OK ... let's see then.
Well it may be two sides of the same coin. I knew a little of Trump (not Apprentice and the public persona ... but had seem him testify in front of congress, knew about his brother and what it taught him, heard him talk about his period of business failure and what THAT taught him, and also happened to date a women once who live in Trump Tower in NYC and was on the board of trustees for that building. So I pretty much knew what we'd be getting.
For me it was who he was as a man, the fact that his favorite author and thinker (when it comes to political philosophy, philosophy of man acting in 'the world', and ... freedom in general ... and abject disdain for collectivist thinkers and philosophies - Ayn Rand.
Now to me, I didn't and don't care specifically if he disrupts. But if he were to pursue what matters to him, which is what he would do, then yeah, he would disrupt, but 'disruption in general' is ... well ... too general. Lots of people could disrupt, and not do anything GOOD. Bernie Sanders was a disrupter.
So maybe you just wanted a nuke to go off. I disagree with that. We needed the power of nuke but not energy blowing out in all directions. We needed specific direction. I think MOST people who voted for Trump wanted a specific type of power and action ... and ... yeah ... were the man to fulfill that ... then yes ... in effect it would be disruptive. But 'Disruptive' alone is not the point, and I don't think most just wanted plain old disruptive.
So I objected to the characterization that that's what he was elected to do because it's not what he not elected 'to disrupt', and conservatives who supported him weren't just looking to blow up the system. (That's the job of Antifa and Occupy ... i.e. nihilists.)
Sometimes correcting something is disruptive, and sometimes stopping a force of evil is disruptive. But really he was elected, to STOP the disruption to our lives that is the left and restore ORDER and rationality rather than to cause chaos or blow up the system.
To say 'he was elected to disrupt is to underestimate many and I think probably most who voted for him. But perhaps we are arguing semantics. I would say 'well of course what he would do would WIND UP being disruptive, but mere disruption is not the point, and mere disruption would accomplish none of the things we want restored, i.e. sanity, order, and respect for the principles that made the US great in the first place.
Good. We’re on the same page.
In my industry (semiconductors) a disruptive technology is the grail every engineer and investor seeks.