On which issues do you break with your own ideological labels?

[America Needs R'hllor]

What the subject says. For example, "I'm a conservative but I support...", "I'm socially libertarian but I oppose...", "I'm an environmentalist but I believe that..." etc.

I'll start- I'm socially libertarian but I support outlawing brothels.
I'm pro-Israel but I support serious pressure and toughness on both sides to start talking, which the U.S. is more than capable of.
I'm a liberal but I support restricting immigration to Europe.

[Santander]

Labor and education. I oppose right-to-work and school vouchers (unless perhaps public education was abolished altogether, which I'm not entirely opposed to), and am highly skeptical of homeschooling.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I am open to considering certain forms of deregulation of economic activity, if I am convinced that it harm workers or consumers. I'm even open to easing the possibility of layoffs in exchange for high and universal unemployment benefits and massive public retraining programs. I don't oppose privatization of economic activities that don't constitute public utilities. I can agree to lower, and even completely abolish, corporate taxation in exchange for a commensurable increase on individual income taxes for the wealthiest. I am generally pro-free trade among rich countries, and if a trade agreement is genuinely beneficial to poor countries, I will support that too.

I support the Nordic model on prostitution and am still on the fence about legalizing the sale of "soft" drugs (as for hard drugs, no f**king way). I think abortion can legitimately be banned after 22 weeks and absolutely should after 29 (barring threats to the mother's life). I think there's nothing wrong with promoting abstinence as part of sex ed, as long as it's not at the expense of other important aspects of it. I strongly support regulations on soda and other unhealthy food products. I think government censorship over TV content is legitimate in principle, though it's taken too far in some respects (but not enough in others). Having greatly benefited from it, I don't oppose public funding of religious schools (although the State may legitimately regulate the content of the education in return).

I strongly support foreign intervention for humanitarian causes (I did and still do support the Libyan war, and I think the US should put boots on the ground against ISIS). I think the purpose of "spreading democracy" is a worthy one, although it should be carried out pragmatically. I believe that the US should take a strong stand against Russian aggression in Ukraine and elsewhere. I unequivocally support Israel's right to exist, and would accept an agreement in which Israel would keep all of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.

[parochial boy]

I'm largely pro-nuclear power. When it comes down to it, it is a much cleaner form of energy than coal or oil, which in most cases is the only alternative. Sure, there is the question of nuclear waste, and of risk, but nuclear means a reduction in Carbon emissions and is therefore progress.

I'm also pro-humanitarian intervention; I believe that the responsibility to protect does exist, and that stepping in to protect people should override any concerns about "national sovereignty" or whatever. Interventions have been succesful in the past (Sierra Leone, Macedonia, Mali, to an extent Kosovo and Bosnia) and pointing to the poorly thought through disasters in Iraq or Libya shouldn't be taken as proof that it can never work.

[MAINEiac4434]

Pro-nuclear energy because of my environmentalism and I'm probably closer to "hawk" than "dove."

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Immigration is the big one in that I don't support mass deportations, but I don't support a path to citizenship either.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Immigration is the big one in that I don't support mass deportations, but I don't support a path to citizenship either.

So... Keep them here as a permanent underclass, or like...?

[Middle-aged Europe]

I'm a member of the German Green Party and I oppose abolishing tax advantages for married couples.

Well, actually that platform plank was watered down during the last party congress, so the party is a bit more in line with myself now and I can live with the compromise which was passed there.

I also don't really give a sh**t about public CCTV surveillance. I don't think that it does that much good, then again it doesn't do much bad either.

[Hoosier_Nick]

I'm progressive, I do not support the left's goal of not allowing controversial speakers at colleges and such.

I am very pro-labor, but I believe free trade is far more efficient than fair trade.

I am liberal, but health care is not a very important issue for me. It is a tough problem with no good solution.

[America Needs R'hllor]

I'm progressive, I do not support the left's goal of not allowing controversial speakers at colleges and such.

I am very pro-labor, but I believe free trade is far more efficient than fair trade.

I am liberal, but health care is not a very important issue for me. It is a tough problem with no good solution.

I'm with you on all of these, other than the last one- I'm the opposite on this issue.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Immigration is the big one in that I don't support mass deportations, but I don't support a path to citizenship either.

So... Keep them here as a permanent underclass, or like...?

That's the result of that thinking.......but remember, we need illegal browns to do work real Muricans won't do.

[MT Treasurer]

Foreign policy, environmental issues, trade (to a certain extent), education, and some other areas.

[The_Doctor]

If this is the pre Trump Republican Party, the environment and maybe universal college education being necessary, otherwise fairly doctrinaire.

