Not sure what that matters here...

So, because you know of no Trump supporters who are certain(crystal clear) of what's important, there are none?

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

That claim is true(or not) regardless of Street. If Street claims that Trump supporters are crystal clear about what's important, then I would have to agree. That standard(being crystal clear about what's important) is determined, established, and met exclusively by what they believe at any specific time. I do think it needs further quantification/qualification.

The general objection I'm levying is the personal devaluation/degradation of Trump and/or 'Trump supporters' as a means to affect/effect the necessary changes.

There are better ways to shed much broader light upon the situation at hand. Some of those ways can and do affect/effect significant change not only in the minds of some Trump voters, but also in the minds of many others who yet to have seriously considered the past forty or so years of American legislation and it's effects/affects.

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? — praxis

The point is that the right understands that politics is about power - taking control of institutions, putting 'their man' or men in positions to exert that power, legislating, using the courts, etc. They understand that politics is not a matter of mere knowledge, it isn't some kind of shallow epistemic game where 'getting the knowledge right' will transform things on its own, nor some kind of axiological effort where if only everybody thought 'correctly' things would magically fall into place.

Jerry Falwell exemplified this in one of his tweets a little while ago: "Conservatives & Christians need to stop electing ‘nice guys’. They might make great Christian leaders but the US needs street fighters like @realDonaldTrump at every level of government". There are entire swathes of Trump critics who would be quite satisfied if they got themselves a 'nice guy', someone who 'acts presidential', and who adheres with dignified airs to 'norms'. They can all go fuck off.

The point is that the right understands that politics is about power - taking control of institutions, putting 'their man' or men in positions to exert that power, legislating, using the courts, etc. — StreetlightX

It is one thing to recognise the Machiavellian nature of politics. It is quite another to run on a platform of Machiavellianism. One cannot serve one's principles without power, but if power is the only principle then one is a slave to a black hole indeed. Politics is made of power, but it is not about power. Only princes are addressed, not democrats.

The point is that the right understands that politics is about power — StreetlightX

That itself is a misunderstanding. As you seem to have taken Thrasymachus' position on justice, 'might is right', you would probably benefit from a more thorough reading of "The Republic". :"Power" can only be attributed to the will of the individual, and that's why the person who is capable of doing the most good is also capable of doing the most bad. Politics, in its true nature, involves one of these, and not the other. The idea that a party can hold power is a form of nonsense which Plato reduces to nothing other than 'mob rules'.

Mob rule is a rough sea for the ship of state to ride; every wind of oratory stirs up the waters and deflects the course. The upshot of such a democracy is tyranny or autocracy; the crowd so loves flattery, it is so hungry for honey, that at last the wiliest and most unscrupulous flatterer, calling himself the ‘protector of the people’ rises to supreme power (565).

One cannot serve one's principles without power, but if power is the only principle then one is a slave to a black hole indeed. Politics is made of power, but it is not about power. Only princes are addressed, not democrats. — unenlightened

All true. An understanding of power doesn't lead to any particular manner of its wielding in one way or another - but it does help a great deal in leading to its wielding at all. I'm just arguing that we cannot afford to be naive about this stuff, and that if we do, we're not merely ineffective, but counter-effective - we make things worse.

Trump’s latest move, pulling troops from Syria. This will clearly ruffle some republican feathers.

I'm a tad torn on this. On the one hand the US should quite clearly fuck off from anywhere in the world where possible, and this might count as a nice step toward that. On the other hand, it's infuriating that of all the places to abandon, it's this one, in which the US is basically leaving their closest allies (literally, the Kurds have done more to fight ISIS than anyone else in the region, and successfully) to rot. And for the sake of Erdogan, that slimy piece of shit, no less. It's actually pretty disgusting.

The point is that the right understands that politics is about power - taking control of institutions, putting 'their man' or men in positions to exert that power, legislating, using the courts, etc. — StreetlightX

This will sound terribly obvious but it appears to be the case that the Left is just as adept at taking control of institutions, getting their leaders in positions of power, etc.

I'm a tad torn on this. On the one hand the US should quite clearly fuck off from anywhere in the world where possible, and this might count as a nice step toward that. On the other hand, it's infuriating that of all the places to abandon, it's this one, in which the US is basically leaving their closest allies (literally, the Kurds have done more to fight ISIS than anyone else in the region, and successfully) to rot. And for the sake of Erdogan, that slimy piece of shit, no less. It's actually pretty disguising.

I am too and for the same reasons. I mean the move does suit Trump’s isolationist stance, but we do owe the Kurds a great deal. I do think the Middle East should be policed by those closest to it, but we’ve spent so much time there that pulling out would create quite the vacuum.

This will sound terribly obvious but it appears to be the case that the Left is just as adept at taking control of institutions, getting their leaders in positions of power, etc. — praxis

News to me.

Sorry, I just have to share Trump’s red lines in regards to his withdrawal.

Regarding power positions, the Left has supposedly taken higher education, the arts and entertainment industry, most news networks.

How did the Right fumble those positions?

Regarding power positions, the Left has supposedly taken higher education, the arts and entertainment industry, most news networks.

How did the Right fumble those positions?

That’s very true. The reach and influence of the left is profoundly large. I’m not sure how they can lose, but they often do. It makes me wonder if the power of propaganda and indoctrination is vastly overstated in a world of decentralized information.

