Trump wasn't even in the conversation. The standing of people who voted for Trump wasn't in the conversation. You brought those in yourself. You not only assumed a political reasoning for the assertion, you then went on to introduce that to the discussion, and provide your opinion if that was the reasoning, but not in a constructive way ("it's ridiculous"). You continue to bring additional political arguments into this when I've been careful to note that it's not about politics, but about you assuming someone's reasoning using little or no evidence. That's not a useful way to have a discussion, and since my point was "doesn't really help the conversation" I think the state of this thread is ample evidence I was correct.

I assumed nothing. I actually put the Trump issue in there to avoid a political discussion, as I think everyone has had enough of the "Trump bad" crap from the Valley crowd. I was essentially saying "you needn't reply if this is the nonsense you have based your 'monster' comment on". It of course had the opposite effect because liberal heads explode when they see Trump's name written anywhere there is a comments section, but that wasn't the intent.

I think what we had is a failure of interpretation based on some ambiguity in the wording. To my eyes, it appeared not that you were trying to avoid that conversation, but starting it (see my other recent comment on this topic, in which I almost added the gist of this comment). This was, to use again an overused and currently debated term, me projecting. That said, I see this as a somewhat unavoidable part of communication, and I didn't necessarily meanit in a pejorative manner when I originally used it.

My original comment could have been paraphrased as "hey, please don't bring that stuff up without real cause or evidence if it's not the current topic. It's makes things toxic fairly quickly."

Euclid proved any and all support for some political figure is equivalent? That seems implausible.