Well, we could start by not intentionally interpreting everything he says in the most negative way possible to make him look as bad as possible.
For example, his comments on the Civil War were completely reasonable. He detailed the long lead-up to the war, including Andrew Jackson's role, and asked a profound philosophical question about why it was America had to resort to such a level of infighting.
How did the media and #NeverTrumps interpret this? As Donald Trump being ignorant on the subject. They took his question on why was there a Civil War, and framed it as Trump not knowing the root causes behind the war, rather than the rhetorical, philosophical question it clearly was.
The media has flipped the principle of charity on its head with Trump. A good start to being fair would be, you know, not doing that.
I was curious. We don't need to interpret everything he says as the worst possible message, the MSM will do that for us. Still, he does step in it from time to time. While that sort of controversy played well for him in the election cycle dominating airtime and other media, it really gets in the way of governing. The media who had the issues of Newsweek all printed and distributed showing President Hillary on the cover were gobsmacked when she lost (to my immense and intense pleasure), but have recovered and will go into full court press against Trump. It fits their delusions, and I'm just waiting for the psychotic break.
Not all who did not support Trump are Liberals, and most on the Conservative end of things have cautiously steeped back and are looking at what he does, what he tries, and ever look askance at the media. Many are former Cruz supporters who fully understand that the media lies, but also that it is human nature to embrace the messages which fit one's own prejudices before seeking the facts, should those ever be brought to light, intentionally or otherwise.
While Trump will not get a pass or interpretive concessions (he will be taken literally), the assumption is not necessarily the worst. Confirmation of that, should it be the case, is preferred.
Most people here prefer to have the facts, and will post articles from a variety of sources that they might be debunked. That takes facts, and not just a shout-down as I have seen elsewhere, so welcome aboard.
I think you will find most folks here, if not entangled in some silly pissing match, are fair.