Actually, it’s only awkward if a person considers style and substance of equal importance.

For example, I don’t like Trump’s style but I like most of what he’s done (substance). But I consider the latter far more important than the former, so it’s not awkward at all.

Shepherd is very umble.
* * *
Indeed.
And persistent, which keeps things lively.

Where I come from we go one step further and have a saying that people as candid as Neo: “Call a spade a bloody shovel”.
* * *
I wanted to check the etymology (given that there are more things called spades than just shovels) and a similar idiom goes back to the Greeks, not surprisingly.
Wikipedia cites a Wildean twist:
Oscar Wilde uses the phrase in his novel The Picture of Dorian Gray (1890), when the character Lord Henry Wotton remarks: “It is a sad truth, but we have lost the faculty of giving lovely names to things. The man who could call a spade a spade should be compelled to use one. It is the only thing he is fit for.” [14] Wilde uses it again in The Importance of Being Earnest (1895).[15]

Disapproving of Pres. Trump because of his style while approving of (most) of his substance is awkward, to say the least.

If you don’t want your statements to be interpreted exactly as you write them, then I suggest you use different words that actually express what you’re trying to convey rather than words that give a different impression, such as absolutely believe.

I merely respond to what you write.

You, however, have a habit of mischaracterizing what other people (me, for example) write. You say [emphasis added]:

But according to you, the only reasons a Never Trumper might still be against Trump are superficial (his style, don’t want to admit we were wrong).

However, I actually wrote [emphasis added]:

I don’t buy the idea that most anti-Trump conservatives don’t really want the conservative agenda, or at least most of the conservative agenda. I think their main objections to Trump now are twofold.

So let’s recap. I did not say that “the only reasons a Never Trumper might still be against Trump” are confined to those two reasons. I was speaking specifically of most (not all, most) of the anti-Trump conservatives, who are still against Trump, despite his having for the most part implemented a conservative set of actions as president, and of their main (not only) objections to him.

And I was especially addressing the charge that if they didn’t support him at this point it meant they weren’t interested in implementing conservative ideas. RINOs and non-conservatives, of course, could easily have plenty of other reasons for not liking Trump, and some GOP Never-Trumpers are RINOs or at the very least non-conservatives.

And yes, I think the weight of evidence is against him, even if I don’t know all the details, as much as I believe the weight of evidence is against Clinton. DJT Jr and co eagerly took a meeting with someone representing the Russian govt and a Russian spy to explore derogatory info on Clinton, hid it, and lied about it. Papadapolous knew about Russian computer crimes against Americans and said nothing about it–the same crime Trump publically called on Russia to commit in his speech. Sessions, Flynn, Kushner all lied repeatedly about meetings with Russian govt. Trump dictated a response to the discovery of the DJT Jr meeing that prompted one of his lawyers to quit in protest. Trump is a con artist (Trump University) who lies constantly (more bills signed). If there’s no fire, then there’s sure a lot of smoke that needs explaining.

But according to you, the only reasons a Never Trumper might still be against Trump are superficial (his style, don’t want to admit we were wrong). Not that we are able to objectively weigh the evidence and reach a reasonable conclusion at odds with yours. No, you know better than me what’s in my heart and mind. What this really seems to amount to is, you don’t see any room for real conservative disagreement about Trump and continually threaten to loose your patience with me (ban me?. So the guy who rants about flat earth and demons controlling the government is ok but I’m a troll because I absolutely believe something. (Ever heard of Faith?)

Shepherd is very umble.

Sometimes it takes a Troll’s nudges to bring up a topic that is either tangential or orthogonal to the original discussion, which is a valuable service.
It’s Shepherd’s “aw shucks, Ma’am” rhetoric while trying to get a better opening for his knives that grates on me.