Xenophon wrote:
Truth. I find that once you have skin in the game, (wife, kids, etc.) you tend to slide to the right. The first election I could vote in was Obama/McCain, and I fell for the Hope and Change (and to spite the legit racists around me who were complaining.) in 2012, my vote changed.
Truly strange that this is so little spoken of. I went through the same transition. Like DB said, have some daughters, that will change your perspective.
It happened to me too, however it was socially. I still am pretty hard left economically
I was here all along. If I slid any farther right when I got a family I'd be a communist. I would just break on through to the other side.
After kids, it became more about what kind of place would provide the greatest opportunities, the widest range of possibilities, and the best pleasant living conditions while providing that larger world. That doesn't mean extreme conservatism because the whole point of that philosophy is to limit their world, not to expand it. liberalism taken to the extreme wouldn't provide decent living conditions and would also limit their possibilities.
mydogjesse wrote:After kids, it became more about what kind of place would provide the greatest opportunities, the widest range of possibilities, and the best pleasant living conditions while providing that larger world. That doesn't mean extreme conservatism because the whole point of that philosophy is to limit their world, not to expand it. liberalism taken to the extreme wouldn't provide decent living conditions and would also limit their possibilities.
In other words, are you saying that people tend to be in the middle? Between liberal and conservatism?
Personally, both parties need each other since if one screws up they can blame the other for the screw ups. But since we are going into a government that is going to be controlled by only one party, for a while, then all the blame can be placed on the Rs. Since they are the ones that are in charge and if things go to hell, then there is only one party to blame- the party that was in charge when things hit the fan.
mydogjesse wrote:After kids, it became more about what kind of place would provide the greatest opportunities, the widest range of possibilities, and the best pleasant living conditions while providing that larger world. That doesn't mean extreme conservatism because the whole point of that philosophy is to limit their world, not to expand it. liberalism taken to the extreme wouldn't provide decent living conditions and would also limit their possibilities.
In other words, are you saying that people tend to be in the middle? Between liberal and conservatism?
I think they're not monolithic in their thinking. For example, it's pretty common for people to say they're fiscally conservative but socially liberal. Perhaps that's the best definition of middle. If you made a list of all issues and weighted them we'd find out what people really want - there was a website that did this politically and it was pretty interesting to see where we really fall once we weight our concerns.
As to the premise of this thread, I definitely think the left and right need each other. I wouldn't want to live in a country that went all one way or the other, and I doubt most people would once they'd actually experienced it.
mydogjesse wrote:After kids, it became more about what kind of place would provide the greatest opportunities, the widest range of possibilities, and the best pleasant living conditions while providing that larger world. That doesn't mean extreme conservatism because the whole point of that philosophy is to limit their world, not to expand it. liberalism taken to the extreme wouldn't provide decent living conditions and would also limit their possibilities.
In other words, are you saying that people tend to be in the middle? Between liberal and conservatism?
Personally, both parties need each other since if one screws up they can blame the other for the screw ups. But since we are going into a government that is going to be controlled by only one party, for a while, then all the blame can be placed on the Rs. Since they are the ones that are in charge and if things go to hell, then there is only one party to blame- the party that was in charge when things hit the fan.
Obama had a bigger majority in his first term than Trump is gonna have, yet every fucking thing that happened was Bush's fault for eight years.
GrumpyCatFace wrote:Dumb slut partied too hard and woke up in a weird house. Ran out the door, weeping for her failed life choices, concerned townsfolk notes her appearance and alerted the fuzz.
mydogjesse wrote:After kids, it became more about what kind of place would provide the greatest opportunities, the widest range of possibilities, and the best pleasant living conditions while providing that larger world. That doesn't mean extreme conservatism because the whole point of that philosophy is to limit their world, not to expand it. liberalism taken to the extreme wouldn't provide decent living conditions and would also limit their possibilities.
In other words, are you saying that people tend to be in the middle? Between liberal and conservatism?
Personally, both parties need each other since if one screws up they can blame the other for the screw ups. But since we are going into a government that is going to be controlled by only one party, for a while, then all the blame can be placed on the Rs. Since they are the ones that are in charge and if things go to hell, then there is only one party to blame- the party that was in charge when things hit the fan.
Obama had a bigger majority in his first term than Trump is gonna have, yet every fucking thing that happened was Bush's fault for eight years.
You mean how the economy collapsed in 2007/2008, 9/11, and the Iraq War was unfairly put on W's shoulders?
Once the enemy is identified, the solution is rooting out the other side and destroying them.
With this kind of polarization there can be no dialogue, no compromise, no negotiation.
It leads to a poverty of ideas and essentially gridlock and defeatism... this mentality would rather shut down the system entirely than to be seen giving the other side any credit at all.
I'll engage with Smitty when he talks sense which he often does...
But when he is Bolshie witch hunting...
mydogjesse wrote:After kids, it became more about what kind of place would provide the greatest opportunities, the widest range of possibilities, and the best pleasant living conditions while providing that larger world. That doesn't mean extreme conservatism because the whole point of that philosophy is to limit their world, not to expand it. liberalism taken to the extreme wouldn't provide decent living conditions and would also limit their possibilities.
In other words, are you saying that people tend to be in the middle? Between liberal and conservatism?
I think they're not monolithic in their thinking. For example, it's pretty common for people to say they're fiscally conservative but socially liberal. Perhaps that's the best definition of middle. If you made a list of all issues and weighted them we'd find out what people really want - there was a website that did this politically and it was pretty interesting to see where we really fall once we weight our concerns.
As to the premise of this thread, I definitely think the left and right need each other. I wouldn't want to live in a country that went all one way or the other, and I doubt most people would once they'd actually experienced it.
Yeah, you do have a point that people's beliefs are not monolithic (many people hold some conservative ideas, economy and also some liberal ideas with what to do with the economy and socially, and vice versa...) but no one really wants to live in a world where there was only one. Although, people are more likely to vote for incumbents than anything else.
If Left is defined as socialist, and Right is liberty-based, that's oil-n-water: the ones counter to the Constitution would be better off somewhere else, for me & for them.
Once the enemy is identified, the solution is rooting out the other side and destroying them.
With this kind of polarization there can be no dialogue, no compromise, no negotiation.
It leads to a poverty of ideas and essentially gridlock and defeatism... this mentality would rather shut down the system entirely than to be seen giving the other side any credit at all.
I'll engage with Smitty when he talks sense which he often does...
But when he is Bolshie witch hunting...
Nice try, Daffy...
Daffy wasn't always the loser, you know. I dig him being Mr. hubris before the fall, but I'm also partial to the oldies where they let Daffy tool out the natzies und der Hitler.
I was here all along. If I slid any farther right when I got a family I'd be a communist. I would just break on through to the other side.
