I support Trump now, but didn't when he first announced his candidacy. At the time, all I knew about Trump was what I remembered from tabloid articles I read when I lived in New York City in the 1980's. What those articles told me is that Trump had committed adultery, he is very wealthy, and he owned a lot of property, including the Plaza Hotel and a casino in Atlantic City. I later heard that he was on a TV show called "the Apprentice" but to this day I haven't seen even a commercial for it. My mother-in-law owned an apartment in his Trump Plaza building, now sold.
I lived in Europe when Trump announced his candidacy. At the time, not knowing any better, I accepted without question the media assertion that that Trump wasn't a serious candidate. When they described him as a "clown", I adopted the term in my communications with colleagues in the Netherlands. At some point before the 2016 election, I saw a full speech by Trump. Later, I saw a story about the speech in the media. Two things struck me about it. First, at no point in the full, unedited speech did Trump sound like a clown. Second, the media materially misrepresented his comments to make him sound like a racist. There is no doubt they did this. When they presented commentary on the speech, they edited it to eliminate context that undermined their claim of racism. From this point on, I stopped accepting media descriptions of Trump at face value.
That also means that I looked at alternate sources more carefully. My preference was to see Trump himself, unedited or live if possible. As far as I could tell, the media missed no opportunities to defame Trump by falsely reporting on his statements and actions, or artfully misconstruing his meaning. They did it so often that by the time the election came around, I thoroughly distrusted the media. From then on, I assumed that anything they wrote about Trump was false unless proven otherwise.
Backtracking a little further, I did not take an interest in politics until 2003, when I witnessed malfeasance on a military project I worked on for a large entertainment company. At the time, I thought of it as a few people trying to scam the government. In other words, it was about money, not politics. But then I read about some scandals involving the Clintons. Bill Clinton had personally authorized the money for my project and a few other related projects. The style of the other scandals I read about matched the signature of what I saw on my project. It was at that time that I realized I was conservative. Until then, perhaps because I was a vegan long-haired artist working in Hollywood, it never occurred to me that I might want to have any political ideas of my own. When I thought about it, I did not like the idea of politicians and their cronies profiting on the backs of taxpayers for no commensurate benefit. I also didn't like the idea of supporting what I saw as dishonesty, such as in the politicization of climate science, environmentalism in general, education, etc.
Getting back to Trump, if you bother looking for the original source of any mainstream (negative) story about him, you will discover either a liar, conjecture, or what amounts to purported telepathy to see Trump's motives. I believe telepathy is real but I do not believe that every reporter at the New York Times can exercise the ability at will when writing about Trump. If you look at what Trump actually does and says, you will get a completely different picture of him. I went from thinking he was a clown, compromised by multiple failed marriages and dubious businesses in New York to thinking he is one of the most honest men to have ever held political office.
Keep in mind, my original opinion was not based on evidence. It was based on what I read in the media, and that material, in turn, had an unsound basis. My current position is based on evidence. I have seen Trump fulfill promises in the face of fierce opposition. I have seen him maligned and even impeached for asking about a crime while the person who actually committed the alleged crime was ignored, then nominated for president. I saw Trump attacked for non-crimes, normal business practice, and often laudable activity. Meanwhile, his accusers clearly had to manufacture evidence to use against him and his allies, in every case using underhanded means to do it.
Even my anarchist uber-liberal hippie colleague in the Netherlands admitted that he was amazed by how vicious and dishonest the press was regarding Trump. Students, many of whom were Socialists, could tell the press was lying about Trump. They asked me about it occasionally, though I never brought up politics while I taught there.
In the end, I think the press has lied consistently, brazenly, and libelously about Trump. They have persuaded many, perhaps because they are their only source of news. In my case, I might never have discovered conservative news if not for the fact that I liked to paint way out in the middle of nowhere. On those long drives, I usually listened to CDs of John Denver singing about Colorado. One day, I got bored of that and turned on the radio. I heard Matt Drudge interviewing Ann Coulter. It was interesting enough to warrant further investigation, which I did when I got home.
If you look at the citations in anti-Trump books and articles, you will find they form a circular group that is ultimately self-referential and without any serious substance. They may refer to a real quote from Trump, but without important context. More often, they will cite another reporter's subjective impression of what Trump meant rather than what he actually said. If you look through the citations in a pro-Trump book, you are far more likely to find a full quote with context so that it cannot be misconstrued.
Over the years, several conservative news organs have been bought by liberals and co-opted to their cause. Disney bought Fox media a few years ago, Fox News excepted. However, shortly after taking control of every other Fox property, liberal leadership was installed at Fox and it became a liberal news outlet. The DrudgeReport became liberal more than a year ago. It is rumored to be the result of a sale but I have never seen confirmation. There are a number of conservative journals, like the New Republic, that have never supported Trump. Peter Schweizer's book, "The Secret Empire", explains why. There are just as many corrupt Republicans as Democrats.
After having had a few years to look it all over, I have come to the conclusion that the worst I can say about Trump is that he had a mistress and divorced more than once. Compared to the millions of dollars accepted by Republican and Democrat politicians from foreign donors (mostly Chinese), Trump comes off much better in the comparison. An interesting thing about Bill Clinton is that he did a lot of things I objected to, but the country was prosperous while he was president. I cannot say that for Obama. From what I saw from my vantage in Europe, Obama made America poorer and more dangerous. Trump did a lot of good by restoring American business and helping all Americans overall. He actually didn't start any wars, got us out of others, and accomplished more in the middle east than any American before him had even attempted to achieve.
I do not believe Trump is a racist. If I did, I wouldn't support him. I do not believe he has used the presidency for financial advantage. On the contrary, I wouldn't be surprised if he has lost money by becoming president. I do not believe he is incompetent, foolish, boorish, or dangerously aggressive. As far as I can tell, he is far more reasonable and intelligent than he is given credit for being. More than that, although I don't know him personally, I know several people who do. All of them have nothing but praise for him. They do not praise him for his intelligence or business acumen but for his kindness, which seems to be his most distinctive trait to those who know him.