11 of the Best Comebacks For Common Pro-Trump Arguments

How to respond: His appointments have thus far largely proved otherwise, as he has stacked his cabinet with some folks who have a history of racism and xenophobia. No matter your party lines, it's clear that many of Trump's choices hold disturbing beliefs. Here are a few of the individuals he has nominated:

How to respond: Just because Trump is rich does not mean that he is a successful, ethical, or respectable businessman — he recently settled a $25 million fraud lawsuit surrounding his Trump University. Trump has also still not released his tax returns, and the New York Times reported that it's possible Trump has evaded paying taxes for almost 20 years.

There is also ample evidence that Trump's business acumen is less-than-stellar. In fact, his track record includes inflating his net worth by more than $2.7 billion, borrowing $7.5 million from his father to pay back Chase for a defaulted loan, and failing to turn a profit on a series of ill-advised business ventures in sectors he knew nothing about. There is extensive documentation that he has botched multiple multimillion-dollar deals, lived off his father, and cheated hardworking people over the course of his career.

How to respond: Sure, Trump is unlikely to show up at your doorstep, mosque, or grocery store and harass you — but his reach is wide, and even the bluest of states are not free from hate crimes sparked by a president-elect who has given white supremacists (and anyone with a hateful streak) permission to reveal themselves.

Following Trump's election, the Southern Poverty Law Center tracked almost 900 reports of harassment and intimidation in the 10 days following Nov. 8. Many of these hate crimes and related incidents have been targeted toward some of the groups most condemned by Trump's rhetoric and policies, including women, Muslims, Mexican-Americans, immigrants, and the LGBTQ community.

The number of reports in the days after Trump's win spiked by six percent, indicating a connection to Trump's win. Despite taking the time to condemn the casts of Hamilton and SNL, Trump's only public comment on these events came during his 60 Minutes interview, when he told perpetrators to "stop it."

We can also look to his 100-day plan as proof that people have reason to be afraid — his ambitious wish list of goals includes imposing term limits, constructing a border wall and forcing Mexico to reimburse the US for costs, rolling back aspects of the Affordable Care Act, renegotiating NAFTA, withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, lifting blocks on energy infrastructure projects (like the Keystone Pipeline), and canceling federal funding to so-called sanctuary cities.

Trump's plans would be severely damaging and dangerous to marginalized Americans as well as the country as a whole. While defense and transportation sectors could reap some benefits of a Trump presidency, it's predicted that Trump's plans could severely damage foreign trade relations, rob at least 20 million people of their health insurance, and widen the gap between America's richest and poorest citizens.

(In regards to the resurfaced 2005 video in which Trump says he grabs women "by the p*ssy.")

How to respond: This deeply disturbing language has lasting effects. Writing his comments off as "locker room talk" illustrates what Psychology Today calls "a basic misunderstanding about the power of words." Indeed, "the ways in which we speak 'prime' us to think in certain ways, and we don't even notice it." And as the Huffington Post points out, words affect behavioral changes.

Even if you do excuse Trump's words, they take on a significantly deeper meaning when considered alongside the long line of women who have come forward to accuse him of sexual assault and/or misconduct. Accusations range from Trump kissing women without their consent to walking in on women as they changed, groping a woman at a nightclub, and raping more than one woman.

How to respond: Many believe that, due to Trump's inexperience and disinterest in matters such as security briefings, Vice President Mike Pence may be the one running the show. Though some feel assured by Pence's political experience, having the VP-elect take the reigns could be even more dangerous than Trump himself — though less bombastic and overly offensive on a day-to-day basis, Pence has painfully backwards views on social issues.

Former Indiana governor Pence is an Evangelical Christian with a long history of anti-LGBTQ policies, like advocating for "pray the gay away" conversion therapy, and pro-religious freedom legislation. He has also supported the Tea Party movement and antiabortion laws like requiring women to have a burial or cremation service for their fetus after getting an abortion or miscarrying.

How to respond: But did he? Trump may have won 306 electoral votes compared to Hillary Clinton's 232, but she currently holds more than 2.5 million more votes than the president-elect. Thus, Trump did not "unite the people" — in fact, this election has caused a serious divide amongst Americans that's unlikely to be remedied for years to come.

Trump ran his campaign based on a platform of capitalizing on a subconscious (or, for the white supremacist movement, very conscious) fear of the "other," represented by various marginalized groups who were attacked over the course of his campaign. Despite being part of the one percent, Trump has continuously played to the average white American, those most susceptible to rhetoric against immigrants, the LGBTQ community, women, refugees, and anyone else that falls into this category of "other." When you run a campaign based on pitting one group of Americans against many others, you're doing the opposite of uniting people.

