Quite a bit. Because as a republican I often feel that they use my Christian beliefs to push laws that are only good for the wealthy. Like I’ll always vote R because they happen to be pro-life.
But I’ve learned over time one cannot be a one-issue voter.
Give my regards to Michelle and the girls. 
This is pretty much what’s wrong with American politics today: the views people hold are too nuanced to pigeonhole into a conservative/progressive dichotomy; yet our winner-take-all system more or less guarantees a two-party setup. I wonder how this plays out in parliamentary systems where single-issue parties that command a certain percentage of the vote are guaranteed seats.
I am a rationalist, a realist and a utilitarian. I hate nothing more than the comfortable lie. I constantly examine my preconceptions and try to keep them in line with objective reality as much as possible. My litmus test for anything is whether it works.
I am understandably disenchanted with all politics. There is not a national level politician that I support. I simply am better able to tolerate some more than others.
I am an atheist but understand that some people need religion to cope and so religion fills a need for them. I have no issue with anyone expressing this need in any way they want. That is, until they try to impose a religious tenet that they hold on everyone else.
My despair about the USA is that there is so little that really works anymore. Our government is broken, our financial system is broken, our business model is broken and our society is broken. On top of that no one even wants to admit anything is broken much less find more effective ways to conduct ourselves. There has always been propaganda and double speak but in the past there was always some group of people beavering away in the background trying to figure things out. Now it seems that agenda come first and study is only done to backup the agenda. There doesn’t seem to be any group that still values clearsightedness and rationality.
Sorry about the existential rant in the middle of your thread about self awareness.
Rather than doing 180’s on issues, I tend to go from “opinionated” to “agnostic” or “indifferent”. I was much more black-and-white when I was younger. Now I tend to see gray in just about everything.
If someone is spouting off loudly enough in my presence, I’ll argue with them just for the hell of it. But lately it seems as if there are only a few subjects that I actually care about.
Politically speaking, I don’t see any party as being ‘my side.’ A pox on all of them. I have opinions and I vote, but usually for the person I hate least.
I’d say constantly, from the jump. I’m registered as an independent but I identify most with Democrats, however I’ll vote Republican if I agree with the person’s stance. My family are die-hard Democrats - the fact that I’ve agreed with some Republicans means I’m a Republican, and they repeatedly feign amazement that I voted for Obama. It’s actually sort of unsettling to me how many people would vote for even a bad choice, blindly following party lines.
I really don’t like a great many of the people who support the things that I support. Question my side? Oh my, yes.
I question my side all the time, but often it’s less about what my side is arguing and more about the evidence used to get to the position.
I think both major modes of thought in the US fall prey to “I advocate this because it’s what I want to believe” rather than “I advocate this because it conforms best with reality.” It just happens that the left, in my opinion, is stumbling upon the side that conforms better with reality in more cases, but not always because there is diligent effort involved.
Are you looking for particular hot-button issues on which people disagree with the people they usually side with? Say, anti-abortion liberlas, anti-death penalty conservatives?
Or just a general willingness to attack bad people who are seen as representing our side?
As the kids say, I’m down for whatever.
But really, I’m more curious about other peoples’s way of thinking. I’ve seen so much inconsistency it’s hard not to be cynical. And not cynical about politics - that ship sailed long ago - but cynical about people.
This.
People usually let preferences rank far higher in priority than facts. And when the two clash, the former often wins.
I sit fairly solidly on the left-hand side of the current political spectrum, though on any given issue my opinion might vary wildly from my compatriots.
I have plenty of friends whose even-more-left-than-me perspective on the world borders on the bizarre about many issues, and their selective outrage about some aspects of some issues is extremely hypocritical at best, and shows a complete lack of ability to think critically when any kind of “injustice” or “prejudice” is perceived.
On occasion I’ll enter into their political debates (rants/witnessing), but it’s very difficult. They are rarely in a position to challenge their own worldview, and are more interested in being outraged than in trying to find ways to communicate their positions that resonate outside the echo chamber. And I’m a generally sympathetic ally to most of their goals.
