- A few of the people you mentioned are somewhat polarising, so folks who dislike them, might downvote
- in a measure of a president's efficacy, mentioning people who think a president is ineffective isn't as convincing as say mentioning actions of the president that were ineffective. You will, for any president, be able to find a large number of people who will passionately argue for/against that president's effectiveness.
- Your sources are very long videos, which discourage verifying if folks want to see what they said about him. Eg "Here's why he's in effective: [3 hours of podcasts]"
- One of your sources is a podcast which features Trump himself, which greatly brings into doubt the objectivism of the video
- the Zuckerberg short is very speculative, further weakening this collection of sources
- https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/17/co-f...
- https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-07-16/andreesse...
- https://techcrunch.com/2024/07/16/andreessen-horowitz-co-fou...
Here's a broader article on Silicon Valley support for Trump (potentially paywalled):
- https://www.ft.com/content/e2ffd807-1c18-436c-9f70-2fa7181ac...
- The FT article includes the following names: Elon Musk, Marc Andreessen, Ben Horowitz, Shervin Pishevar, Keith Rabois, Chamath Palihapitiya, David Sacks, Doug Leone, Shaun Maguire, Joe Lonsdale, Jacob Helberg
Please keep in mind that not too long ago vocal support for Trump could get you fired (and still might). Fighting against censorship is important.
In other words: GP probably wants, in an ordinary setting, to have their views understood (why bother responding at all if not?). In which case they should similarly set aside some space for understanding why others don’t share them.