Okay, let's do the whole point-by-point thing.

First - How is Islam in itself any more problematic than any other major Abrahamic religion? And I'm talking mainstream practice, not obscure snippets and Hadith that pretty much all have counterparts in the KJ or NIV Bibles.

Second - I actually leave the 'echochamber' fairly regularly. Enough to know that yes, Trump's announcement of his immigration policy drew completely bipartisan criticisms. Lindsey Graham, Reince Priebus, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Carly Fiorina, Marco Rubio, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Martin O'Malley - that's not even close to being an exhaustive list of US politicians from all sides who've publicly condemned Donald Trump over the Muslim issue. Sorry - completely forgot Paul Ryan, who described the proposal as "This is not conservatism," if I recall correctly.

Third - Ah, the "it was satire you guys!" defence. Given that Trump never really did condemn people outright beating a protester and continues to make light of the situation ("more fun than a forum" was how he described the incident at one rally) as he calls for people to look out for non-supporters, it doesn't look like much of a joke at all. In fact, if it is a joke, it's in terrible taste.

Annnnnd lastly we get to the crown jewel, the highlight, the shining star that is your final point. Yes. Yes regular folk will say no to support when they realise it's coming from literal neo-Nazies and white supremacists. There are charities and organisations all over who've actually declined money and support from such groups that you can find damned easily.

But let's say that it is perfectly normal to accept the support, regardless of where it came from. Don't you think it actually proves the point that the guy you say is nowhere near being far-right is the one who the far-right crowd finds the most appealing? That maybe, if his platform resonates so strongly with the far right, white supremacist crowds, it might just be that his platform is far-right?