I don't consider sins of the father or grand-father as a means to disqualify someone from the Presidency.
I could care less that his father was "poor" or something or another.
What I care about is what he has done as a person.
How he treats something in his care.
How he runs an organization.
His inherent humanity.
Case 1 - How he treats something in his care. How he treated a dog, placing it on top of a car for a long drive is absolutely ridiculous. Supposedly, a dog is part of the family and should be cared for. In treating the least of his family or someone under him in such an uncaring callous manner, it shows him unfit to care for the well being of a larger group.
Case 2 - The way he ran organizations, particularly in just buying companies and selling them off by bit parts only to make money. That is not the way to progress. Making money is not the only measure of success, it is growth and well being. The fact that in doing what he did, all it means is defunding companies in regards to their needs, just so that it can be sold off without the debts to experienced workers is an automatic failure, since those are jobs and knowledge base that will not come back. He is a proponent for selling out, that's all he is, he doesn't have the experience to run something towards expansion or improvement. He may be a good strip parts mechanic but not good at fixing things. Hence, it is easy for him to taking things apart but when it comes to fixing things he is an abject failure.
Case 3 - Case 1 and 2 has already proven Case 3 in regards to his humanity as lacking.
I can't vote for the guy, no matter his pedigree.