Hardly. My first response was to simply post the Cognitive Dissonance link again, and answer snark with snark. But against my better judgment I'm going to try to appeal to you one last time on this, though I don't believe you want to see the comparison, and so you won't. I hate asparagus. I loathe it. My wife eats it all the time. I hate the smell, I hate looking at it, and when she eats it I get up from the table and go to the other room to eat alone. She thinks this is funny. I tell her "I cannot believe why you would eat that. Its utterly revolting to me." I simply cannot understand it. Yet, there she is, enjoying it. She would eat it regularly if not for trying to appease me. There are many such examples where someone cannot, for the life of them, understand someone else's desire or support of a principle or a thing or a food or a car or a person or a vacation spot or the weather, etc. This does not make that person wrong simply because you can't understand it. In fact, as I alluded to earlier, you most likely get the point, you just don't want to admit it. And let me pre-empt your mention of Hitler (I'm on to you, Fred) and say there are notable exceptions - the mass murder of people being a good one. But unless you can point to where Trump did some ethnic cleansing I am unaware of, it isn't a stretch to understand why a group of the population sees him as representing a better direction than the party that is pushing a total polar opposite to their beliefs. You like to group these people as "fringe". But well over 60 million people aren't "fringe". that's a massive swath of the population. You can't be so egotistical to believe you know better than all of them as to what is good for them.
Evidently, COVID-19, the thing that Trump denied as being a threat to anyone long after he knew it was dangerous, seems to affect minorities disproportionately. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/health-equity/race-ethnicity.html Does that count?
No, it doesn't. Not unless: 1. You can say with certainty that a different President would have zero fatalities. 2. You are willing to point to democrats like Cuomo who put the sick in with the elderly in NY and drove a good portion of that number you are blaming Trump for. 3. You are willing to lay all the deaths in Europe at the feet of all of their leaders as evidence of their failure as well.
Trump's performance with the pandemic is worse than that of any other First World leader. Zero? So you want to play the all or nothing game? Where Trump is given all manner of leeway but everyone else is stopped in their tracks at the first error? Which bring us back to: How do you keep on defending (yes, you are defending him) a pathologically lying sociopath?