[Lkjhmnbv]

Because it has no basis in reality, as evidenced by the fact that, in the examples provided, he's demonstrated more morality than anyone else in politics.

I'm not really sure why this is confusing. If you think he doesn't think things through, you have to explain the counter examples.

Otherwise you're just ignoring reality and cherry picking facts.

[Skrillex]

Would you say that your argument is essentially "This person is wrong in such a way that would not be possible without irrationally hating the president"? If that were the case, I would argue that people can be wrong for any reason(s), which seems like a truism to me.

As for the counter-examples, you have not provided any. You are arguing that the president is the most moral politician (which, while an extraordinary claim, has not been disagreed with by anyone in the thread as far as I can tell), while I am arguing that someone's lack of belief that the president thinks long and hard about his moral positions is not sufficient evidence that such a person has an irrational hatred of the president. I would normally have left it there since we may not even be talking about the same thing, but it seems like your argument is for a unified theory that not only is the president moral, but he is moral to the extent that the belief earlier expressed is evidence that the person holding it both hates the president, and does so irrationally. I was wholly incredulous of that claim, but was seeing if there were some obvious part of it that I missed. That is the confusing part. Does statement actually make sense to you without 5 or 6 extra assumptions in between?

[Lkjhmnbv]

That is correct. You have no concrete examples of immorality, merely gross generalizations. When presented with cases showing that he is more moral than people you defend, you obfuscate and ignore and claim incredulity, because you have no argument.