@Robby:
Ah yes, the "give the bank robber anything he wants while he has hostages" approach. Great way to run a country.
Well, it's better than getting anyone hurt. When I worked at Wal-Mart, you are to give the robber the money, and not play a hero, for your safely. I do agree it is not a great way to run a country, but sometimes you have to make a compromise with these sorts of things.
@Robby:
Please, feel free to provide the good side to any of the things I listed. They are all actual currently happening positions and ideas.
0.0… I have not heard of most of those till you mentioned it.
That's… not a political issue? That's a "show sensitivity to minorities issue. And there's no legislation being made about it.
Oh, sorry about that. I just know liberals are the ones that act like that, and I disagree on their viewpoint, since it is just an outfit, etc.
Dems have been willing to compromise "only" stricter gun laws for ages without banning anything. Republicans refuse to budge even on things like waiting periods or background checks.
Okay, you win on this point o:
And please, provide a reason any person would ever in their life need a fully automatic AK-15 other than the slaughter a mass of people? That isn't for self defense or scaring bears off your property.
Have it for your collection, shoot targets for fun, etc. Personally, for me, it would be useful to shoot down a door. Guns are not always about killing, not to me anyway. I refuse to kill anyone, only shoot to disarm, etc.
You used the word "compromise" to begin with. You set the discussion.
Yes, for a reasonable discussion, not something crazy.
Bill was on the wrong side of history on that one. Lots of people were, and stuff like "no gays in the military" goes back a long ways, in both parties. There's been better education about LGBT issues in the decades since.
Yes, indeed, I agree.
Sure, just bans on brown people. And not helping Puerto Rico. And transgender people in the military. And women's right to choose. And anyone between poor and middle class.
Yes, I do see these as bad things, but not to the level of Hilter. There are no people getting killed, etc. Also, we still have abortion, that has not been taken away. I would see him as more about a problem if he started let's say put transgender people into camps type of thing.
Also, both supreme court justices Trump has appointed are anti gay marriage, and anti-abortion. So once those issues come up, they could swing the other way.
True, but they also know that many people in the United States support gay marriage and abortion; but as of yet that did not come up. Don't quote me on this, but I think once something passes in the Supreme Court like gay marriage for example, cannot be overturned?
It could have been miles better, closer to what every other civilized country in the world has, but it got "compromised" down to a half measure, and that's been attacked nonstop by Republicans for the last ten years. They've tried to repeal and crush it literally dozens of times, and they've managed to take the teeth out of it entirely. Something is better than nothing, yes, but it could have actually been GOOD instead of just barely there.
I see, I do want universal healthcare here, but at the same time seems very complicated to do it at one go, maybe one day.
Except that's not broad. That is not a hypothetical what if scenario. You can't change the wording to make it more cute. THAT IS WHAT IS HAPPENING.
They are tearing children from their mothers, putting them in tent cities and cages, not tracking them in any way, and thousands of children now will never see their families again.
@Cyan:
Let us all be civil and reasonable people and discuss the merits of checks notes keeping children in cages.
Wait, really, this is a real thing? I thought you were just pulling stuff out of your ass XD I never heard about this. Can you link me to a source talking about this please and thank you.
"Straw-man" is the term you're looking for. And no, that would be exaggerating a stance beyond belief to make it so the other side looked worse than it was with no defense. I am not exaggerating any of the current Republican party's stances.
Well, like I mentioned earlier they seem like very crazy ideas since I have not heard of most of them being discussed in the news.
If I have misconstrued the current administration, and the republican party of the last 20 or so years, feel free to correct me on what the positive other side argument is for
-infants in cages with no plan to return them to their families
Well, I never heard of this, as stated above.
-defending white supremacists as "good people"
From my knowledge, they were not being defended, but just brushed off when it was questioned to Trump. Could you point me to a source to help me better understand on what you mean?
-destroying medicare and raising taxes on the middle class so the rich can pay less
Medicare isn't destroyed…. I'm on it. I don't know what you are talking about there.
-inflating the price of essential medication by 1000%
Again, I need a source for this please. I only know of one dude that did that for a specific med several years ago.
-taking the free internet and deciding companies get to choose what you have access to
Though I think both sides attack the internet, but I'm not sure, so don't quote me on it.
-coal as the energy of the future
I don't think they specifically mentioned that it is the energy of the future though….
-refusal to discuss global warming as even existing
I agree with you on this.
-allowing people to have mass murder guns
This is just no. I already mentioned people can use these weapons for other things, plus anything can be made as a weapon even. Nowadays, people having been using bombs for mass murder too. Cars can be used for killing too, etc. The point is, guns should have as much restrictions as getting a car, but why ban something just because of a few bad seeds, while punishing everyone else. Instead just a mental evaluation, etc. People should have the right to have what they want, as long as it is in reason, like having a gun, and not misusing their rights for instance.
Please enlighten me as to what the "other side" is in these cases.
I did =^.^=
@Cyan:
Yes "not wanting young adults who were brought here as very small children to be deported" is the same thing as "racist boondoogle wall". These are equivalent things.
I think there was more to that discussion of DACA then what you stated, but sadly I don't know much about it, so cannot really discuss that issue at hand.
I was just saying the government shouldn't be used to shut down for any reason to get what you want, no matter what you trying to achieve. Or if you have the government shut-down, all Congress members shouldn't be paid either.
Also, thousands of people lost money and probably because homeless because of the government shutdown, the most specific one I mean.