When was the last time you changed your mind about something politically important and admitted it?

[Correll]

The issue isn’t which policy to debate. It’s the fact that you think the only form of growth is agreement. You’re asking what idea could make someone change sides, but why do you think sides are the only thing that matter?

Liberals and conservatives both have blind spots. That’s not controversial. The real danger isn’t in disagreement; it’s in identity-based thinking, where changing your mind feels like betrayal instead of maturity.

People aren’t imprisoned by bad policies.
They’re imprisoned by the fear of being disloyal to their tribe. Maybe the better question isn’t “what issue could change someone’s perspective?” Maybe it’s "What would it take for you to admit your side is wrong about something without needing to flip teams or burn everything down?"

Until you can answer that, you’re not defending truth.

I once asked people on another site, if they found out that their position on global warming was proven to be wrong,

would it actually change the policies that they wanted.


Most people were unable to even consider the issue.

My point was that people were emotionally committed to a world vision they had of the future.

That is what they were part of. The issue of global warming was just a path there.

 

[BackAgain]

I've changed my mind about Fetterman, sadly he's probably one of the better demoquacks

I don’t think I’ve changed my mind so much about Fetterman but recognize that he has apparently changed his thinking to some extent.

 

[Anomalism]

For a along time, even after they got 'woke', I believed most Democrat activists wanted good things for America. I no longer believe that. They have convinced me that their long game is to dismantle and destroy America as it was intended to be and to install a totalitarian government that they control. I was once a good Democrat. I cannot imagine anyone with a heart or brain or ability for any measure of critical thinking belonging to that party now.

I was strongly opposed to tariffs until observing the results of the current Administration policy. I can't say I have 100% changed my mind, but I have to acknowledge that they are accomplishing some good things. That coupled with needed government austerity and promoting economic growth has pretty much stopped the bleeding. We have the best chance we have had in many many decades to reverse increasing the national debt

I believed there was an Epstein list until there wasn't. I think if such a list existed, it was destroyed before Trump took office. I believed Epstein was murdered until Kash Patel and Dan Bongino, both extremely strong advocates for that theory, changed their position after having a chance to go over the evidence on file at the FBI. While most of my fellow Patriots have not changed their opinion on that, I choose to trust Patel and Bongino.

But my political philosophy since I was old enough to actually have one has been to advocate for a strong, free, secure, prosperous America that offers as much as reasonably possible liberty, choices, options, opportunity, ability to prosper for all Americans. That is the MAGA vision, the vision of America held by the Founders and promoted in the finest traditions of libertarianism (little "L") or classical liberalism. That is why I voted for President Trump and Republicans who share that vision I have held for a very long time now. I can't imagine changing my mind about that.

This post is drenched in emotional conviction disguised as rational reflection. You think you’re showing evidence of open-mindedness, but what you’ve really done is demonstrate how belief calcifies once it’s emotionally anchored in identity, fear, and nostalgia.

You say you've changed your mind, but look closely. Did you actually change, or did you just rearrange the furniture inside the same emotional house? You didn’t evolve. You hardened.

You started with trust in one side, lost faith in them emotionally, and then redirected that loyalty wholesale to the other side. That’s not growth. That’s just tribal migration, and because your current worldview feels right to you now, you assume it must be truth, not realizing it feels right because it matches your fears, your heroes, and your memory of what “America” is supposed to be.

You say you “can’t imagine changing your mind” about your current vision for America. That’s the problem. The moment your mind becomes unimaginable to change, you’ve stopped thinking. You’re not defending America. You’re defending the version of yourself that needs to believe your side are the good guys, and every time you wrap that belief in patriotism, God, or liberty, it becomes harder to admit what parts of it might be inherited, nostalgic, or just emotionally soothing.

You’ve convinced yourself that Democrats want to destroy America. Is that insight, or just the final result of years of confirmation, media diet, and fear? You claim to love liberty. Prove it by questioning the beliefs you’re most comfortable with.

That’s the true test of freedom. Otherwise, you’re not a patriot. You’re just another loyalist to a different flag

 

[BrokeLoser]

Yes hard to understand, We have Russian ,Chinese, Mexican & other mafia, Large groups doing HUGE harm.
None of these smaller things being done are ok. they just do not even get in the ball park. with the big destroyers.

Are Russians or Chinese here stealing our most coveted possession, a U.S. citizenship for their anchor babies? Have Russians or Chinese destroyed our education, our healthcare, our social and emergency services..have they destroyed blue collar middle-class trades? Do Russians and or Chinese cost good Americans $150 billion per year?…Do they maim rape and murder our daughters, do we sacrifice our sons and daughters on our roadways to drunk driving Russians and or Chinese?

