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

Perhaps my concession of Trump being racist was hasty. After all, the most recent irrefutable piece of evidence regarding it hails from the 70's - that doesn't exactly say "Up to date information" to me. I refute your claim the Muslim ban is evidence of his supposed racism influencing his policymaking, simply because Muslims are not a race. This classifies as Islamophobia, which is another matter entirely and, in reference to traditional Islam, by and far more rational than racism could ever hope to be. I understand your point about my pointing to past presidents, but I made that point specifically because it showed, quite vividly, that their racism did not in any way inhibit their ability to do great good for the country (for instance, Andrew Jackson's settling of the national debt and making the U.S. a feared and respected military power). Racists aren't able to get away with any more now under Trump's presidency than they were able to get away with under Obama's. The same laws are still in place, and they are still enforced. I would also like to point out that a racist supporter base does not make Trump himself racist, especially when you consider how much of this racist base no longer supports Trump. Yes, he was voted in, by over 65 million people in a vote utilizing the electoral college. He *is* a fairly elected official, and we all knew how the election process worked when we voted, and despite the margin being the widest in U.S. history, it was still very minuscule. The people who voted for him knew his policies and supported him for them. I refute your claim that he is xenophobic. The tweet clearly shows him attacking the U.S. immigration system and vetting process, *not* the people being let in. Whether he is correct or not about our vetting process being sufficient or not is irrelevant - the attack was directed at that, and nothing/nobody more. I would also like to point out that opposition to illegal immigration is not an indicator of xenophobia - the vetting process you detailed exists for the express purpose of ensuring that the people coming into our country will be beneficial to it, and illegal immigration defeats the point of that. It is not indicative of an irrational fear or prejudice to foreigners - it is indicative of some small degree of support for the good of the country. Trump has made it *very* clear that he *personally* supports traditional marriage, as well as making it equally clear that he believes states should be the ones to decide how those issues should be handled. I refute that his transgender military ban is anti-gay, on the simple basis that trans people are not necessarily gay. Transphobia would be an entirely separate issue - which, again, though I disagree with it, I still fail to see how this makes him unfit. The military spends so much money on viagra because roughly 85% of it is male ( https://goo.gl... ) and people in the military *do* still need medical treatments like it. There are over 1 million men in the military (which you can calculate based on the female percentage given in above source) compared to an estimated 15,000 currently active transgender people ( https://goo.gl... ). Considering there are 100 times as many men in the military as transgender people, but only 10 times more is spent on them in total than on transgender people, we can see that transgender service members ultimately cost more and that, although somewhat expensive to discharge them in the short-term, the ban *would* result in long-term savings. It's not the most efficient method, but it *is* a method. I would venture to say that this argument would even be against the resolution that Trump is unfit to serve. Having checked your source, I wouldn't even come close to calling multiple-year time gaps between contradictory statements unpredictable and/or unstable. Some are even questionable as to their supposed contradictory nature, but what's really interesting is that the cited source primarily shows Trump's very gradual changing into his present self, especially in 2004-2007. In all fairness, most people do have significant changes in the way they view things over 10-20+ years, especially in today's rapidly-changing society. Volatile, being defined as "liable to change rapidly and unpredictably, especially for the worse" certainly doesn't describe the man still trying to push for most of the things he based his campaign on. Many of his opinions may be called many things, but volatility simply isn't one of the terms that applies to him or the way he thinks. Now, I may like to debate sometime on the finer points of isolationism vs globalization, but this debate is solely regarding whether Trump is fit to be POTUS or not based on his personality and policymaking, and his taking a political stance that is backed by good reasoning does not in any way make him unfit, regardless of whether we or even facts may agree with it. Ignoring that the speech was mildly cherrypicked and merely one instance, an inability to express thought well (once) does not equate to irrationality. However, said inability to express his thoughts well *would* be a factor working against his suitability for the office of POTUS - but, again, this was merely one instance of terribly fragmented expression, not a recurring trend. I have already conceded that he lies, as has every POTUS in U.S. history. However, pointless lies and/or lying more often don't make him unfit for office. It certainly does work against his character, but not his ability to fulfill his duties. The multiple times he called global warming/climate change a hoax were prior to the election. He made several statements during and after it indicating that he believes it exists and simply doubts its importance. Furthermore, climate change is a long-term issue, and the office of POTUS is held for an extremely short amount of time. This certainly doesn't make him completely unfit to fulfill the duties of POTUS. I concede that Trump is selfish, but refute the point you further made that a president must be humble to work well with other foreign leaders. Trump is not the only POTUS who has shown this to be an incorrect conclusion, having worked rather well with leaders whose names aren't Kim Jong Un. Several renowned U.S. presidents were quite narcissistic ( https://goo.gl... ) and did an exemplary job as POTUS. I agree that Trump has quite a bit of room for improvement, but rarely have U.S. presidents been saints, and as long as he is still physically and mentally able (which I believe I have demonstrated he is in this round), I see no reason he shouldn't be deemed fit for office of POTUS, barring proven criminality.