He grew up in poverty in Brooklyn, attending public schools before helping to lead a multi-billion-dollar international company. He opposed the Vietnam War, he's pro-choice, he appreciates the contributions of immigrants (though, especially, Jewish ones), and he thinks the government should provide health care for all, though he opposes tax increases on principle.

For decades, he has supported Democrats and Republicans, most recently John Kasich. I once found him sane, but now my father is supporting Donald Trump. In our first column, he excused Trump's attack on a Gold Star family. In the second part of our Pulitzer-worthy series, Dad (not his real name) argued against Hillary Clinton because she's a "liar" who is also rich while Trump, he says, is only rich. In another column, he argued that GOP tax policies that clearly favor the rich would actually help the poor. In still another column, we tackled Trump's bizarre claim that he'd be better for "the blacks."

Last week we had the ultimate throwdown over basic competence. And also last week, we talked about Trump's inherent racism. On this pre-debate Monday, it's time to ask my father if there are truly any deal-breakers or will this one-time man of principle vote Trump no matter what he says or does.

Gersh: This series of columns was supposed to take us inside the mind of a Trump voter, but your mind has become such a filthy morass of contradictions that it's impossible to convince readers that you actually have a reason for voting for Trump. So, as we enter the first debate, I'm going to again provide a list of things that Trump has done or said that would have disqualified him from receiving your vote in any normal election — except for the fact that you have a pathological hatred of Hillary Clinton. Because, frankly, that's the single thing about which you are consistent. Ready?

Trump campaign manager: GOP nominee is ‘Babe Ruth of debating'

Dad: Sure.

Gersh: Why didn't it bother you when he used his non-profit foundation as a slush fund to bribe politicians and pay debts incurred by his for-profit corporation? Such things are illegal.

Dad: All foundations that bear someone's name — like, say, the Clinton Foundation — are corrupt because they solicit donations from people and then use them for whatever purposes they want. You don't think that people who donate to the Clinton Foundation expect something in return? Why aren't those people simply giving money to regular charities?

Donald Trump doesn’t want to release his tax returns, but that’s cool, according to Gersh’s dad. (Donald Trump via Twitter)

Gersh: There you go again, offering a non sequitur to a reasonable question. There may be legitimate gripes against foundations. But using a foundation to pay off legal liabilities of a business entity is several steps outside the norm for customary foundation shenanigans and far more steps from anything the Clinton Foundation has been alleged to have done. But we have to move on.

Clinton, Trump campaigns offer glimpse of first debate

This one comes from my friend Kurt. Why doesn't it bother you that he won't release his tax returns? Not releasing one's tax returns is per se disqualifying. Even Nixon did it. The audit excuse is lame. But, even if it weren't, he could still release old tax returns. No thinking fair person can conclude that the rationale for not releasing the taxes is because what is in the taxes is highly damaging to his campaign — either because they will reveal criminality, lies about his finances, or abuse of the system.

Dad: The public won't be able to understand the forms, and, sure, it'll show he paid about 5% in taxes. Who cares? Real estate people have all kinds of financial structures that allow this. It's all legal. But, yes, like Mitt Romney's 14% tax bill, he knows it will look bad to a public that doesn't understand all that.

Gersh: But if the taxes showed criminal tax evasion, your reaction would still be "who cares?" I don't know what to say to someone ignoring such basic and essentially irrefutable circumstances.

Dad: I don't think he broke the law.

Trump labels alleged Wash. gunman as 'Middle Eastern immigrant'

Gersh: What about when he called Mexicans rapists? Doesn't that kind of appeal to hate bother you?

Presidential candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have both been suspected of some shady business when it comes to their foundations. (Mary Altaffer and Chuck Burton/AP)

Dad: I am disregarding anything Trump said to win the nomination because he was saying whatever he thought would win him the nomination...and he was right. He knew exactly how to play the media so he got the most attention and then the most votes. And Trump is not appealing to hate. He just wants to keep America strong.

Gersh: So if he had said that Jewish bankers brought down the economy in 2008 and should therefore be sent back to their countries of origin, that would be OK — as long as it won him the nomination and he later repudiated it? The fact that his animus was directed at Mexicans and Muslims rather than Jews is merely an artifact of this moment in history. Anyone who would prey on hatred in this way — even if he chooses victims you happen to care less about because of your own twisted psychology — has disqualified himself from the presidency.

Dad: No, it hasn't. Trump isn't a racist. He can't be. He has more Jewish people in his family than anyone in the race. And if you're OK with Jews, you can't be an anti-Semite. And anti-Semitism is the most basic form of racism. For example, if you hate Jews, you also hate blacks and Mexicans. But if you're OK with Jews, you're OK with everyone else, too.

Gersh: That makes absolutely no sense, nor does your comment earlier in this series that the white supremacism in Trump's campaign doesn't bother you because you don't think Trump is a white supremacist, even as his son likens Syrian refugees to pieces of candy that will kill you.

Kurt also has another question for you: So what about when Trump said he would renegotiate the debt of the United States by asking creditors to accept less money, only to change his mind. That kind of instability is exactly what roils the world markets and causes people to lose confidence in America.

Dad: People say all sorts of crazy things in public before or as part of negotiations. Trump is crazy like a fox!

Gersh’s dad has his qualms about Putin, but “at least he gets his agenda done in the Middle East.” (RIA NOVOSTI/REUTERS)

Gersh: When you say stuff like that, you are just ignoring facts. The full faith and credit of the United States is not something that is negotiable. If it is, it will drive up the cost of money for the U.S. — period. That harms everyone. Even Trump understands that now — which is why he abandoned this thoughtless threat. As president, he won't be able to walk back every crazy thing his does or says — the damage will already be done.

And my friend David wanted to add this: Being wildly unstable in your words and ideas is not a strategy — it's a pathology. Trump has brilliantly convinced his American fans that lurching back and forth on positions, and refusing to be specific about policy, is some sort of well-honed plan. But he's not fooling any foreign leaders. A leader this unstable, with that much bluster and that little substance behind it, is the very definition of weakness.

On that topic, let's add in this question: Why does Trump cuddle up to Putin?

Dad: I don't like Putin, but at least he gets his agenda done in the Middle East, which is the only region I care about. Obama has ruined everything by allowing ISIS to flourish by failing to win the peace in Iraq.

Gersh: Again, that is just simply a non sequitur, and Kurt knows what one of those is because he's a lawyer! The issue is not Putin's effectiveness. It isn't really that hard to be effective when one is amoral, can kill any opponent (and has!), and has control over a lot of bombs. So the issue is not effectiveness, but whom America identifies with among world leaders. And Trump identifies with Putin, because Putin says nice things about him. That is the basis for foreign policy? And, I'd like to add, Hitler was effective, too. But the Americans who cuddled up to him are rightly decried by history.

Dad: All I know is that Donald Trump will put forth policies on taxes, the Middle East, immigration and business that will be more conservative than Hillary Clinton.

Adolf Hitler (l.) was an effective leader, so is Vladamir Putin (r.), but is that the kind of leading we want in America? (Heinrich Hoffmann/Getty Images /)

Gersh: So nothing else I've said matters?

Dad: Nope.

Gersh: I'll talk to you after the debate, which I'm assuming you think Trump has already won.

Dad: Nope. I'll honestly tell you if I think he "wins" or "loses" tonight. But he has my vote.

Gersh: Obviously.