Terrible comment.
Re-read the very short and simple article, he specifically was not talking to or about your dislikes and complaints. He made that clear. Are you being dishonest or were you just not paying attention?
Good news though, now that you know you are dishonest or not paying attention, either one may have led you to have problems with Trump that you don't really have. For example, perhaps you are reacting to him emotionally out of ego, and therefore, just as above, have not paid close enough attention. If you did, you would support or not support one candidate over the other, rather than liking or disliking one candidate over the other.
Watch those emotions! They are not the same as intuitions after careful thought, and paying attention.
Funny thing is that even if your screed were correct, it would still prove my point, not yours. Because if I (and many others) found those reasons the author dismissed as credible -- even if that opinion was due to emotions or ego, then his entire premise collapses.
The author's premise is that because he believes those stated reasons "don't add up", the neocons don't really believe those reasons either, and that therefore, they are hiding their real motives, which he plucks out of thin air and states as fact. But perhaps they, like me and all the other Trump opponents (at least according to you) are instead being fooled by their emotions, not trying to hide some sinister motive deliberately left unstated.
And before you so self-assuredly assume that I've ignored the difference between the neocon's actions; and my beliefs, that's a distinction without a difference. I'll address two of the author's incredibly thin arguments to illustrate.
He dismisses objections that Trump is not a conservative because Bill Kristol supported Powell in 1996. That's just laughable on its face. Wholly apart from the fact that Bill Kristol is just one guy whose opinions are not binding on others, that comparison falls apart because 1996 is not 2016, and 1996 Colin Powell is not 2016 Donald Trump. In 1996, we rolled out the corpse of Bob Dole to challenge Bill Clinton, which conventional wisdom believed would be an easy Clinton victory. Turned out to be true, with Clinton besting Dole by 8.5% and winning 31 states to Dole's 19.
Colin Powell was extremely popular at that time, and would have been a far more formidable candidate than Dole. And, 1996 Colin Powell did not appear at that time to be much less conservative than Dole. In other words, there was no legit conservative alternative to Powell running for President who would have had a chance of winning, and Powell was perceived generally as being better than Bill Clinton. Colin Powell subsequently lost his mind in 2008 and emerged as...something, but that wasn't something everyone in 1996 knew would happen.
Contrast that 1996 situation with 2016, where not only is there now a conservative alternative, but we're facing a very damaged Hillary Clinton rather than the very popular Bill Clinton. Now of course, maybe you'll argue that Cruz isn't really a conservative, or that Trump really is, or that Cruz can't win. But correct or not, none of those points is so obviously false that people can't honestly hold those opinions.
Another objection the author pooh-pooh's away is the claim that Trump is "boorish". The author dismisses that by pointing out that McCain sung "bomb Iran", and therefore (so I assume the logic goes) nobody could really be bothered by anything Trump has said. Now there's an argument that is disingenuous on its face.
One thing in particular that bothers me about Trump's "boorishness" is that I've always supported conservatism as much more logical/rational than progressivism. So, I look for candidate who actually engages on those issues and addresses them intelligently.
But repeatedly, when challenged on substantive policy positions, Trump's response would be to talk about his poll numbers, and to mock others for being lower in the polls. Sometimes, he'd mock someone's poll numbers (or audience numbers in the case of Hewitt) without them even attacking him at a debate. To me, that was junior high level crap, and completely unworthy of the person who is supposed to be the leader of the party/country. I wanted to hear answers to those questions, not personal putdowns of the people who were asking them.
I understand that there are legitimate reasons to support Trump, and I can see why some folks do. I think those arguments are legitimate even if I don't personally find them convincing. But the dismissal of all the objections to Trump as if they all don't matter at all, and don't genuinely concern a lot of people, is just bush-league, condescending crap.