https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/23/u-s-religious-groups-and-their-political-leanings/
Hard to draw broad conclusions. Hindus (reincarnation based worldview) appear more liberal.
I’m more curious to understand how someone who sees souls as something way beyond their physical incarnation can distinguish between a Russian, a Swede, an American, a Mexican or an Iranian?
On the soul level there is no difference at all. What we are talking about when it comes to nations could be likened to our assigned teams. If you are a member of the Denver Broncos team but go out of your way to play against them whenever you are on the field, then you aren't helping your team. After the game is over, you can all go out for pizza and enjoy each other's company but on the field you are a liability to your team. In the same way, when you go on the field to play against the Chargers, you either play against them to win or you get off the field. We all have our roles and we learn from them. Rejecting our roles to play for the other side rarely does us any credit. There are exceptions to this, as the life of Oscar Schindler illustrates well. One must remember however, that the Oscar Schindler's of the world would be ill-treated if they were found out by members of "their team". What Trump has done is to show how America has been almost thoroughly taken over by political rot and that it must be corrected.
My impression is that one of the hardest things there is to life is to discern truth from falsehood. If you can do that, you will understand God and our purpose here. Every problem we have in these incarnations can in some way be linked to our ability or inability to spot the difference between truth and falsehood. Either we cannot see the difference and set ourselves against those who can, or vice versa. We do our best and after we die, we have our life review and see whether we played the game well or not. Often this leads to the desire for a rematch or another game, and then we have the benefit of reincarnation in a life designed to test us.
What I think I am seeing with the presidency of Donald Trump is a strong corrective to decades of falsehoods promulgated in western society. Feel free to interpret that any way you wish. Whether you think Trump is honest or not, he has been a significant disruptive force. He forces people, more people than I've ever seen affected by one person, to take stock of their positions and defend them, whatever they are. From my point of view, it reminds me of when lawyers take depositions that force deponents to sign their names to their version of events, thus making them fully responsible for any errors or omissions. People have gone to such lengths on all issues related to Trump that the ones who turn out to be wrong will discover that they have done wrong in defending those positions and attacking those who disagree. I will state right here that I believe that members of Antifa and other disruptive and violent leftist groups have stained their moral standing through their purposeful and dangerous excesses in defense of falsehoods.
As may be obvious to anyone reading my posts, I believe that Trump has been seriously maligned and slandered. I do not believe the majority of what I have heard or read about him. If I did, I would support liberalism. The reason I disbelieve this material, quite apart from the many admitted errors on the part of the media and politicians, is that none of it matches what I see and hear when I see Trump speak. He does not come across as racist to me. Far from it. If anyone does, it is the Democrat politicians who seem to think of every person on earth as trapped by their race, gender, religion, or other immutable characteristics. Trump speaks and behaves like someone who is genuinely "color blind." He is not, however, blind. One consequence of atheism as I see it is that it introduces uncertainty. Uncertainty breeds lack of self-confidence. Lack of self-confidence breeds weakness, and weakness fosters blindness. When I write the word, "blindness", I refer to an inability to see things as they are as opposed to simply what they look like. There is a significant difference between the two. Just as a parent pushing a baby carriage and the baby in the carriage can look around and see the same things, the parent will know what those things are, a bakery, a shoe shine stand, a car, a dog, etc, but the baby just sees shapes.
When I read what liberal politicians have said or what their adherents say in support, they focus on superficial characteristics of what they have seen, missing the larger picture, causing misunderstanding and strife. Trump's call to the Ukrainian president, for instance, strikes me as a perfectly legitimate exercise of his duties as president. That his attempt to encourage the Ukrainian government to investigate corruption happens to involve a man who might become his opponent in the 2020 election is the fault of Hunter Biden and the Democratic Committee, not Trump, because they are the ones who engaged in questionable activity. Trump might benefit from the investigation but that is a side effect of the more important purpose: to discover what happened so that the same type of corruption doesn't happen again. Also, it prevents the needless waste of US treasury funds on corrupt players. The way Democrats have interpreted the call is bizarre to me, just as the way they have reacted to conservatives who have pointed out their (in my view) totally reasonable grounds for doubting their narrative.
When I look at the way skeptics discuss psi, it is clear that they have made either no effort to inform themselves, or have fallen for superficial explanations for psi phenomena that in many cases are completely contradicted by individual case history data. Finding the truth in anything is a difficult process that requires some degree of skepticism, even a high degree of skepticism. It is when that skepticism is applied to serious investigation that truth can be found and well-grounded confidence is formed. As many of you know, I began my study of psi believing that it was a pseudo phenomenon, not genuine. It was, I thought, fraudulent to its core. That was my starting point. After looking into it, even going to the trouble of earning a PhD from one of the world's highest ranked universities along the way, I have developed a high confidence level that some phenomena collectively described as "psi" are genuine, even if not in every reported instance.
The process that led to that conclusion showed me conclusively how little I knew at the outset and how careful one needs to be to understand the subject. When I look at the writings of James Randi, I see an extremely sloppy research method that invites deception. Richard Wiseman and Susan Blackmore, on the other hand, appear to be self-deluded rather than creating intentional deceptions. The work of Hans Holzer and other authors of ghost stories and the like, are no more rigorous than James Randi and have the same low level of credibility. Then you get to writers like Robert McLuhan, who does an excellent job as a reporter of investigating how skeptics have misrepresented data, research, and spontaneous reports of psi. A comparison of McLuhan's book "Randi's Prize" with James Randi's "Flim Flam!" should yield the impression that McLuhan knows his subject well but Randi hasn't made a serious effort to understand it. McLuhan has gone to the trouble of reaching out to discover evidence that would illuminate the subject while Randi reaches deep inside his own mind instead, to manufacture theories based on his limited theories. Then you get to scientists like William James, Rupert Sheldrake, and Ian Stevenson, all of whom apply a much more rigorous investigative methodology to their work than the comparatively haphazard work of Wiseman, Blackmore, and their ilk.
In psi as in politics, people commit to positions based on their beliefs. What are those beliefs based on? I would suggest it is their perception of truth. One person sees Trump as a racist and another does not. An interesting effect I have seen on that subject is that many liberals who have written on the subject have made the argument that because Trump is racist, so are his supporters. However, if his supporters don't see him as racist and perceive racism to be repugnant (as is the case with me), then they are transparently not only wrong about his supporters but quite possibly about Trump as well. This may explain one of the aspects of conservative support for Trump that must infuriate liberals. They not only don't back down in their support for Trump when he is accused of these things, but he acquires more support. One of the reasons I think this is true is that it creates a kind of test whereby the truth of the accusation can easily be discerned. For instance, if Trump and his supporters are accused of racism but those supporters know they aren't racists themselves, then it is natural to be skeptical regarding the claim that Trump is racist. Moreover, this test works its magic on liberals as well. They see past videos of Trump's many friendships and business partnerships with people of various races and genders, giving them the ability to see for themselves that the claim is false. Making claims like that is, in the end, a good thing because it gives everyone an opportunity to test what they are told against what they can see for themselves so that they can discern the truth. If, on the other hand, they commit to malicious and repugnant behavior defend their slanders against Trump, they bear the full burden of guilt and its attendant responsibility because they had their chance to see for themselves but rejected it.
I am surprised the connection between psi and politics hasn't been brought up much, if at all, before. The way I look at it, the skepticism we see of Trump on the part of non-conservatives behaves in identical fashion to the kind of psi skepticism we see here on this forum every day.