Donald Trump is the lawfully elected POTUS. Doesn’t matter whether I like him or not. He won.
Did you support him prior to the election?
Nope. Despised him then. Despise him now. Didn’t like Hillary either. Voted third party. I’m not a fan of Trump, but I am a fan of the lawful process of transferring government power.
All seven or so of them? I particularly like his idea for how to deal with ISIS - “just talk to the generals”. GENIUS!
You mean those generals who had been reduced to rubble?
And what will he fight with? The weak and ineffective military?
I think that’s a fair thing for his supporters to say.
I found his ideas to be gibberish, his abilities imagined, and his balls to be a lot of bluster.
In the real world ideas to fix things need more substance than “I’m gonna make that great.”
In the real world abilities to run and represent a country extend beyond making money in real estate and having a reality TV show.
In the real world complex economic, social, and global problems and not solved simply by being “tough”.
That’s fine. Also, not relevant. 
You may as well go on a vegan forum and ask for pulled pork recipes. Here’s what they would say, to my best estimation:
The standard answer is that [insert criticism of Trump here] doesn’t matter because he’s not a saint. He’s not a polished establishment robot like Jeb or Hillary. The important thing is he’s going to make America great again.
Others would try to paint Hillary as the childish one, such as her entitled, arrogant attitude, calling his supporters “deplorables,” or for acting outraged about Trump potentially not accepting the results of the election and then when she loses launching recount efforts and blaming Russia and Comey.
A few may attempt to defend against the charge, arguing you’re being uncharitable or taking quotes out of context or following a biased media narrative.
There’s also a rabid hatred of liberals out there. As long as they get to drink “libtard tears,” it’s all roses. It’s less about Trump the man, more about what he represents.
You know that was all just a bullshit act, don’t you? He doesn’t have any ideas, abilities or balls. He’s not going to change anything in Washington at all, and we can already see that. He’s a classic politician. Sorry.
Judging from the lifelike statues, he does have balls. Just not very big ones.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It is a non-starter. Just like if I address you and assume that you agree that Hillary Clinton is an evil conniving criminal. Why do you think that didn’t disqualify her outright in your mind?
Trump’s childishness did disqualify him outright in my mind, plus a few hundred other reasons. But this did not disqualify him in other people’s minds.
I don’t see why this is in the Elections thread. It’s more like a Pit topic or, at best, a Great Debate.
Trump’s opponents are going to agree he’s disqualified. Trump’s supporters are going to deny he’s childish.
Picture the mirror thread if Clinton had won. How would you respond to a thread about “Why doesn’t Clinton’s evil simply disqualify her outright in your mind?”
I’d respond the same way I’ve taken to responding to every other one of these stupid false equivalencies: “Heres’s some links to actual video of Trump doing something stupid/illegal/childish/deplorable. Now show me the equivalent links to Hillary doing the “evil stuff.” I’ll settle for actual video, or for news stories from a source that has international agreement that it meets journalistic standards.”
I would disagree with you about that, then we’d have a discussion about whether the assumption was true.
In my OP, I’m assuming people wouldn’t disagree that he’s childish, but of course someone might disagree, in which case we’d back up and discuss that instead.
As I said above, I actually am not sure at all that they’ll disagree that he’s childish.
So far, no one here has–not even the one Trump supporter who has chimed in.
I would say “wait, she wasn’t evil,” and then we’d talk about whether she was evil or not.
“Evil” and “childish” are not facts. They are opinions. You cannot argue an opinion as if it is a fact. If you hear that Hillary as an evil power-monger who dedicated her life to pursuit of power and would do anything and everything to achieve it - how exactly are you going to disabuse that person of that opinion?
I am not sure how I would disabuse them of their opinion, but that it is their opinion, does not imply that there’s not a fact of the matter as to whether she is an evil power-monger. (Answer in the back of the book: She’s not. This is my opinion, and it’s also a fact.)
There is not the clean distinction between facts and opinions that you’ve heard about in elementary school etc. Everything everyone thinks is their opinion–and some of those opinions are facts. (It is, by the way, this confusion about fact and opinion that you’ve given expression to which quashes a lot of possibilities for quality rational discussion these days. 
)
There can be factual instances of childishness. It’s not an opinion to observe it.
If you’re going to say that it’s all relative and nothing is real isn’t that what they do in universitys and places like that? You some kind of egghead?
Your philosophy leads to no truth but it’s all I see coming from trump empathizers. Wonder why it’s so common.
How exactly do you prove the “fact” that she is not an evil power-monger?