Depending on how he did it, yes. How something is done is as important as what is done. There are far too many "ends justify means" people, and the ends do not justify the means. If Trump saved all of humanity, ended cancer, global warming, terrorism, war and infant mortality. And all he had to do as kill half the population... that's a bad thing. What if he only had to kill... 10 good people?
I think that these specific people I've pointed to (Clinton, Lemon, etc.) are ignorantly believing that all Trump supporters are morons, yes. I absolutely have considered that they aren't doing so ignorantly, and I've concluded that they most certainly are doing so ignorantly.
No, not depending on how he did it. They don't get that far. They're lucky if they even get to what specifically he did. It stops at "Trump did." If he did something, they're sure it's wrong/bad.
Ok, you can't say "Some people would complain about the man curing cancer" and then say "No no, they'd complain BEFORE he actually did it." Because those aren't the same sentences. I quoted the words, and responded to those words, and yes, based on this statement that I quoted, it absolutely would depend on how he did it... because he can't have done it if he didn't do it. If you mean to say "Some people would complain if Trump started an initiative to cure cancer" please say that. But don't respond to anything I say as if you had said that. Because you didn't.
Then we disagree. They just think that all people who disagree with them are morons. And that isn't based on ignorance. That's called arrogance.
Do any of them have a tweet from many years ago that could be in any way interpreted as racist or sexist?
No good person uses Twitter. I think this is verifiable by being able to find tweets that can be interpreted as racist and/or sexist.
No, wrong. I didn't say they'd complain "before he actually did it." The act has already been done, whether that act is curing cancer, solving the environment crisis, or making peace in the Middle East. I said they'd complain upon hearing that he did something (again, the act is already done), before hearing what it was he did, even if what he did was something like curing cancer. Because it doesn't matter what the act itself is to these people. If Trump did the act, it's automatically bad, wrong, and probably racist. If the headline is "Trump Takes Action, Develops Cure for Cancer in White House Laboratory," they stop reading after "Action" and have already determined that its bad because Trump and action = bad, to them. And even if, at some point, they find out that the action was that he cured cancer, they find a way to spin it into something bad. It's like when we killed al-Baghdadi, and his Washington Post obituary called him an "austere religious scholar," and everyone complained about how Trump acted around the dog.
