At the most general level, your observation seemed to amount to: people believe what they want to believe, and often depends on others to support those beliefs. This seemed so obvious as to not need to even be said. Very common I would say. I felt the birther mythology was a perfect example of that dynamic in action.
However, you also applied that observation to myself directly, claiming I could somehow not be honest and simply admit that it applies to me as well. And, from that perspective, you are mistaken. Where my beliefs regarding Donald Trump is concerned, what material could be more primary then the man's own words? Not the words of pundants interpreting his words, which are secondary sources, but Trump's own words-primary sources, in other words.
As for my living, I was an historian, now retired. And thus I am accustomed to doing research that deals with primary sources. Thus, if I were doing research on the American Revolution for instance, and say perhaps the role of the Committees of Correspondence for instance, the primary sources would be the writings of the members of that Committee. It's possible you don't know the difference between primary and secondary sources. In the case of determining the ideas of Donald Trump, his own words are a primary source, in that respect. Hence, I do not simply believe what I want to believe, or depend on the political pundants as secondary sources. Get it? You applied to me an assumption, on your part, that was not based in the reality of the situation.
I provided you with the same primary material I have used in judging Trump. His own words, in the form of his rally speeches. They have all been available to watch and listen to. I may despise the man, but I prefer to do so based on what sick ideas he himself has espoused. Right there, in the public record, and a primary source for researchers to draw upon. And since this is a Trump thread, I think he is a good example for me to use in describing what the primary sources on in this subject-the man's own words.
