Vitruvius 
"[@Background Pony #90C9":](/1205141#comment_5255124
[bq="Background) Pony
>#90C9"]"[@Background Pony #FA7B":](/1205141#comment_5251931
)
> Let's try something
>
> Tell us something you don't like about Trump or disagree with about him without tossing the overused false flag of racism/xenophobia/homophobia/etc, because that doesn't sway the average voter[/bq]
I disagree with Trump on trade, on Iran, on Russia, on pretty much everything relating to science, and on immigration. But I can say that about many past candidates for the presidency. Instead, I'll offer several factors which I find especially distasteful.
First, he talks like a second-rate used-car salesman. He always promises "the best," "the greatest," "the smartest," "beautiful," as if hyperbole was itself a qualification for the presidency.
Second, he also talks like a third-grader, in several ways. The language that he chooses to use suggests a limited vocabulary and a limited complexity of thought. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and acknowledge that this simplicity might not be indicative of his own intelligence, but might be due to his desire to appeal to his base, which is characterized by a particular educational profile. What really bothers me about his language, however, is his reliance on insults. He has childish nicknames for everyone he dislikes. That is crude enough for conversation between adults, but it is simply unacceptable for someone who seeks the highest office in the land.
Third, he behaves like a third-grader. He made a dick joke during a nationally televised debate, and he churlishly interrupts moderators and other speakers. He suggested that a moderator was mean to him because she was menstruating, and a judge ruled against him because he was Mexican. He uses disasters and tragedies as opportunities to ingratiate himself to his base on social media.
Fourth, and perhaps this should have been first, I have serious doubts about his competence. He has never held public office of any kind. He does not appear to understand how treaties work, or how the Constitution works. Despite his claims that he will attract "the best people," his foreign-policy advisors are nobodies, his choice of running mate is puzzling at best, and there are signs that he attempted to backtrack at the last minute.
[bq="Background
>
> Let's try something
>
> Tell us something you don't like about Trump or disagree with about him without tossing the overused false flag of racism/xenophobia/homophobia/etc, because that doesn't sway the average voter
I disagree with Trump on trade, on Iran, on Russia, on pretty much everything relating to science, and on immigration. But I can say that about many past candidates for the presidency. Instead, I'll offer several factors which I find especially distasteful.
First, he talks like a second-rate used-car salesman. He always promises "the best," "the greatest," "the smartest," "beautiful," as if hyperbole was itself a qualification for the presidency.
Second, he also talks like a third-grader, in several ways. The language that he chooses to use suggests a limited vocabulary and a limited complexity of thought. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and acknowledge that this simplicity might not be indicative of his own intelligence, but might be due to his desire to appeal to his base, which is characterized by a particular educational profile. What really bothers me about his language, however, is his reliance on insults. He has childish nicknames for everyone he dislikes. That is crude enough for conversation between adults, but it is simply unacceptable for someone who seeks the highest office in the land.
Third, he behaves like a third-grader. He made a dick joke during a nationally televised debate, and he churlishly interrupts moderators and other speakers. He suggested that a moderator was mean to him because she was menstruating, and a judge ruled against him because he was Mexican. He uses disasters and tragedies as opportunities to ingratiate himself to his base on social media.
Fourth, and perhaps this should have been first, I have serious doubts about his competence. He has never held public office of any kind. He does not appear to understand how treaties work, or how the Constitution works. Despite his claims that he will attract "the best people," his foreign-policy advisors are nobodies, his choice of running mate is puzzling at best, and there are signs that he attempted to backtrack at the last minute.