How to respond: Yes, Clinton messed up by using a private email server. However, she has been cleared not once, but twice by the FBI — despite what seems to be director James Comey's own apparent political investment in the matter. To call Clinton a criminal because of charges relating to an email server mix-up that have never even been filed while supporting a candidate who recently settled a $25 lawsuit for duping millions of vulnerable Americans, still hasn't released his tax returns, and was set to go on trial for raping a 13-year-old girl is, simply, supporting a narrative that speaks to pre-established prejudices and beliefs.

There's yet another layer of hypocrisy in this debate — while Trump has labeled Clinton "corrupt" and condemned her for the email server scandal, he is reportedly considering resigned CIA Director David Petraeus for the position of secretary of state. In 2015, Petraeus pled guilty to charges of sharing confidential information with his lover and biographer. He is currently on probation for these crimes.

How to respond: Just because all Trump voters didn't actively think, "I'm going to vote for the man because I hate women" (though some likely did), it doesn't mean that the perception of Clinton wasn't significantly affected by her gender. As Newsweek noted after the election"men and women really did choose a presidential candidate this year based on their attitudes about what was acceptable behavior towards women." Indeed, the election saw a measured correlation between hostile attitudes toward women and support for Trump.

Clinton was a prime example of the issues recounted in Sheryl Sandberg's seminal Lean In, where she explores the ways in which women are expected to be warm, friendly, and charismatic — and are penalized and criticized when they're not.

While strong traits in males are generally considered favorable for a leader, strong women are often characterized as "b*tchy" (a favorite of Trump supporters) or "cold" — thus, if you dislike Clinton because she's cold, b*tchy, annoying, or flat-out unlikeable, it's important to reexamine the root of this characterization.

How to respond: Though Clinton's campaign has now agreed to assist with Jill Stein's recount efforts, they have made it clear that Clinton is not responsible for or even very hopeful about them.

Clinton's campaign was reportedly reluctant to pursue this option, and did not join efforts even after leading computer scientists and voters around the country urged the Clinton campaign to call for a recount. It was only after Stein filed for a recount in Wisconsin that the Clinton campaign finally spoke up — and though they've confirmed that they will assist with and support recount efforts, they have also made it clear that they did not want, push for, or seek out a recount.

Additionally, Clinton counsel Marc Elias wrote that her camp does not believe there is "evidence of manipulation of results," but is participating because of the "obligation to the more than 64 million Americans who cast ballots for Hillary Clinton."

(OK, this is a real one I overheard while at the airport recently, but simplified it's: "It's not fair that illegal immigrants get rewarded for doing it the wrong way.")

How to respond: This comment is largely based on misconceptions about the paths of legal immigration and the plight of the immigrants who choose to try to get in illegally. Many people are not immigrating illegally because they want to break the law — they are doing so because they truly believe it is their only option.

This is true for a variety of reasons. First, there are only three main routes for migrating legally to the US: employment, family reunification, or humanitarian protection. Each of these routes is subject to limits, caps, strict guidelines, and burdens of proof, and — perhaps most dangerous for those seeking safety — long waits. Thus, even if you are eligible for legal immigration (which many people are not), the red tape makes the chances of getting in legally extremely low.

Additionally, many are running from oppressive governments or dangerous gangs and violence, all of which incite a sense of urgency that the current legal immigration systems cannot accommodate. Beyond these forces, the US itself has played a role in the circumstances that encourage illegal immigration, according to the Huffington Post, "by overthrowing democratically elected governments" and "pushing trade policies that undermine Latin American industries."

Undocumented immigrants are also risking their lives — between 1998 and 2014, there have been more than 6,000 deaths amongst people trying to cross the southwest border into the US in a desperate attempt to secure a brighter future. It's also important to note that those who do make it into America alive do not enjoy the same benefits of legal immigrants; instead, those who immigrate illegally face low-paying jobs, manual labor, no government benefits, and significant discrimination — all without any promise of future payoff.

How to respond: Trump's war against Muslims is rooted in fear of the "other," not in the truth. In fact, Muslims only make up around one percent of the US population, do not support ISIS or their violent methods, and have brought more Muslim-American terrorism suspects to the attention of law enforcement since 9/11 than the US government's own efforts.

Unfortunately, perceptions about Muslim-Americans often do not reflect this reality — as is painfully evident by Trump's critiques of slain US Army Captain Humayun Khan's Gold Star parents; in Trump's eyes (and those of many other fearful Americans), the threat of religious and cultural "otherness" overrides the significance of serving (and giving your life for) our country.

This approach mimics Trump's campaign against other marginalized groups — just as he exploited middle America's frustrations with Mexican immigrants, he exploited America's fear of ISIS and terrorism to condemn innocent individuals coming to our country for freedom. Under his presidency, he'll likely find even more ways to take vulnerable groups seeking opportunity in the US and manipulate the American people into seeing them as the enemy.