 

[Correll]

This post is drenched in emotional conviction disguised as rational reflection. You think you’re showing evidence of open-mindedness, but what you’ve really done is demonstrate how belief calcifies once it’s emotionally anchored in identity, fear, and nostalgia.

You say you've changed your mind, but look closely. Did you actually change, or did you just rearrange the furniture inside the same emotional house? You didn’t evolve. You hardened.

You started with trust in one side, lost faith in them emotionally, and then redirected that loyalty wholesale to the other side. That’s not growth. That’s just tribal migration, and because your current worldview feels right to you now, you assume it must be truth, not realizing it feels right because it matches your fears, your heroes, and your memory of what “America” is supposed to be.

You say you “can’t imagine changing your mind” about your current vision for America. That’s the problem. The moment your mind becomes unimaginable to change, you’ve stopped thinking. You’re not defending America. You’re defending the version of yourself that needs to believe your side are the good guys, and every time you wrap that belief in patriotism, God, or liberty, it becomes harder to admit what parts of it might be inherited, nostalgic, or just emotionally soothing.

You’ve convinced yourself that Democrats want to destroy America. Is that insight, or just the final result of years of confirmation, media diet, and fear? You claim to love liberty. Prove it by questioning the beliefs you’re most comfortable with.

That’s the true test of freedom. Otherwise, you’re not a patriot. You’re just another loyalist to a different flag

The hatred the left has for America and Americans is on constant display and constantly reinforced by new examples from the left.

 

[Anomalism]

When is the last time YOU changed your mind on something politically important?

I've been all over the place. I seek not to be right, but to be clear. I'm not attached to my political views at all. I'm more than happy to burn down entire warehouses of thought upon gaining new perspective. To me, that is strength.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Think back.

Not just something minor or trendy. Something you genuinely believed until you didn’t.

If that hasn’t happened in a long time, maybe you’ve stopped thinking. Most people don’t grow. They just settle into a political costume and call it wisdom.

They pick a side, inherit the script, memorize the heroes, and build their identity around never questioning it again, but if your views never evolve, maybe your values aren’t values; they’re habits.

If you can’t remember the last time you were wrong, then you’re probably still wrong about something right now.

.

About 2006 or 2007. I changed my mind about abortion.

I used to be in a political board hollering about "women's rights" and "health care".

Now, I'm completely pro life.


.

 

[Foxfyre]

This post is drenched in emotional conviction disguised as rational reflection. You think you’re showing evidence of open-mindedness, but what you’ve really done is demonstrate how belief calcifies once it’s emotionally anchored in identity, fear, and nostalgia.

You say you've changed your mind, but look closely. Did you actually change, or did you just rearrange the furniture inside the same emotional house? You didn’t evolve. You hardened.

You started with trust in one side, lost faith in them emotionally, and then redirected that loyalty wholesale to the other side. That’s not growth. That’s just tribal migration, and because your current worldview feels right to you now, you assume it must be truth, not realizing it feels right because it matches your fears, your heroes, and your memory of what “America” is supposed to be.

You say you “can’t imagine changing your mind” about your current vision for America. That’s the problem. The moment your mind becomes unimaginable to change, you’ve stopped thinking. You’re not defending America. You’re defending the version of yourself that needs to believe your side are the good guys, and every time you wrap that belief in patriotism, God, or liberty, it becomes harder to admit what parts of it might be inherited, nostalgic, or just emotionally soothing.

You’ve convinced yourself that Democrats want to destroy America. Is that insight, or just the final result of years of confirmation, media diet, and fear? You claim to love liberty. Prove it by questioning the beliefs you’re most comfortable with.

That’s the true test of freedom. Otherwise, you’re not a patriot. You’re just another loyalist to a different flag

And you obviously have zero understanding of who I am, what I think, what I believe as you presume to self righteously judge me. Do have a lovely day.

 

[Correll]

I've been all over the place. I seek not to be right, but to be clear. I'm not attached to my political views at all. I'm more than happy to burn down entire warehouses of thought upon gaining new perspective. To me, that is strength.

Any significant example would be good.

 

[Anomalism]

I didn’t and haven’t done anything. RIGHT and WRONG have existed, unchanging and unfaltering since the beginning of time. Passed down from generation to generation. No need to be investigated or questioned as they have been proven through the annals of time.

Those who seek to change, dilute or otherwise harm those definitions must, by definition be proponents of WRONGness. It’s just that simple.

