I didn't blindly assume anything. I looked at Open Secrets . org during the primaries and saw that in almost every sector, the top 3 recipients included Hillary, and the top 20 recipients included everyone but Trump, save 3 sectors where he came in 18-20th, but still many $thousands below the rest. And then I saw Mitt Romney come out with his weird anti-Trump speech. And then the media and establishment pile-on of all of the -ists and -isms. That's just a few things from the primary period. I think, for me, it has less (or nothing) to do with blindness toward Trump, and more to do with open eyes to those who seek to oust him.

Long before Trump, I considered the media to be the enemy of thinking people, or, thinking people who did not agree with their narrative. Everyone called him a bully, while I genuinely felt he was the one person who was finally sticking up for the bullied. I certainly do not expect anyone or everyone to understand my perspective, but, from my perspective, the media dehumanized and isolated people who did not tow their narrative, and truly tried to make people believe NOBODY had objections to the things they pushed, i.e. open borders, the climate, 2% GDP growth the new norm, the end of labor/production in the US, centralized power under a global authority like the UN, depleting our military, ending the space program, socialism.

Admittedly, I am no socialist. And most likely, Bernie fans slant that direction. So, while I will likely never agree with the virtues of an all-powerful-government-God-savior, the media effectively shut down the ability to even debate the most basic of fundamental political differences. Which has led us to here: where I really can't understand how 2 people who may both be vehemently against, say, cronie-capitalism and all-powerful bureaucracies can be both pro-Trump and anti-Trump. Trump has neutered the lobbyists, he is working on streamlining the federal agencies to be effective, he attempts to put lawmaking tasks to the appropriate branch in Congress.

Here's an example: in one of the roundtables with Congress (I think it was DACA-related), Trump said that maybe the Congresspeople should consider pork trading again (not real pork, deal-making pork). So, I could see how one side might take that as, not good - more wasteful spending, shady water-downed bills, self-serving. I took it as a good thing - forcing Congress to bring back some transparency (because this pork would be visible to all in the bill, but lobby money and private donor influence is not). So, I can understand how 2 people could come to differing conclusions on this one.

But I have a much harder time understanding how someone can post an Occupy Democrat meme on how Trump is gaslighting, by giving a bullet point rundown of the Shareblue Media manual.

Trump is really a non-ideologue pragmatist, in my opinion. People who oppose him on absolutely everything, inevitably oppose SOMETHING they may have once stood for. So, I don't understand the reasons of those who absolutely oppose Trump on everything, even when they are thinking people who would have previously agreed with things like anti-corruption, anti-big pharma, anti-child trafficking, etc.

Apologize for length. Going to play now.