You won't like this comparison, but Sam Harris has a phrase that if you can't stand up to radical islamism and condemn it without 'but's, that's failing a moral litmus test.
Supporting Donald Trump is IMO such a test. I can't understand why it is not black and white clear that a candidate who so openly says he WILL erode constitutional rights and institutions is not fit to be president, issues that are unaffected by whatever mean things the supporters of the other candidate might say.
I agree rejecting Donald Trump should be a litmus test and Douglas Murray, Gad Saad and (sadly) Slavoj Zizek failed miserably. Trump is a man who suggested violence and imprisonment of his opponent, encouraged supporters to throw punches, intimidated reporters who said things he didn't like, and promoted war crimes involving killing civilians, among many, many other other things, each of which should have disqualified him instantly. It's hard to fathom how awful his election is. I would take some convincing that a good and proper thinking person would have any hesitation in rejecting him completely. Bye, bye Saad, Murray and Zizek.
By the way I have no trouble condemning radical Islam without reservation if by radical Islam we have in mind people like ISIS, the Saudi regime, and extremists who plot terror across the world. Who really has reservations about that? Are there good examples Harris points to? The trouble with Harris is when he attempts to extend and smear Muslims in general and paint the whole religion as essentially evil.