Cooperation for mutual benefit would not require force in a truly unified society, so all you appear to saying is that you either don’t believe such unity is possible or that you simply prefer divisiveness. If you prefer divisiveness, perhaps it’s because, like Trump, it’s an ingrained habit and you can’t live any other way.

The “conservative” party is by nature less receptive to change, is un-progressive, so how can it be that they appreciate “altering the landscape” better than progressives?

The point, I think, was to point out the power in the consequences of the narrative. Which terms are used to talk about which things makes all the difference in the world when it comes to how people feel and/or think about those things...

Bernie=Socialism=not American=bad

You get the picture.

The Republican narrative has been very cohesive and it has dominated much of the public discourse.

Cooperation for mutual benefit would not require force in a truly unified society, so all you appear to saying is that you either don’t believe such unity is possible or that you simply prefer divisiveness. If you prefer divisiveness, perhaps it’s because, like Trump, it’s an ingrained habit and you can’t live any other way.

Not only do I believe a “truly unified” society is not possible, it is not preferable, especially when it comes to politics.

The Republican narrative has been very cohesive — creativesoul

Right, I was trying to suggest that it’s cohesive by nature, and therefore resistant to alteration.

If nothing else, you lack imagination.

I would ask why you believe an uncooperative society is preferable but... that would require an explanation.

I agree that the Republican narrative is resistant to change. I do not attribute that resistance to it's cohesiveness.

Look at the governmental institutions. Look at what they've done. Does it make sense for an institution like the Department of Education to take action which increases the the inequality of American education? Does it make sense for the Environmental Protection Agency to rescind earlier regulations that were deemed mandatory for protecting the environment? Etc.

An example: earlier StreetlightX suggested it was a good thing that the Right was demonizing (Venezuela, anyone?) progress proposals like the Green New Deal. As I see it, this is fuel for further entrenching their beliefs and attitudes. It’s not changing their attitudes. Are they pretending to be manipulated or are they actually being manipulated?

Trump supporters believe that ‘big government’ is bad (don’t ask them why), so any move towards privatization or deregulation is good.

That's too broad a brush. Not all Trump supporters think/believe the same things. Explanations with supporting facts easily show/prove beyond a reasonable doubt that regulations are inevitable. "Big government" is horoscope language. Fill it out as one sees fit.

That's too broad a brush. — creativesoul

The broader the better, and clearly facts don’t get in the way.

To quite the contrary, the only thing that all Trump supporters have in common is that they are Trump supporters.

Those who've reasoned their support are prone to reason their way out, but not if they are vilified for being a Trump supporter.

The general claim that I object to is that Trump supporters are crystal clear about what’s important.

Could the typical Trump supporter reasonably explain why small government is more beneficial than a larger one? Or why fossil fuel is a better investment than renewable? Or how the benefits of spending tens of billions on a boarder wall outweighs the cost? Etc.

I think that to a large degree it amounts to sheer tribalism. And I doubt they even realize how important the tribe is to them.

Interesting side observation. Sanders is turning out the be the formative anti-thesis to Trump, (given the narrative thus far). The more radical Trump's rhetoric the more empowered become Sander's words. He's leading in fundraising, momentum, polls (directly pitting him against Trump).

It would be such a reality check (catharsis, redemption?) and a testament to American political sanity if Sanders gets elected.

You've flippantly dismissed out of hand and/or derided everything I've explained, so I'm not sure you deserve one.

It’s just words, don’t be such a snowflake.

I think you deserve to make sensible claims, and thinking through your senselessness is a good first step to getting what you deserve.

The general claim that I object to is that Trump supporters are crystal clear about what’s important. — praxis

I'm not at all certain how you would ground such an objection.

Assuming sincerity in speech...

All who claim knowledge of what's important are crystal clear about what's important to them(at the time of speaking). I see no reason whatsoever to deny that simply because a person is a Trump supporter.

You've flippantly dismissed out of hand and/or derided everything I've explained, so I'm not sure you deserve one. — NOS4A2

What's the difference between invoking executive privilege and abusing it?

Freud (Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego) on Le Bon's The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind (1895):

[According to Le Bon]...a group is extraordinarily credulous and open to influence, it has no critical faculty, and the improbable does not exist for it. It thinks in images...It respects force and can only be slightly influenced by kindness, which it regards merely as a form of weakness...A group...is subject to the truly magical power of words; they can evoke the most formidable tempests in the group mind...' Reason and arguments are incapable of combating certain words or formulas'...Groups have never thirsted after truth. They demand illusions and cannot do without them. They constantly give what is unreal precedence over what is real; they are almost as strongly influenced by what is untrue as by what is true. They have an evident tendency not to distinguish between the two...[Le Bon] ascribes both to the ideas and to the leaders a mysterious and irresistible power which he calls 'prestige'. Prestige is a sort of domination exercised over us by an individual...It entirely paralyzes our critical faculty, and fills us with astonishment and respect. It would seem to arouse a feeling like that of fascination in hypnosis..."

I'm curious...

When it comes to establishing the standard, the metric, the criterion for what counts as a clear cut case of an American president abusing the executive powers granted to the office of the presidency...

When it comes to what constitutes being an abuse of power...

Will we demand an originalist interpretation of the Constitution?

I do.

Will we demand an originalist interpretation of the Constitution?

let’s hear it.

You'll see it for yourself. Hang tight. Keeping watching. I know you will. You're a media puppet like others here.

Have you read the Mueller report? Have you read the transcripts of the Mueller testimony? Have you watched the video footage?

You never answered the question. Will you demand an originalist interpretation?

You never answered the question. Will you demand an originalist interpretation?

I demand to hear your originalist interpretation of abuse of power.

Demand in one hand... shit in the other...

All who claim knowledge of what's important are crystal clear about what's important to them(at the time of speaking). I see no reason whatsoever to deny that simply because a person is a Trump supporter. — creativesoul

StreetlightX made the claim, not any Trump supporters that I know of.