It makes me wonder if the power of propaganda and indoctrination is vastly overstated in a world of decentralized information. — NOS4A2

That’s funny, coming from a Trump supporter. It’s all about branding and speaking to a specific audience. Trump is good at that, but he’s a one trick pony with minority support who’s “strategy” seems to now only be growing opposition. This despite a good economy. That’s remarkable.

if Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom...

What a clown.

That’s funny, coming from a Trump supporter. It’s all about branding and speaking to a specific audience. Trump is good at that, but he’s a one trick pony with minority support and a growing opposition. This despite a good economy. That’s remarkable.

It’s like the Russian influence canard. Facebook ads and twitter bots can influence the American public far better than the entire liberal media complex, academia, Hollywood, Washington and Silicon Valley combined,

Regarding power positions, the Left has supposedly taken higher education, the arts and entertainment industry, most news networks. — praxis

Two points. First, most of the 'leftism' espoused by these institutions is a kind of effete liberalism that has little if not nothing to do with mass mobilization and democratic participation, concerned far more with crafting feel-good stories than actually challenging anything of the status quo. Second, you just need to follow the money: arts, entertainment, and news are mostly run by billionaire classes funding millionaire patrons, much of which is hugely anti-competitive and reeks at every point with the waft of privilege. If these are the bastions of the left, then the left is truly dead. Higher education is not too different, with universities increasingly run as for-profit vocational training institutions even as they remain largely committed to freedom and diversity of research. And this to say nothing about the function of higher education - in the US at least - as plunging students and their families into crippling debt right at the beginning of their adult lives. Mark Fisher's writings on the bureaucratization of higher-education ought to dispel any sense in which the left has any kind of control here.

These places constitute the zombie left, one mostly utterly enchained to the most brutal workings of capital, reproducing at every level the current state of affairs. And what little leftism is there is largely entirely ineffectual, reduced to woketivism that has been perfectly integrated into advertising and marketing. They nonetheless serve as a nice foil to the right, who have always despised the intellectual and the artistic, if merely on principle, regardless of what comes out of those institutions.

That’s funny, coming from a Trump supporter. It’s all about branding and speaking to a specific audience. Trump is good at that, but he’s a one trick pony with minority support and a growing opposition. This despite a good economy. That’s remarkable.

It’s like the Russian influence canard. — NOS4A2

The intelligence community seems to think that it was influential to some degree. Trump has proved to be a destabilizing force and accommodating to Russia in many instances, so, worth the effort, apparently.

The question was how did the Right fumble those positions if they’re so much better at taking and maintaining positions of power. To me it suggests that the picture you’ve painted is largely fictional.

And the point was that your question was misconceived and ill-thought.

Or maybe your conception of how this all comes together is false.

Sure, ok buddy.

The intelligence community seems to think that it was influential to some degree. Trump has proved to be a destabilizing force and accommodating to Russia in many instances, so, worth the effort, apparently.

The result is a crusade against “fake news”, which found credence in the EU and elsewhere. This is something the Chinese did to justify censorship of the internet.

In your response to my question you generally claim that the Left doesn’t take advantage of these positions for various reasons or that they don’t actually hold them. This doesn’t address why the Right doesn’t hold them, and demonstrate their skill at taking and maintaining positions of power. No one is going to buy that conservatives ‘despise the intellectual and the artistic’, if that’s supposed to be a reason.

Regarding Mark Fisher's writings, at a glance you seem to be suggesting that Liberals are somehow anti-capitalist or anti-rational?

That standard (being crystal clear about what's important) is determined, established, and met exclusively by what they believe at any specific time. I do think it needs further quantification/qualification. — creativesoul

People can be easily mislead about what’s important, by appealing to base impulses, if not other methods. If this were not true then advertising and salesmanship would be completely ineffectual.

I agree that this could use further elucidation.

I’m not sure how they can lose, but they often do. — NOS4A2

If we're talking the US, specifically, the Republicans have been very good at using the weaknesses of the US democratic system to their advantage. They don't really win popular votes anymore, but they do win seats.

The result is a crusade against “fake news”, which found credence in the EU and elsewhere. This is something the Chinese did to justify censorship of the internet. — NOS4A2

Slippery slope fallacy? Fake news are hugely problematic for a democracy, since they make it difficut to implement policies based on facts.

In your response to my question you generally claim that the Left doesn’t take advantage of these positions for various reasons or that they don’t actually hold them. — praxis

It's not really "the left" holding these positions. Academia may, in general, be more left-leaning than other sectors of the economy, but that's not a new phenomenon. What looks like "the left" holding power is actually just the mainstream having shifted to the left, especially on social issues.

The idea that main stream media and the entertainment industry have been taken over by "the left" is actually somewhat laughable. It could only look that way if you were way over on the right.

Slippery slope fallacy? Fake news are hugely problematic for a democracy, since they make it difficut to implement policies based on facts.

Fake news, lies, satire, misinformation, propaganda etc. are natural features of democracy. Censorship is problematic for democracy, given that free speech is fundamental to it.

Fake news, lies, satire, misinformation, propaganda etc. are natural features of democracy. Censorship is problematic for democracy, given that free speech is fundamental to it. — NOS4A2

I disagree about misinformation and propaganda being natural features of a democracy. Quite the opposite. The whole point of democracy is to hold the government accountable to it's subjects. That cannot work if those subjects don't receive accurate information. Lies are not protected speech.

Unless a government institutes a comprehensive lockdown of the internet like China's great firewall, censorship isn't really a threat.