The political climates of late are characterized by what ends up being insane rhetoric from political associations.

While a few individuals might share the same level of insanity that the associations' tout, the slightly saner majority may only agree with a subset subsequently only loosely relating with the rest. Because certain elements may appeal (the sane snippets), individuals inevitably afford the whole of the association's rhetoric support.

When others start to attack the insane elements of this (extreme/biased) group and do so by discounting the association rather than the insane elements, individuals in support of the association view the opposition equally as insane - there are sane snippets that originally garnered individuals' support that fall under attack when the entire association is criticized.

To the followers, these common sense elements are much more comfortably defended than the actual inane ramblings and insane elements that originally provoked this external criticism of the association/group. Defending the association from a percieved "unwarranted external attacks" directed equally across all the association's rhetoric is a comfortable logical choice - the common sense snippets are justifiably and logically defensible and as such serve as justification for blind support of the association as a whole.

In other words...

• the association has rhetoric that generally is at least a bit crazy but also includes soft common sense tidbits that are relatable to the sane and insane individuals alike.

  • For brevity, I'll refer to these common sense tidbits, non-polarizing general truths, and universally shared values such as... "crime is bad", "no-one should starve to death", "never shake a baby", "think of the children", "___ is the root of evil in the younger generation today!", etc ...as [consensual common sense] $adages.

• because the average rhetoric leans on the crazy side, the entirety of the rhetoric within the group is viewed as crazy.

• external criticisms and attacks to the group as a whole occur.

  • those opposing often do so by writing off the entirety of the association
    
  • versus (appropriately) addressing their grievances at the crazy elements intentionally independent of any group affiliation to avoid others taking a defensive posture

• the [small] minority of those associating with the group individuals do so through all the rhetoric from the $adages to the $extremes - the subset comprising of the "most distinguishably insane snippets" within the rhetoric. These individuals are the only ones that would defend $extremes with the same fervor as the rest of the rhetoric.

1. most individuals that associate with the group do so primarily through $adages. These individuals do not lend support or defend $extremes viewing them at least in part as irrational or extreme. The issue remains regarding the reception of the remaining rhetoric after $adages and $extremes are removed. This in-between rhetoric is on $average slightly crazy from bluntly applied arguments, a few (minor) crazy elements within an argument, etc.

2. Individuals who are not on an opposite spectrum(s) that do not associate with the group might often have recognized the $average as to be slightly insane; only their support for $adages and possibly a few token items in $average remains as a minority of the overall group rhetoric. Without the ability to offer their general support for the group by granting a majority of the rhetoric the benefit of the doubt, these individuals avoid associations.

3. Individuals who
   Those that do not bluntly applied primary reason many lend their support; the reason the entirety of the rhetoric is not realized to misalign or cause issue (many do recognize this and do not support the group) backed by acknowledged appear crazy but the

   external criticism

   and craziness that comprises the rhetoric

4. Preferred over the uncomfortable alternative of addressing the "crazy half" and

   is preferred, practiced, and eventually preached in a now religious accusations

   religious touting political rhetoric these days; only to solidify and isolat this satire