Trump and reasonableness

From one of my readers (emphases are mine):

Renowned psychologists have speculated Trump is psychologically unstable manifesting text-book symptoms of ego-maniacal, narcissistic, and pathological conditions. Trump is crude, even vulgar, and seeks to cajole first, yet ever open to attempts to bully, intimidate, or sue by litigation into submission any he deems to have wronged him.

Now, if anyone may explain to me why any of this, and more, should be overlooked, and what in Trump is principled, moral, or virtuous, or in any way worthy of support, let alone a vote, please speak now.

I will.

A recent article in the New York Times called people who would vote for Trump "immoral."

Did they mean that those who would vote for Hillary are moral?

Trump "bribes" people to get his businesses moving forward, a word both the president and the female presidential candidate will approve.  The Democrat presidential candidate and her boss are up to their ears in bribes because they are moral.

Hillary takes bribes while exercising her duties as a high government official, to get her morals moving to her bank account.

According to the Times, Donald Trump is immoral taking care of business; Hillary, taking care of everybody's business by moving the contents of their bank accounts to hers, is moral.

That is the left-wing prog world for you.

The guy they don't like, you see, is immoral.

The criminal behavior of those they do like is moral.

Speech they don't like, of one who never took a bribe or needed to, is immoral.

Speech of those who were bribed throughout their lives, speech they approve of, is moral.

The Times is filled with so-called "intelligent" people without any street smarts or common sense.

The ignorance, agitation-propaganda, and self-deception the N.Y. Times spreads is moral.

From the CATO Institute's measurement of moral standing and "reasonableness" of voters across the ideological spectrum (the emphasis is mine):

One surprise in our data was that Trump supporters were not extreme on any of the foundations. This means that Trump supporters are more centrist than is commonly realized; consequently, Trump’s prospects in the general election may be better than many pundits have thought. Cruz meanwhile, with a further-right moral profile, may have more difficulty attracting centrist Democrats and independents than would Trump.

From one of my readers (emphases are mine):

Renowned psychologists have speculated Trump is psychologically unstable manifesting text-book symptoms of ego-maniacal, narcissistic, and pathological conditions. Trump is crude, even vulgar, and seeks to cajole first, yet ever open to attempts to bully, intimidate, or sue by litigation into submission any he deems to have wronged him.

Now, if anyone may explain to me why any of this, and more, should be overlooked, and what in Trump is principled, moral, or virtuous, or in any way worthy of support, let alone a vote, please speak now.

I will.

A recent article in the New York Times called people who would vote for Trump "immoral."

Did they mean that those who would vote for Hillary are moral?

Trump "bribes" people to get his businesses moving forward, a word both the president and the female presidential candidate will approve.  The Democrat presidential candidate and her boss are up to their ears in bribes because they are moral.

Hillary takes bribes while exercising her duties as a high government official, to get her morals moving to her bank account.

According to the Times, Donald Trump is immoral taking care of business; Hillary, taking care of everybody's business by moving the contents of their bank accounts to hers, is moral.

That is the left-wing prog world for you.

The guy they don't like, you see, is immoral.

The criminal behavior of those they do like is moral.

Speech they don't like, of one who never took a bribe or needed to, is immoral.

Speech of those who were bribed throughout their lives, speech they approve of, is moral.

The Times is filled with so-called "intelligent" people without any street smarts or common sense.

The ignorance, agitation-propaganda, and self-deception the N.Y. Times spreads is moral.

From the CATO Institute's measurement of moral standing and "reasonableness" of voters across the ideological spectrum (the emphasis is mine):

One surprise in our data was that Trump supporters were not extreme on any of the foundations. This means that Trump supporters are more centrist than is commonly realized; consequently, Trump’s prospects in the general election may be better than many pundits have thought. Cruz meanwhile, with a further-right moral profile, may have more difficulty attracting centrist Democrats and independents than would Trump.