"Grab her by the pussy", oh yes, very hateful... but is he really expressing hate at all in this comment? No... he isn't. Disrespectful and distasteful though it may be, this isn't hateful one bit. Nor did he ever generalize all Mexicans in his announcement statement. He literally follows up his remark
by saying that "and some, I'm sure, are good people", which should make it clear that he is not saying what you're trying to tell him that he's saying at all.
The comment on Judge Gonzalo Curiel was based on Trump's supposition that he was being treated unfairly, which was supported by Trump's lawyers. The logic here is that someone of Mexican heritage might have a conflict of interest if he is overseeing a case against someone who has views on immigration as Trump does. Does this really amount to hate? Not really. Is it not an understandable defense given the position Trump is in? I think so. Is it actually true? Maybe, maybe not, but that isn't the point of contention.
Trump never advocated for banning Muslims from the US
. He advocated for banning Muslim immigration
. Those are two very different things, and not one of them are necessarily racist. For instance, he could be advocating for this on the basis that some people within this demographic are violent murderers. That is a policy proposal based against violence, not on religion alone. He isn't against Muslim immigration because the immigration is Muslim, he's a against Muslim immigration because some Muslims are extremely violent people. He is not saying that they are violent because they are Muslim. That certainly would be racism. He simply recognizes that some are Muslim and violent.
He indeed has had failed businesses. These are a drop in the bucket compared to his successful businesses. 80% of new businesses fail. With that in mind is Trump really that bad of a businessman? Yes, he did have an inheritance, and loans from his father, but just having some money isn't what makes you a successful entrepreneur. Lottery winners often go broke. Money isn't a magical thing that multiplies on its own. Having a few million dollars doesn't mean that you will get a few billion down the road inasmuch as having few hundred dollars won't mean that you will get a few thousand down the road. It all depends on how you choose to use that money.
But how, in the end, are any of these necessarily hateful? So Trump said some rude things, Trump advocated for limiting immigration, and so on. Nobody has yet made the argument that these things must be hateful. Until you can, bringing any of these things up as evidence is but a peripheral piece of data that has no bearing on your central thesis. How, moreover, do a small amount of business failures, especially with regard to other business successes, necessarily indicate that he flits from idea to idea?
There have been two central theses presented here. The first is that Trump is hateful, the second is that he is impulsive. The evidence given for the first has either been disconnected from the main point or a gross misinterpretation. The evidence for the second has been the same.
BUT HEY FUCK IT LET'S LIGHT AMERICA ON FIRE
This is another assumption that has yet to be shown. All that can be known of the results of Trump's presidency are his policy proposals. The rest is baseless speculation. How, then, are his policy proposals so bad as to "light America on fire", as it were? Everyone loves to point on what Trump says, and then jump to the conclusion that he must be a bad president based on this. What they don't realize is that the only thing dictating how good or bad a president you will be are the necessary results of the policies that you advocate versus that of the other candidate. Everything else is peripheral nonsense and speculation. Too often I see people only attacking his character, not what actually matters. So please, if you will, explain what those necessary results are.