee money and "outside money" for his campaign. Clinton raised $687,261,894, well over twice the amount of Trump. The majority of Clinton's donations came in the form of "Large Individual Contributions", totaling roughly $267 MILLION dollars, while this same category comprised a minority of individual contributions to the Trump campaign, and totaled only 14% of what Clinton raised. It's a hard case to make that Trump of all people will "corrupt the US even more", when the man isn't even taking money from potential "corruptors". In complete contrast, his opponent was taking FAR more money from all sorts of sources. If the argument is that a Trump presidency will lead in more corruption, then proof needs to laid out. My opponent has failed to provide an ounce of evidence, and unfortunately for him, the facts seem to suggest the complete opposite of his position. The largest super PAC for the Clinton campaign, Priorities USA Action, raised nearly $176 million. This same Super PAC also collaborated with other Democratic operatives, and members tied to both the super PAC and the Clinton campaign are on camera admitting to paying mentally ill people to riot and cause problems at Trump events. The largest industry as far as donation to the Clinton campaign was the "Securities & Investment" industry, aka the investment banking industry. If we're to believe even an ounce of progressive/leftist rhetoric, this is essentially the seal of corruption on the Clinton campaign. In contrast, the largest industry contributions to Trump was from the "Retired" industry, and it amounted to just a fraction of what Clinton received from investment firms. One of the largest points of the Trump campaign is the simplification of the tax code, something that would level the playing field between large and small firms, and foster competition. This is not something that large corporations want, as they won't gain much from such a tax overhaul. Again, if the argument is that Trump is going to corrupt the US, then the burden of proof rests on my opponent, and he has failed to provide that proof. The evidence shows that all the big money flowed AWAY from Mr. Trump. In his last piece, my opponent manages to completely contradict nearly everything he said prior. He states that, "[Trump] does not have the proper intelligence of a president to even have his hands on the nuclear codes and, I do believe that. To finish off Trump has ONLY business experience..." I don't think my opponent quite understands politics or the real world for that matter. Most presidential candidates don't inherently possess "the proper intelligence... to have his hands on the nuclear codes." This intelligence that you speak of is highly guarded (unless you're Hillary Clinton). Said intelligence is only revealed once that candidate is in office, and there are a plethora of advisers and agencies whose sole purpose is dealing with this intelligence. It would be a massive breach of security, much like Hillary's email scandal, if Trump were to have all the intelligence available to a US president. My opponent is afraid of Trump having the nuclear codes, but in order for us to take these concerns seriously, he needs to address the points I brought up in the beginning, which he cannot do because he created a 1 round debate. Trump has condemned the Iraq war, and has expressed concerns about military intervention. His most prominent hawkish tendencies show up when discussing ISIS, which if my opponent hasn't noticed, is already waging wars with or without the US. As far as having no political experience, you would think that this would be a plus for someone so apparently concerned with corruption. Corruption is primarily centered around career politicians raising tons of money from big businesses. Trump, a political outsider, was out-funded by over 100% compared to his opponent (Hillary Clinton), and his campaign funding consisted of a significant amount of his own money. Aside from raising MUCH less than his opponent, or even the last few Democratic AND Republican candidates, Mr. Trump has claimed that he will refuse his government paycheck as POTUS, which is something that should be taken into account when discussing the character of Mr. Trump. In closing, my opponent has failed to support his position even in the slightest. His post seems more like some regurgitated nonsense from Occupy Democrats than a coherent set of arguments. Trump, while not a complete dove on foreign policy, is certainly one of the least hawkish presidents in recent history. He has raised a limited amount of funds for his campaign, which completely contradicts the claims of corruption. And the man"s lack of political experience should be seen as a plus versus a negative, ESPECIALLY in the eyes of someone like my opponent who is oh so concerned with corruption and US foreign policy. At this point, claims of racism and sexism might have held more water than my opponents lack of an argument. http://opensecrets.org... http://thehill.com... http://ijr.com...