[Kingpoleon]

Healthcare - I want firmly universal healthcare combined with the efficiency of BaucusCare and Wyden-Bennett.

Budget - I believe raising taxes and cutting spending works well during good economic times, whereas the opposite is best during bad economic times.

Labor unions - Actual right to work without having to join a labor union is okay, but the fake version of RTW commonly passed is terrible.

Coal - Rather than fund a dying industry, we need to diversify the economy of coal counties by encouraging new businesses to go there.

[MAINEiac4434]

I am very pro-labor, but I believe free trade is far more efficient than fair trade.

Yup. Protectionism helps no one and free trade prevents wars.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Im an Pre Tea Party Conservative:

Bank regulation - I believe that we should bring back glass stegall

Minimum wage - would support raising min wage to 10.50 an hour

Social issues - a moderate not a social conservative

Drug war - oppose it

Defense Spending - I believe we do need to cut defense spending to balance the budget

When to intervene: I dont believe we should use force to spread democracy around the world(though this was an issue what divided pre tea party conservatives too so i dont know if they really supported this)

[Goldwater]

Well, first of all I would have to determine what those ideological labels actually are...

[🕴🏼Melior🕴🏼]

Economic issues:

I consider myself to be center-left on economic issues, but here are a few economic disagreements I have with the Democratic Party:

-I'm very pro-free trade, while most Democratic Party politicians aren't.
-I'm in favor of Wall Street deregulation. I support repealing Dodd-Frank. However, we should reinstate Glass Stegall.
-I am a strong supporter of Obamacare, but I oppose universal healthcare.
-I'm strongly opposed to tax increases on the wealthy, but I don't support cutting taxes on the rich either. I believe that we shouldn't cut or raise taxes on the rich. I believe the current top bracket tax rate (which is around 40% IIRC) is perfect. However, we should tax capital gains and carried interest like regular income and close loopholes. 
- We should abolish corporate taxes. We should pay for it by taxing capital gains and carried interest like regular income and closing loopholes.

I can't think of any other disagreements on economic issues I have with the Democratic Party.

Social Issues:

- I strongly support background checks, but I think banning "assault" rifles is pretty pointless.

I can't think of anything else

[Goldwater]

Well, doing this to the best of my abilities:

Economics: I would generally consider myself right wing on economics, so I suppose these would be the exceptions to the rule:

• Healthcare: While I am not opposed to private healthcare per se, I have come to the conclusion that it's a market where competition isn't necessarily the most efficient way of providing it, and so I tihnk some basic level of healthcare should be considered a public necessity and paid for by the government.
• Free Trade: Only if you consider protectionism to be right wing, if you consider protectionism to be left wing then my stance is very much is line with right wing economics.
• Welfare: While I tihnk that social welfare programs are often mismanaged and handled inefficiently, I do think that a social safety net is necessary and I think that "corporate welfare", such as farm subsides, are much more harmful to the market and how it operates than social welfare.
• Antitrust Laws: Basically, my thoughts are that competition is generally good and monopolies are generally bad, so I do think there are situations where it is justified for the government to break up large corporations, which puts me very much at odds with hardline anti-government intervention types.
• Carbon Tax: I'm not sure if this really fits here, but I am not opposed to carbon taxes, and actually on a philosophical level consider taxes on externalities to be more justified than taxes on income.
  
  Domestic issues: I am generally considered on the libertarian side here, so here are my less libertarian stances:
  
• Death Penalty: I don't consider the death penalty to be cruel and unusual punishment, and consider it's use justified for mass murders and the like.
• Background Checks: I support them. Of course, I oppose most other forms of gun control, so I don't know if this really counts as unlibertarian of me...
• Abortion: Assuming that libertarian equals less regulation, I do think that there should be some regulation on abortion, such as a cutoff date for non-medically necessary abortions, though I still call myself "pro-choice" becasue I think abortion should be legal more often than not.

Foreign Policy: This one is harder to do, since there are so many philosophies and nuances to it. I guess I will list my deviations from what would be considered the standard "hawkish" position:

• The UN: While it's a flawed organisation, I think it does more good than harm overall, and I would very much be opposed to any attempts at pulling out of the UN. If I lived in Europe, I think I would be saying the same thing about the EU.
• ISIS: For the sake or pragmatism, I think we need to be willing to work with nations like Syria and Russia to fight against ISIS, though we need to make it very clear that any such alliances are temporary and only for the purpose of achieving that specific goal.
  
  There are probably more things that aren't coming to mind right now.

[Mr. Smith]

I'm an environmentalist, but relaxing smog inspections laws with automobiles is something I'm okay with. Better to keep old cars circulating for as long as possible than encourage more toxic processes like the one used to make new Priuses. I also oppose the carbon tax.