(without getting into the details in this thread, it’s usually around issues such as: male privilege/gender issues, benefits of organic/non-GMO foods, poverty, race relations).
Usually, I avoid those conversations, just as I avoid them with those on the other side of the political spectrum. It is a rare person who is willing to find common ground on which to have a debate.
Yes, I question my side all the time. But what surprises me is that there are a few conservative columnists who are not telling lies all the time and I find myself agreeing with them surprisingly often. Of course, most conservatives lie constantly. The NY Times replaced Wm. Kristol with Ross Douthat and it was like night and day. Kristol had nothing worth reading. Douthat is a religious conservative and I constantly disagree with that, but on other issues, he has an honest view. On the other hand, David Brooks (whom I sometimes agree with) is shallow all the way down.
Reading the thread about the latest forensics in the Brown case out of Ferguson, MO made me think of this thread. Probably no way to know, but I’m guessing a sizable percentage of people made up their minds in that case very early and nothing short of major motion picture quality video will dissuade them.
I tend to “team-think”, and emotion probably plays a greater part in my thinking than I would like to admit. For instance, I really really dislike social conservatism and religious fundamentalism, so it’s hard for me to ever admit that, say, Sarah Palin or James Dobson could ever be right on anything. But even a blind hog finds an acorn every now and then, and I intellectually know that no one is a simple as a label.
I also have a beef with people who simplify an issue strictly to score debating points. I’m an atheist, but I get really irritated with anti-theists who reduce the whole gamut of religious experience to “oh, you’re just scared of your sky-daddy”.
There is an occasional benefit to following the party line, though. While I investigate major political races, I simply don’t have the time or interest to check out every clerk of court or county water commissioner race. Democrat and Republican can be useful labels; if a candidate is a Democrat, I know that his or her values are more likely to align with mine.
Thing is the person from the opposite party, while maybe not always agreeing on their ideas, might be the person who brings in say more jobs or in someway votes in a way that benefits their local area. While the person from your same party might vote what the party tells them instead of what people in their home district want. For example their could be an environmental bill that while popular nationwide, will cut jobs in the local area.
I’m a lifelong Democrat, and the reflexive disloyalty of Democrats drives me nuts. When Obama was running in 2008, I had some Democratic friends who pompously declared that they’d NEVER vote for Obama, even if he got the nomination. Really? What the hell is accomplished by refusing to support the nominee of your own party? It’s absolutely pathetic that Alison Lundergan Grimes won’t say if she voted for Obama. Democrats seem to think party loyalty is uncool, and are constantly turning on their own people and joining circular firing squads.
I’m also weary of lefty political blogs that resort to clickbait hyperbole like “Watch Nancy Pelosi DESTROY John Boehner!” (followed by a video that merely shows a politician talking, with no “destruction” whatsoever) and “Republicans loved X when Bush was in office, now they hate X” (or vice versa). So politicians flip-flop when the other party is in power, and don’t give a shit if anyone notices? Color me shocked.
I haven’t ever really been binary on issues. I have been registered with the same Party since I turned 18 because my values and approach tended to fit better with that party’s traditional focus. That identification has waned over time as both parties change but it hasn’t moved me from one to the other. On individual issues I usually have the capability to extremely frustrate both sides of true believers…even the ones I am likely to vote for as fitting better. I’m much more shades of gray than black/white.
It’s all about the policy not the side.
Well, if you peruse my postings here, I think you’ll find that…
I’m a devout and mostly old-school Catholic who wants a lot of American bishops in jail, and wouldb’t object to the use of RICO to treat the church hierarchy like the MAfia to get at the truth.
I’m a loyal, generally right-wing Republican, but I recognize there are a lot of nutballs in the party- I have to STUDY before Republican primaries in Texas to make sure I don’t vote for, say, creationists on the school board.
I admired much about Ronald Reagan, but thought he got a pass from my side for all kinds of lapses and misdeeds.