There's no inconsistency in saying that lots of people (around 74 million) support a mentally ill con man. In logic, the appeal to popularity is fallacious for a reason. I've written lots of articles supporting those charges, so they're not just name-calling. Besides, at this point it's virtually self-evident that Trump is indeed both mentally ill (a malignant narcissist) and a con man. The evidence is overwhelming.
In this article it was Gilson who claimed the Democrats are "totalitarian," and I said that that claim is highly biased in light of Gilson's silence on the obvious "authoritarianism" of Trump's pseudo-presidency. I called it authoritarian, not totalitarian. That's because I wrote another article, called "Trump's Inept Totalitarianism," which shows why Trump's authoritarianism isn't in the classic totalitarian mold (link below).
As I say, Trump's "not competent enough to be a supervillain," because of his particular mental disorders. If the US were ancient imperial Rome and Trump was handed the keys to the kingdom, sure he'd govern like Nero or Caligula, like a depraved lunatic. But he lacks the skills to convert a democratic republic into a playpen for himself.
Likewise, he was never competent enough to be a Russian agent. Instead, he was (and still is) a Russian asset (a useful idiot of Putin). See also my "Why Hasn't Trump Started a War?"
The Democrats aren't totalitarian because they're neoliberal, meaning they let the free market dictate winners and losers instead of imposing centralized commands. Of course, that neoliberalism leads indirectly to economic imperialism via plutocracy, but the plutocrats control both parties in the US.
And the Democrats themselves aren't especially totalitarian because they're centrists (from Bill Clinton to Biden), so they reject the progressive "socialists" who agitate for more radical changes and who support cancel culture and other such fads of the coastal elites.
Also, I'm not a leftist. I'm more interested in naturalizing politics and in seeing beyond the political spectrum than in the traditional policy questions that fall on the left or the right ends of that spectrum.
I should note that you do a lot of name-calling and personal attacks, calling this or that "dumb" and "unserious." Do they teach you in Trumpland or in Americanized Christianity how to argue well?