I'm pro-gun control, but banning "assault weapons" makes no sense...just tax the ammo, demand background checks, and no gun-show loopholes.

I have pacifistic and isolationist leans, but I have no qualms with allowing the death penalty for neo-Nazis, serial killers with an escape record, remorseless shooters like Dylan Roof, or Quislings, also no qualms with going to war in cases like Pearl Harbor or 9/11 where we are directly attacked or stopping unambiguous genocides.

I am skeptical of regressive gimmick taxes such as the soda tax or the carbon tax until proven otherwise (Actually voted against the original one...but I was proven wrong), despite being pretty much pro taxes everywhere else across the board, even if it's on the middle class.

I take pro-life leanings on abortion, but I support it in cases of incest, rape, or safety of the mother, and I support Planned Parenthood, the absolute best way to protect life is to plan for it

I'm sympathetic to men's rights arguments and the general complaints about PC culture, though I do prefer more consistency then the usual proponents.

I do not buy into Religious Liberty laws as they are currently presented.

[Cashew]

Despite being an opponent of the current form of globalization I am more of a utilitarian when it comes to culture. I condemn the cultural Luddism of the nationalist right, and furthermore believe cultural appropriation is immensely beneficial.  Culture is something that originated from practical environmental concerns and was further directed by the efforts of great men, but at the end of the days it contains nothing sacred, as times goes on the worst aspects of all cultures will be weeded out through natural selection and the world will converge having the best aspects of all cultures represented. It is in this sense that I support the west- not on a tribal level, but because it works when compared the the rest of the world, that said there are aspects that should be gutted without sentimentality.

Let me know if I was not nuanced enough, I did this quickly.

[Intell]

I am very pro-labor, but I believe free trade is far more efficient than fair trade.

Yup. Protectionism helps no one and free trade prevents wars.

Literally there's no proof of such a thing.

[MAINEiac4434]

I am very pro-labor, but I believe free trade is far more efficient than fair trade.

Yup. Protectionism helps no one and free trade prevents wars.

Literally there's no proof of such a thing.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022002704266117

Conclusion: "Using these dyad-years, McDonald analyzed the behavior of every country in the world for the past 40 years. His analysis showed a negative correlation between free trade and conflict: The more freely a country trades, the fewer wars it engages in. Countries that engage in free trade are less likely to invade and less likely to be invaded."

"The takeaway from McDonald’s analysis is that protectionism can actually lead to conflict. McDonald found that a country in the bottom 10 percent for protectionism (meaning it is less protectionist than 90 percent of other countries) is 70 percent less likely to engage in a new conflict (either as invader or as target) than one in the top 10 percent for protectionism."

Granted, one study doesn't make it a fact. But there isn't "literally no proof."

[Intell]

I am very pro-labor, but I believe free trade is far more efficient than fair trade.

Yup. Protectionism helps no one and free trade prevents wars.

Literally there's no proof of such a thing.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022002704266117

Conclusion: "Using these dyad-years, McDonald analyzed the behavior of every country in the world for the past 40 years. His analysis showed a negative correlation between free trade and conflict: The more freely a country trades, the fewer wars it engages in. Countries that engage in free trade are less likely to invade and less likely to be invaded."

"The takeaway from McDonald’s analysis is that protectionism can actually lead to conflict. McDonald found that a country in the bottom 10 percent for protectionism (meaning it is less protectionist than 90 percent of other countries) is 70 percent less likely to engage in a new conflict (either as invader or as target) than one in the top 10 percent for protectionism."

Granted, one study doesn't make it a fact. But there isn't "literally no proof."

Correlation is not Causation.

[Kingpoleon]

I am very pro-labor, but I believe free trade is far more efficient than fair trade.

Yup. Protectionism helps no one and free trade prevents wars.

Literally there's no proof of such a thing.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022002704266117

Conclusion: "Using these dyad-years, McDonald analyzed the behavior of every country in the world for the past 40 years. His analysis showed a negative correlation between free trade and conflict: The more freely a country trades, the fewer wars it engages in. Countries that engage in free trade are less likely to invade and less likely to be invaded."

"The takeaway from McDonald’s analysis is that protectionism can actually lead to conflict. McDonald found that a country in the bottom 10 percent for protectionism (meaning it is less protectionist than 90 percent of other countries) is 70 percent less likely to engage in a new conflict (either as invader or as target) than one in the top 10 percent for protectionism."

Granted, one study doesn't make it a fact. But there isn't "literally no proof."

Correlation is not Causation.

So the gas waste products from making ice cream don't actually increase shark aggressiveness?