This is the exact moment where righteous certainty reveals its fragility. You're not defending morality. You're defending dogma and calling it eternal to avoid ever having to question it.

You're not standing for morality. You're hiding inside it. You didn’t explain why your version of right and wrong is correct; you just declared it eternal, as if declaring something old makes it true.

You say these truths have been “proven through the annals of time.” But proven to who? By what metric? By whose power? History is littered with people who claimed divine certainty right before they were the villains in the next chapter.

You’re not upholding a moral legacy.
You’re protecting the comfort of inherited definitions you’ve never dared to test, because testing them might force you to change, and you've already said you'd rather be certain than correct.

The idea that truth requires no investigation is not strength. It’s cowardice dressed in tradition. If you're right, you shouldn’t fear questions, but you do, and that tells me everything.

 

[postman]

Unreadable gibberish on a small phone. You're including all years to 2020. I clicked on 2025 only and it said 26,000 criminals? Huh? WTH? Maybe on a real PC like a work computer I could get to the bottom of this BS? But im not working that hard. They get paid to do what is requried.

You can only select the period, Year, Quarter, Month,

Try again, but use "multi-point touch" ZOOM if you can't see.

If you look at a particular year, you can see criminals vs violators.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

I changed my mind. NJ is messed up. What is this lady supposed to do? Stop, get out and fight 100 ANTIFA BLM Commee crminal POS? Swarm her car, get hurt, blame her? 2nd video.

.

No car struck any human being in the first video, and the second video looked completely questionable. Second one looked more like those "immigrants" who throw themselves in front of vehicles for litigious purposes.


.

 

[Correll]

This is the exact moment where righteous certainty reveals its fragility. You're not defending morality. You're defending dogma and calling it eternal to avoid ever having to question it.

You're not standing for morality. You're hiding inside it. You didn’t explain why your version of right and wrong is correct; you just declared it eternal, as if declaring something old makes it true.

You say these truths have been “proven through the annals of time.” But proven to who? By what metric? By whose power? History is littered with people who claimed divine certainty right before they were the villains in the next chapter.

You’re not upholding a moral legacy.
You’re protecting the comfort of inherited definitions you’ve never dared to test, because testing them might force you to change, and you've already said you'd rather be certain than correct.

The idea that truth requires no investigation is not strength. It’s cowardice dressed in tradition. If you're right, you shouldn’t fear questions, but you do, and that tells me everything.

Give an example based on a concrete issue.

 

[Anomalism]

Everytime that a lefty has called a republican racist, to silence him, the anger from that, didn't go away.

It was making us more and more mad with the assholes of the left.

Us on the right being angry is not us not being free. It is us responding appropriately to people who have been assholes to us for decades.

You think your anger is righteous, a reaction to being mistreated, but that righteous anger has turned into a crutch, and now it owns you, which means they already won.

If your values can be undone by someone else being an asshole, they were never your values. They were reactions. If your identity is shaped by who you hate, then they’re still in control, not you.

You say your anger is justified. Maybe it is, but justified doesn’t mean useful. It doesn’t mean honest. It doesn’t mean free. At some point, if all you know is what you’re against, you forget what you're for, and when that happens, they don’t even have to silence you anymore, because you've already replaced your clarity with bitterness, and you're the one keeping the fire alive.

The real tragedy isn’t that you're angry. It’s that you think that anger is you now, and you’re afraid of what would be left if you let it go.

 

[BrokeLoser]

The issue isn’t which policy to debate. It’s the fact that you think the only form of growth is agreement. You’re asking what idea could make someone change sides, but why do you think sides are the only thing that matter?

Liberals and conservatives both have blind spots. That’s not controversial. The real danger isn’t in disagreement; it’s in identity-based thinking, where changing your mind feels like betrayal instead of maturity.

People aren’t imprisoned by bad policies.
They’re imprisoned by the fear of being disloyal to their tribe. Maybe the better question isn’t “what issue could change someone’s perspective?” Maybe it’s "What would it take for you to admit your side is wrong about something without needing to flip teams or burn everything down?"

Until you can answer that, you’re not defending truth.

You’re digging way too deep and getting way too philosophical.
This isn’t complicated….Strong-minded, strong-willed folks with firm convictions are rarely open to change. Whereas the weak minded usually have no real convictions, they can be told to believe men can become women by proclamation and they will. They can be told homosexuality is SOOOOOO progressive and advanced and they’ll explore and become gay.
We raise strong-willed strong-minded children who stay committed to their convictions…We’re that way and we actually want our kids that way, we don’t want them always questioning their direction/path, we don’t want them living a life on depression and anxiety meds and struggling with identity and beliefs.
I’ll ask again….what positions, policies or ideals should conservatives compromise with liberals on?
Don’t be afraid to say….we can see what you seek with your query.

