I greatly appreciate this space. I completely agree that, at least in the US, we have a shortage of safe, respectful places to discuss our society. I really believe in "united we stand." I do not want to drag down the folks who are "on the other side." I don't want there to be sides! Life is hard enough.

Thanks, Michael. It's hard to find places online for intelligent discussion and debate. I appreciate all of you who help make doing this a pleasure.

I believe we should be evaluating our personal views and then, through logic and reason, affiliating with the political party or movement that best represents those views.  I think that too many people form an emotional bond with "their" party and then allow "their" party to dictate their views.

That is where we get the notion of sides and lose the ability to rationally discuss the issues.  Discussing issues with an emotionally bonded "party supporter" is like trying to use logic to convince a Steelers fan that the Cowboys are better.  For politics, this is the thought process that really needs to be challenged, in my opinion.

No offense to the Steeler and Cowboy fans. :)

Matt Yeah, I agree that we should be evaluating our personal views based on logic and reason. For me, logic, reason, and empirical evidence are the only reliable ways to get to truth. If I'm presented with solid evidence - peer-reviewed studies, scientific data - that contradicts my worldview, then I will change my worldview. That's how it should work.

One of the first things I ask in a debate is, "What evidence could I show you that would change your mind?" If the answer is "nothing," then there's no point in having the discussion. That kind of closed-off mindset is, in my opinion, closed-minded and intellectually dishonest.

That's why I've always considered myself an issues voter rather than someone tied to a specific political party. Historically, I've agreed with some things Democrats have done and some things Republicans have done. But I also think the two-party system itself creates much of the division we see today. Ranked-choice voting would open the door for more parties and more nuanced positions, instead of locking everyone into two camps.

The one area where I'm absolutely consistent is science. Science is my number one voting issue. I'll support whichever party is more in line with the science, whatever the issue may be. And if a party is pushing anti-science rhetoric or conspiracy theories, I'll call that what it is - nonsense - and they won't get my vote.

I also think the football team analogy fits perfectly. Politics today feels a lot like sports fandom. People root for their "team" because they were born into it - just like everyone in Buffalo grows up a Bills fan. Sure, you'll occasionally find the Dolphins fan in Buffalo, but it's rare. And that kind of tribal loyalty is what makes genuine, rational discussion so difficult.

The same thing happens with religion: if you're born in Saudi Arabia, Italy, the US, China, India, etc. odds are you'll adopt the dominant faith of your community.