If Trump had gotten elected as a "Democrat" but done the exact same things, Dems here would be supporting him.

True, except their top 3 candidates are all straight white men (unless Bloomberg gets displaced by Buttigieg). Remember that the SJW garbage is a means to an end: power. And Democrats are raving hypocrites.

These are the same people who decided to keep Governor Blackface and Lieutenant Governor Rape in power in Virginia.

The angle might be that he was "electable", but I'm really not even talking the primary but assuming that he's in the White House as a "Democrat". The rhetoric then would be that he's a great "uniter", "centrist", etc., and they'd be claiming credit for his accomplishments rather than shedding a single tear over crap like "children in cages", the travel ban, etc.. They'd be praising his tweets as tech savvy "man of the people stuff", in the tradition of FDR's Fire Side Chats, and showering Melania with compliments as the most elegant first lady since Jackie Kennedy.

Yep, a mindless bottomfeeding hack like you would definitely be singing Trump's praises here if he only had a "D" after his name.

Heck, you're willing to give equal support to candidates as vastly different as Michael Bloomberg and socialist Bernie Sanders, LOL, as long as they've got that "D". You'd even support Tulsi Gabbard if enough Democrats came to their senses to nominate her.

"Dems are too smart for him and have seen right through him for decades"

Too dumb when it comes to Comrade Sanders! Can't see through the Squad Loonies either?

Maybe, but having observed their behavior for years it's become clear that a massive percentage of Democrat sentiment and rhetoric is shaped by what the leftist media or ideological leaders tell them to think, get outraged about, etc.. If the media ignores or dismisses something so will they.

Hence the intense weeping and gnashing of teeth over Trump supposedly "keeping children in cages", when there wasn't a peep about Obama actually doing that. Similar patterns regarding the fairly innocuous travel ban (Obama and past presidents did similar things with no controversy; if anything it was just praised as competent national security management). On trade deals he'd be "fighting for American workers" with union backing, etc.. Rank and file Democrats didn't seem to mind when their office holders, including some of their current presidential candidates, voted for the border fence in the 2000s.

And do I have to even mention the insane flip flops on Russia, LOL?

I could see hardcore leftist activists grumbling about some of the things you mentioned (especially judges), but if the media is either ignoring or praising it I think on balance Democrats, including the bottomfeeder types on this board, would be defending and praising a Democrat Trump as a very effective, Clinton-style leader. Even now how often do judges get discussed here? It seems like they're mostly brought up by conservative posters.

In fact Democrats here have proved unwilling or unable to substantively discuss almost any issues.

Note how even when they argue with each other during this primary, it's mostly just "woke" PC name calling and alleged personal scandal stuff, rather than intelligent debates on policy or political philosophy. That was even the bulk of the attack by the candidates against Bloomberg on stage. That stuff would fall away during a general campaign as they rallied around their nominee. The biggest anti-Sanders Democrat on this board, who’s condemning Bernie as a “communist”, has also indicated that he’d still vote for him this fall if he gets the nomination.

The US left is more intellectually and morally bankrupt now than it's ever been.

No, it's completely the other way around. Even Trump routinely points out that Democrats' one virtue is how much they stick together, almost no matter what.

Franken and Weiner were expendable because Democrats were taking those spots either way. By contrast they stopped pushing to oust the Virginia Democrats I mentioned earlier when all three of their top officials became embroiled in blackface/rape scandals at the same time, and removing them would have meant the GOP Speaker would become governor.

It's all about power.

By contrast the Republican establishment immediately threw Roy Moore overboard, despite it being a dirty trick by the Washington Post and an accusation based on no good evidence that was full of holes, where even the accuser's own son publicly stated she was lying and he intended to vote for Moore. The national Republicans (basically led by Mitch McConnell) dropped support for Moore and condemned him without any due process, when the timing meant there was no GOP alternative so they were effectively letting Democrats steal what should have been a safe Republican Senate seat. The other Alabama GOP Senator, Richard Shelby, publicly announced he wouldn't vote for Moore just days before the election, which is widely seen as the tipping point costing him the still very close vote.

And Bloomberg was attacked in the primary by his rivals with a bunch of personal garbage that would....cease to be important to the media or most Democrats when they rallied around him in the general campaign if he got the nomination.

Though some of your examples are wrong,* I'd partly agree with your next to last sentence about "team" dynamics. But it's a difference of degree. Republicans are more motivated by substance than Democrats are, and rank and file Republican voters not in the professional pundit class are better able to discuss and debate substantive issues than modern Democrats are. On balance shifts in Democrats' opinions come from the top down, while shifts in Republicans' opinions come from the bottom up.

*Trump didn't condition aid to Ukraine on investigating his opponent, and Obama actually did far worse stuff than what Trump was falsely accused of, like weaponizing the IRS to suppress conservative groups prior to the 2012 election. Yet Lois Lerner pleaded the Fifth, Obama's DOJ stonewalled everything and shielded him from future investigations by passing out immunity like candy, and justice wasn't done.

Yet Republicans never impeached for Obama for that, Fast and Furious, the Benghazi deaths/lies, unconstitutional DACA amnesty, or anything else.

Obama was a career politician still early in his career. Republicans criticized him for never having a real job outside of politics, or at least having decades of political experience. By contrast Trump has been an enormously successful private sector figure for decades, famous and accomplished in various fields. A true outsider was needed because the base had become so disgusted with being sold out by the GOP establishment.

The Republican base and right leaning independents have been disgusted with slanted trade deals for many years. You’re confusing the GOP establishment with the rank and file base. As I said, Trump tapped into substance on trade and other issues, hence his populist appeal.

I agree that Republicans were louder about the deficit when Obama was in office, but in fairness Obama was much worse for the deficit than Trump has been, and blame for the current deficit is shared by Pelosi's Democrat House. There has been some grumbling from conservative fiscal hawks, however, as another Democrat thread on this board right now gleefully reports. But basically Trump has decided that there are more acute problems to deal with than the debt, which is a long term problem that will eventually require entitlement reform to solve (something Trump explicitly states he has zero interest in doing, one of the reasons Paul Ryan probably left).

Do you give credit to Trump for taking out Bagdadi, yes or no?