Need suggestions/feedback

Hi all -

I've been communicating with a guy who doesn't seem to share the views that most of us here share, and he's challenged me to respond to some points he's made.

I've broken his post up into snippets in order to respond to each one. This is a college fan/alumni website, and in the post I identify a particular well-loved football coach by name - I've changed it here to [football coach].

I'd love to get some feedback on what you think the stronger points are, and any suggestions on how I can improve it. Thanks for looking.

---

Other guy: Keep saying Trump isn't qualified to lead.

Me: Trump isn't qualified to lead.

--

Other guy: She is for gays, lesbians, communists, socialists, black militants, illegal militants, illegal immigrants, muslims and muslim immigrants, including the families that raised them. She speaks of the sovereignty of U.S. citizenship of Muslims but does not provide the same respect for natural non Muslim U.S. citizens. Of course unless they are gays, lesbians, communists, socialists, black militants, illegal militants, illegal immigrants, muslims and muslim immigrants, including the families that raised them.

Me: Your list ignores women for one. How about Latinos, black "non-militants" (does such a category exist in Republican's stereotypes, or are they automatically dispersed into the BLM)? Have you not seen her reach out to those groups?

Or do you think, by omission of sublime shout-outs, she must be opposed to, what is it they say now..."those of Western-European descent"? Tell me if I'm wrong, but isn't that really what you're getting at? Is it really necessary for a candidate to reach out to what is currently and historically our nation's most favored, prospered group, to be diverse?

--

Other guy: Because her point is not talk diversity, but to create divisiveness in our country.

Me: In an objective sense, I don't understand, given the two candidates, how you can take the finger of a quote like that, and point it Clinton's way. On a 1-100 scale, 100 being the most diverse, where would you score the two candidates? How would you rate each on divisiveness?

First you say she's too diverse, then you minimize her diversity. It's like complaining on your first visit to a nice restaurant that your Chateaubriand took too long to get to your table, and the second visit they got it out faster, but it was undercooked. (I'm hungry now.)

Have you read "It Takes a Village"? If not, would it better inform you - for better or for worse - in drawing a conclusion about her regarding these attributes? If you have read it, what did you get out of it?

--

Other guy: Have never seen her speak to a Bapt Church group. Never to a Christian coalition of women. Why?

Me: I find it unappealing and judgmentally intrusive when someone makes a purposefully vague statement about someone else's personal faith, and puts a question mark to it, as Trump did at the Christian conference he addressed.

If someone wanted to gain insight into the faith of a public figure like Clinton, there are objective credible sources through Google that will help inform, as well as a 300+ page book that focuses specifically on her personal faith, written by a Conservative author who directly interviewed her.

Hmm...when is Trump's birthday?

--

Other guy: Every paid close attention to the groups she speaks to? And she promises each group what they want so she can get elected.

Me: Enough with the !#@$ Chateaubriand!

First you give her credit for being a life-long politician, then you denounce her for demonstrating the traits of same. That's what a politician, today and since the dawn of leadership, does.

Go to a gun club, talk about guns. Go to a banking conference, talk about money. Go to a pride festival, talk about tolerance. Nature of the game. And I'm still hungry.

--

Other guy: Donald Trump. Builder of jobs, buildings and financial empires. He says what he thinks is the right way to do the job. If you don't like his way, don't vote for him. But he has more training is working through financial matters and dealing with authorities than any lib candidate ever has.

Me: What's the life cycle of an individual Trump success? Seriously, think about it.

Ever seen Stephen King's Langoliers? (GREAT miniseries.) Those things, minutes behind real time, come advancing like a Canadian cold-front, chewing earth, space and time as they advance.

Trump's series of business ventures largely resemble that action. The market destroys a bit slower than he builds. The bankruptcies, the casinos, Trump Mortgage, Trump Airlines, his university. etc.

And one more thing about Trump being a leader. I read a while back that [football coach] endorsed him. Tell me this..

Did you ever hear [football coach] whine that a game was, or would likely be, rigged?
Did you ever hear [football coach] mock or belittle his opponent?
Did any opponent ever get under [football coach]'s skin to the point he lashed out and became irrational?
Did he ever get into spats with opposing players or fans?
Would he hinder a colleague's opportunity for advancement or success?
Make light of sideline reporter's speech impediment (disability)?
Blame a bad call on a referee's Mexican ancestry?

I could go on, but I think it's easy to see there's a difference between being a leader and being Donald J Trump. Further, there's a difference between a Football Coach and President of the United States - we should expect even more from the latter, not less.

--

Other guy:Just saying. Bring it on. Let's talk about who is truly qualified.

Me: That's it, exactly. Who is truly qualified.

I look at Trump, and I see an undisciplined, unfocused, lazy egotist. And that's me being nice.

I saw a query in another thread asking how Clinton would perform under pressure. I immediately thought of the 11 hour Benghazi hearings with Gowdy, et al.

If, for a moment, you can get past the subject matter and your opinion of the content involved in the hearing, she was clearly focused, unflappable, and calm. She certainly demonstrated that she's able to perform under pressure.

Close your eyes (not right now, but after this and the next paragraph), and put Donald J Trump in that chair of testimony. And again, disregard the subject matter - this comparison is solely to measure performance under pressure.

How far into the hearing can you get him before he goes off message. Before he becomes Combative. Defensive. Riled. Angry. Blaming. Insulting. Accusatory. You've seen him do all of that, at the drop of a hat. All it takes is someone pressing his button.

And the results of him exercising those stages have never ended up casting him or his cause in a particularly positive light.

Or maybe he'd try being affable Donald J. Trump:

"Porky Pompeo. You gotta cut down a little big guy, okay? I mean aye y'aye. And the noise in Pasadena, I'm telling ya folks, they need to do something about that noise...It's awful...reminds me of the time…is there anybody here from Austin? Austin, there you go...great town... Gowdy? Gowdy looks like he’s been up all night. Need a nap? Grouchy Gowdy. Call him Grouchy Gowdy cuz he's always grouchy all the time. And look at that nose! Have you ever...okay? Go take a nap Trey."

Even if his kids, Manafort, Guiliani, Gingrich, and Pence intervened him that morning, how long would Trump last?

Ten minutes? A half-hour? An hour?

Trump, under pressure? In his own words, "It's a disaster folks."

Oop! Time for supper!