>

One of the best things the republicans did for their image is convince millions of people that the actual word conservative and the theory behind their whole political party is not based on a theory that freedom is bad because it destroys the social heirarchy. When that is the whole theory behind their ideology. 
They literally convinced a the world that the word conservative isn't bad when the textbook definition of conservative is literally "adverse to change". 
It makes me sick that so many working class people who dream of wealth and power think they are conservative when their dreams are the exact opposite of their parties goal.
It actually shows he received a five million dollar refund in 2020. >

Which is nothing compared to the $72 million refund he got in 2010
Trump’s Seventy-Three-Million-Dollar Tax Refund Is the Biggest Outrage of All

From 2005 to 2007, this latest Times scoop reveals, he did finally pay about seventy million dollars to the Internal Revenue Service. But then, in 2010, he demanded a full refund for those tax payments. And the I.R.S. acceded to his request: it paid him $72.9 million, including interest. This 2010 refund seems to be at the center of an auditing dispute between Trump and the tax authorities that has dragged on for almost a decade. It also appears to be the money that Michael Cohen, Trump’s former personal lawyer, was referring to in his 2019 testimony to Congress, when he recalled Trump showing him a huge check from the U.S. Treasury and remarked that Trump “could not believe how stupid the government was for giving someone like him that much money back.” >

Might be a dumb question, but was any of this legal?  Like did he just exploit some bullshit loopholes, or was it full on fraud? >

Trump reported that his businesses incurred major losses hence the refund. It's those losses he reported that is in question. >

His expenses are pretty suspicious too. >

The report also revealed that the mandatory IRS audit for 2016, wasn't actually going on at all. It didn't get started until 2019, the day that the new Democratic chair requested info on the "ongoing" audit. >

Its funny watching Elon Musk and others pretend the FBI was out to get Trump. Clearly multiple agencies, including FBI, IRS, DOJ and DHS were all very compromised in favoring Trump and that had to come from Trump and his appointees. >

In-group loyalty is a foundational value of conservatism. Fox News and the right-wing blogosphere have taken it to a level where any sort of criticism must be coming from outside sources. 
Notice that liberals are OK with removing and punishing wrongdoers within their own parties, e.g. Al Franken. In conservative circles, it's always the deep state or some shit. >

Yup. Frank Wilhoit (not that Frank Wilhoit):  

There is no such thing as liberalism — or progressivism, etc.
There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political analogue of Gresham’s Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation.  
There might be, and should be, anti-conservatism; but it does not yet exist. What would it be? In order to answer that question, it is necessary and sufficient to characterize conservatism. Fortunately, this can be done very concisely.  
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: 
There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. 
There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.  
For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual.  
As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence.  

(emphasis mine)
It tracks with the moral foundations theory: social conservatives have a "diverse" morality where moral values of in-group loyalty, respect for authority, and sanctity/purity ~~compromise~~ 'are valued "equally" to' moral values of fairness, care/harm (to others), and liberty. Worst of all? They genuinely believe they’re good, righteous people. >

This fits alongside what recent research has revealed to be the differences in world belief between conservatives and liberals. We used to think conservatives saw the world as more dangerous, but researchers were missing a piece of the puzzle. Now we know both conservatives and liberals see the world at similar levels of danger; It’s hierarchical worldview that’s different. 
The link to the journal study is paywalled, but the link above goes to an article that discusses it. Here’s an excerpt too: 
“Now we get to it: of all the 26 primal world beliefs, the main difference by far between liberals and conservatives—a difference 20 times larger than the difference in dangerous world belief—concerned a primal called hierarchical world belief. This primal had emerged from our big 2019 statistical analysis with us having no idea at the time that it would matter for politics (or anything else).
Hierarchical world belief is not the view that hierarchies exist—everyone would agree with that—but that hierarchy is inherent to reality. It’s part of the natural order. Not imposed. Not artificial. And not just regarding people. For plants, animals, people, everything, it’s just the way the world is.
Folks who see the world as hierarchical think that almost everything in the world can be ranked from better to worse. Differences probably matter because they distinguish things of more value from things with less. So, when in doubt, respect differences.
(And don’t be fooled into thinking that only those on top think the world is inherently hierarchical. People across social hierarchies appear to see the world as inherently hierarchical at similar rates.)
Conservatives do tend to show a default motivation to respect and preserve differences, whether it be borders between countries, differences between sexes, differences between rich and poor, and lots more. And liberals tend to assume those differences are fraudulent or arbitrary. The poor don’t deserve to be poor. The rich don’t deserve to be rich. And so forth.
But a few other primals stood out, too, such that there are actually six major primal disagreements between liberals and conservatives (the figure below from our research article requires a longer explanation, but you get the idea that one red bar is a ton bigger than the other, and a few other bars stood out, too). Together, these six primals paint a picture of two perceived worlds in which an array of opposing political positions make a weird amount of sense.
Conservative Reality
Conservatives tend to see the world as a place where, like it or not, observable differences reflect real underlying value (high Hierarchical world belief) that is somehow meant to be (high Intentional world belief) where station and attention received are usually deserved (high Just world belief, low belief that the world is Worth Exploring). Therefore, most hierarchies that emerge are best left as they are (high Acceptable world belief). However, unfortunately, change is slowly eroding the world’s hierarchies (low Progressing world belief). Therefore, constraining change and accepting inequality (the textbook two-part definition of conservatism that researchers use) is just common sense.
Liberal Reality
Liberals tend to see the world as a place where observable differences are superficial, rarely reflecting actual value (low Hierarchical world belief), cosmic purpose or intent (low Intentional world belief), deserved status (low Just world belief), or attention received (high Worth Exploring). Therefore, most hierarchies require reform (low Acceptable world belief). Fortunately, however, the world is getting better and change is taking us in the right direction (high Progressing world belief). Therefore, embracing change and rejecting inequality (the textbook definition of liberalism) is just common sense.”
Edit: This is the link to the study in the journal. If you want to read it, you can try emailing the author(s) and see if they’ll send you a copy! I did this often while doing research for my graduate degrees and in my experience they’re usually thrilled to do so, since they make no money from the journals anyway. >

This is the best description of conservatives vs liberals I think I’ve ever seen