Why exactly are the Right-Wing considered the 'rational' side of the spectrum?

If we look at this we realize: 

Susan M collins, Rand Paul, John Kyl, Mike Lee, Lisa Murkowski are the only people who were less than 80% in agreement with Trump.

The rest as in 57 other senators I would consider support Trump majority of the time (80% or higher).

We did some cleaning up after Midterms on our side.

Not sure this proves exactly what you want, though. If you look at the top, it says the last vote was about 400,000 acres of land getting preserved in Colorado. That isn't really a partisan thing, both parties have supported similar policies in the past.

However, I would argue that the tough, partisan bills would be a better test of party unity than small, non-partisan bills like that. 

I don't take what you said here seriously. I provide irrefutable proof that there is a majority agreement with Trump from his senators yet you come up to me with well we cleaned up, pretty much stating this doesn't disprove my statement and both sides meme. Do you want to actually try or maybe when you can't defend a point concede it? 

A majority agreement with Trump is clearly showing "you guys are the collectivists who stick together".

So you would give equal weight to conserving land in Colorado as you would about a campaign promise of the president? Ok.

You Democrats pretty consistently disagree with Trump. Is that proof that you guys stick together in your disagreement with Trump? That you guys are also collectivists?

I would've thought you could actually amount a defense but guess you couldn't. Guess you can't disprove the undeniable proof that the senators are a bunch of collectivists who agree with Trump.

Pivot again? You didn't directly answer my question so why should I directly answer yours? Let me do this again since it wasn't clear without actually putting a question mark at the end of my sentence do you have any proof that the majority of Republicans don't agree with Trump? 

I am beginning to think that your goal is not to have a dialogue. I was saying that if you put equal weight on a minor conservation program and super important, partisan issues, then there is nothing else I can say to you. A presidential promise is something that would strain a party's unity. The hundreds of minor, insignificant bills do not matter as much. Again, if you think they do, this conversation cannot really go much further.

You, sir, pivoted. You told me to give you poll data on the wall. I did. Then you moved the goal post to every single conceivable issue that ever goes through Congress.

You didn't answer my question, can't say I am surprised. It is likely because you simply cannot rebut what I said. 

And now, you put words in my mouth. I said the party wasn't unified, I never once said that the majority of the party consistently disagrees with Trump, which is what you are implying. If you could provide quotes from me that led you to believe that, perhaps I forgot that I did. I did, however, show that in the case of the wall, the majority of Republicans did disagree with him.

The right is generally considered rational in the US because they embrace empiricism, in a sense. Naive empiricism, which can't bear to have any of its assumptions challenged (the old "common sense" appeals) or accept that interpretations of the data are inextricably intertwined with the facts in social sciences. That's how you get the weird situation in which the scientific consensus is that sex and gender are spectra, but the general populace considers authoritative male-female categories rational because "that's how it is, penis=boy and no penis=girl". Anything that challenges the "common sense" assumptions is "irrational", and the naive empiricist often can't even see that the assumptions could be other than what's accepted.

The left probably isn't less vulnerable to naive empiricism, but it's painfully visible in the right. Maybe some people on the left see the horrible legacy of naive empiricism and reject empiricism altogether. Maybe the left is driven to more refined ideas of empiricism because naive empiricism has traditionally been a weapon wielded by those in power against the other. I have no idea. But I think it's probably true that most people in the US embrace naive empiricism, so conformity with that = "rational".

This conversation is over. 

If you say so. Take care.