> "You didn't protest sufficiently about Obama, so you should approve of Trump's policies" is just a non sequitur.
The argument is that the current reaction doesn't make sense given recent history. So the current "debate" is instead a placeholder for a culture war, disappointment with the election results, or something.
That is, the non sequitur is the new levels of disgust. The non sequitur is resolved if you add some subtext that make Obama deserve a (perhaps begrudging) pass and Trump a fail.
> That argument works, but it's not actionable...
Sure it's actionable. Politicians apologize for letting Obama get a pass. Some writers rip Obama a new one in ex post facto editorials. Propose laws to make sure president's can't bomb countries without Congressional approval. Propose laws giving Congress more oversight into the visa process, etc. Shoot, propose Constitutional Amendments if the rights of foreign nationals aren't clear enough.
> The only good, useful argument to be made with this is that we should be more critical and more willing to make ourselves heard in the future
Honestly, being heard isn't the problem. Trump supporters know what others think. Corporate America literally has TV specials, policies, and training courses about this stuff. The people with different concerns are just on different wavelengths, so there's no conversation, just a big struggle over the reigns of power.
We need to actually understand others' arguments (so we can in turn be better understood) instead of wondering if we need to do a better job of making themselves heard.