 

[Correll]

You think your anger is righteous, a reaction to being mistreated, but that righteous anger has turned into a crutch, and now it owns you, which means they already won.

If your values can be undone by someone else being an asshole, they were never your values. They were reactions. If your identity is shaped by who you hate, then they’re still in control, not you.

You say your anger is justified. Maybe it is, but justified doesn’t mean useful. It doesn’t mean honest. It doesn’t mean free. At some point, if all you know is what you’re against, you forget what you're for, and when that happens, they don’t even have to silence you anymore, because you've already replaced your clarity with bitterness, and you're the one keeping the fire alive.

The real tragedy isn’t that you're angry. It’s that you think that anger is you now, and you’re afraid of what would be left if you let it go.

Except, if you look at a real world example, say, IMMIGRATION,


I would be fine if the deportations of the illegals, was done without fuss.

It is the LEFT that is rioting and threatening to tear this country apart, not me or MAGA.


so, no, my anger is not driving my behavior. My stance on the issues is pretty much the same as they have been since the 90s.

 

[Foxfyre]

.

About 2006 or 2007. I changed my mind about abortion.

I used to be in a political board hollering about "women's rights" and "health care".

Now, I'm completely pro life.


.

My own views on abortion have changed somewhat and I now allow for nuances that I didn't allow for before. I found myself strongly opposing those states that have imposed draconian restrictions on abortion as much as I oppose those states with no restrictions on abortion.

Once condemning Roe I found myself pretty much aligned with the philosophy of it though I agree with the high court that the federal government should have no authority to control abortion policy and I oppose federal funding of abortion in ALL cases.

I am also 100% pro life and I maintain that the developing baby in the womb is a human life at ALL stages as not a single one of us makes it into this world without going through all those stages. I think our culture should strongly promote seeing it that way. I cannot see abortion of a healthy developing baby at any stage as an ethical ending of a human life. I have no problem with reasonable laws/policy protecting that life.

But I also recognize that there are very rare circumstances in which abortion is the necessary/ethical choice and the government at any level should not get in the way of doctors/women who need to make choices about that.

These concepts have developed in my heart and mind over time after hearing all sides of the national debate on that.

 

[SweetSue92]

Think back.

Not just something minor or trendy. Something you genuinely believed until you didn’t.

If that hasn’t happened in a long time, maybe you’ve stopped thinking. Most people don’t grow. They just settle into a political costume and call it wisdom.

They pick a side, inherit the script, memorize the heroes, and build their identity around never questioning it again, but if your views never evolve, maybe your values aren’t values; they’re habits.

If you can’t remember the last time you were wrong, then you’re probably still wrong about something right now.

I still cannot make up my mind about the death penalty.

 

[Anomalism]

The hatred the left has for America and Americans is on constant display and constantly reinforced by new examples from the left.

You say the hatred of the left is constantly on display, but that’s not a political observation, that’s a mirror. You don’t see hatred because it’s universal. You see it because you expect to, because your filters are built to find it, and because your identity requires it.

When every example reinforces your narrative, that’s not clarity; it’s confirmation bias doing exactly what it’s supposed to do, protect the emotional story you've built about yourself, your team, and the people you're told to fear.

You don't want balance. You want enemies. You need them, because the second you admit the other side might not be pure evil, you’d have to examine your own side with the same scrutiny, and deep down, you know how fragile that house really is.

So instead, you double down. You keep looking for monsters, but the more you do, the more your beliefs stop being about truth or liberty. They become a performance. A costume. A ritual of outrage that lets you feel righteous without ever risking self-reflection.

That’s dependency.

 

[Foxfyre]

I've been all over the place. I seek not to be right, but to be clear. I'm not attached to my political views at all. I'm more than happy to burn down entire warehouses of thought upon gaining new perspective. To me, that is strength.

You sound like you do engage in intellectual honesty and critical thinking. But you negate that when you do not argue a concept but rather negatively judge the other's reasoning and thinking.

I have made judgments about things, but when I started organizing an argument to support that judgment, I found that my argument just didn't hold up or could not be defended. So I had to back off.

Intellectual honesty requires us to defend the opinions we hold. An opinion that cannot be defended by experience, facts/evidence, logic, reason unsullied by ideology or partisanship is an opinion not worth having. That includes our opinions about other people.