Standing on principle vs. policy positions birthed out of wanting to disagree?

I saw a commentator on one of the Sunday morning news shows say something I've believed for a few years. Paraphrasing: "[...one of the political parties] USED to be strongly is favor of a particular policy until their opposition started to favor it was well. Then they became opposed the very thing they policy they supposed only a few years ago." The implication: this party never really cared about XYZ issue or this did care but are so opposed to the other party, they are willing to disregard their own convictions for the sake of the "greater good" of disagreeing with everything their opposition favors. Either way, IMHO its petty and causes be to lose confidence in the political system where the leadership of the parties place their influence, however they wish to use it as long as its their influence, over the broader American interests? Are there any statesmen left or is the political arena filled with political hacks who only care about bring in charge and being in disagreement with the other party?


Is party policy driven by principle or desire to disagree?

Without a specific example it is hard to comment on it, but to use that single allegation (assertion?) to imply a wiidespread treand is even more absurd. I may be for job creation and against a bill that tosses pork to fund silly projects that is presented as a jobs bill. I may be for cancer research and yet opposed to the use of double blind studies for cancer research.

ttwtt78640 said:

Without a specific example it is hard to comment on it, but to use that single allegation (assertion?) to imply a wiidespread treand is even more absurd. I may be for job creation and against a bill that tosses pork to fund silly projects that is presented as a jobs bill. I may be for cancer research and yet opposed to the use of double blind studies for cancer research.

Click to expand...

As I recall, it was a lot more specific than that.

It appears to me that each party's #1 goal is to piss off the other party, good of the people be damned.

It has been my experience that the people who scream the loudest about standing on principle are the ones where they enjoy the luxury of having no consequences to any positions they may take. This is especially true of people outside of the two main parties.... outside of the mainstream ..... people whose politics and ideologies are on the outside margins and never have to worry about putting any of their ideas into action and thus are free from any consequences of them.

You see it here all the time with people who declare themselves as libertarian or who take far right libertarian positions. Its easy to say you condemn something like the power of eminent domain when you never have to run a nation or a state or a city or any community for that matter and never have to consider the realities of government services and functions.

haymarket said:

It has been my experience that the people who scream the loudest about standing on principle are the ones where they enjoy the luxury of having no consequences to any positions they may take. This is especially true of people outside of the two main parties.... outside of the mainstream ..... people whose politics and ideologies are on the outside margins and never have to worry about putting any of their ideas into action and thus are free from any consequences of them.

You see it here all the time with people who declare themselves as libertarian or who take far right libertarian positions. Its easy to say you condemn something like the power of eminent domain when you never have to run a nation or a state or a city or any community for that matter and never have to consider the realities of government services and functions.

Click to expand...

Oh yeah. I couldn't help but to notice with extremely few exceptions, the people complaining that they didn't want the government to "force them" to buy health insurance they didn't want all had health insurance themselves. IMHO the only people who could speak to that issue with any credibility would be the uninsured and those with insurance who voluntarily cancelled their policies.