In today's age its a bad bet to assume something isn't offensive to anyone.
The first one has a twitter background that reads, "make liberalism ridiculous again" and a long list of very "right" leaning tweets.
The second is full of the same concern trolling towards other media figures with their statements taken out of context - the exact thing you're expressing frustration with in the other thread. Also a republican.
The third's twitter avatar is literally "I <3 TRUMP"
The fourth, to his credit, admits in other tweets that he is a republican, wasn't actually offended, but was just making a point (you know, the thing you're doing now).
The fifth has an avatar of Pepe the Frog, and a background of Trump stylized like Duke Nukem, holding a gun in front of the American Flag, and a pinned tweet about the "alt-left being pedophiles".
I'll summarize the rest: I checked, and every single one of them are very outspoken republicans. I think I have you dead to rights here. If there is a non-republican somewhere in this country who was offended, you definitely didn't link to a yahoo article referencing any of them. The only thing you did was validate my point.
Anyway, I know what you're doing. Your point is that the other side is constantly doing this same type of thing to Trump. I agree, and I think it's out of control. The Washington Post has become as bad as Fox News. I used to see this from the lunatic-right and wonder how certain headlines alone were not setting off their skepticism alarms. Now I'm being flooded by the same type of thing from the lunatic-left. It does not leave much room for optimism.
The thing about this is that people aren't stupid, in the same way that a lot of people were willing to ignore Trump's misogyny. Asking "why would I care that the media is telling me it's terrible that Trump says things like this, when mainstream movies, TV, and music lyrics are full of stuff at least as bad?" is a legitimate question that nobody was even bothering to try to give them an answer to.
There are many common cases where someone refers to a group of people with the intention of meaning everyone while someone in the group interprets it as referring to a subset of the group. It stems from the ambiguity of the word people and the impact of tone and body language in conveying its ultimate meaning.
The final election results were Clinton 65,844,610 Trump 62,979,636 If you call the difference significant (2.2%), then what does that make the gross value of 62 million americans that might be turned off by his rant?
Even if this were a strictly cynical action on Colbert's part (and I don't think it is) you could make the argument that given Trump's unpopularity you might create more value out of bashing him than you lose from his supporters.
Moreover, I suspect that Colbert's target demographics skew richer, younger, and urban/suburban so he probably has less to lose and more to gain by alienating Trump supporters anyway.