What political issues are you unwilling to compromise on?

TacoMac

TacoMac

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
It depends on the circumstances. I don't think any of my positions are unreasonable,
Click to expand...
All of them are.

People who put down ultimatums are the problem with this country to begin with. Rather than compromising and doing the best we can for the country, people are being narcisistic assholes and saying, "it's my way or I don't vote."

That is EXACTLY how Trump got into the white house to begin with.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
TacoMac said:
All of them are.
Click to expand...
What's unreasonable about them?
TacoMac said:
People who put down ultimatums are the problem with this country to begin with. Rather than compromising and doing the best we can for the country, people are being narcisistic assholes and saying, "it's my way or I don't vote."

That is EXACTLY how Trump got into the white house to begin with.
Click to expand...
I don't want a politician I support to compromise for the sake of compromise with the Republican party or corporate Democrats. Do you believe the 16 establishment Democrats who compromised on the Republican effort to deregulate Wall Street was a good thing? You can say they "got something done", but it wasn't good for the American people, so in that instance, compromise was a bad thing.

When do Republicans compromise with the Democratic party? Never. They even blocked a moderately centrist Supreme Court nominee for almost a year because they didn't believe he was conservative enough.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
What's unreasonable about them?

I don't want a politician I support to compromise for the sake of compromise with the Republican party or corporate Democrats. Do you believe the 16 establishment Democrats who compromised on the Republican effort to deregulate Wall Street was a good thing? You can say they "got something done", but it wasn't good for the American people, so in that instance, compromise was a bad thing.

When do Republicans compromise with the Democratic party? Never. They even blocked a moderately centrist Supreme Court nominee for almost a year because they didn't believe he was conservative enough.
Click to expand...
You speak of compromise as if it were a bad thing. Not surprised that you must dumb down an argument to a level you can understand. They voted for a bill written by Senator Crapo without modification. Where is the compromise in that? They supported deregulation and didn't work for any compromises.

In any case, some other dumb stuff in your post: Those 16 congressmen had their own reasons for voting in favor of deregulation and it wasn't "compromise". They aren't "establishment Democrats". That's a term you define how you like. Coming from you, that term has no real meaning.

If you were capable of giving the matter some thought, there are two reasons for their votes that stand out from others . one is acceptable and the other isn't solved by taking out Democrats and replacing them with Republicans. Can you guess what they are? Hint: it wasn't compromise.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Click to expand...
Exactly. The root of this problem is campaign donations by banks.

Did you know that every Senator who is a Democrat voted in support of Bernie's bill to repeal the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of Citizen's United? Bernie's bill lost because every Republican voted to sustain the filibuster they mounted to stop it from becoming law.

How can Democrats be the problem when they support the solution?

This has nothing to do with compromise, by the way. You should look that word up. You are misusing it.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
"The root of the problem is campaign donations by banks."

Why would the Democrats who voted in favor of deregulating the banks with Republicans vote to repeal Citizens United under a Republican held congress?

...because they know it won't pass

In 2018, Democrats will very likely take control of one or both houses of congress. If all of them do not vote to repeal Citizens United, when they actually have the power and ability to do so, will you finally admit establishment Democrats are just as corrupt as Republicans?
 
Ripped Farmer

Ripped Farmer

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
how much money has mexico put towards the wall so far?

and what is it like to be so unemployable that you have to worry about losing work to illegal immigrants?
Click to expand...
Bored

Still funny ya'll sent a porn star after trump. That guy owns you. Keep hating. Ice cream time for me!
 
SageFromZen

SageFromZen

Well-Known Member
That, serotonin reuptake inhibitors and MAOI's are involved in almost every school related shooting and yet all we're being sold is GUNS, GUNS, GUNS. BIG pharma must be in bed with BIG media because there is almost no mention ever that each shooter is taking medications. Period.

You won't find any such information beyond B-rated media outlets on the topic like such: https://www.cchrint.org/school-shooters/

It just is what it is. It isn't about guns at all. It's about marketing.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Ripped Farmer said:
More gunz.

And the wall. With sniper towers.
Click to expand...
More guns will lead to more gun deaths and the wall won't stop illegal immigration

If the idea is to limit gun deaths and limit illegal immigration, don't you think we should try to limit the amount of guns accessible to the population and offer a more reasonable and expedient way to become an American citizen. (although illegal immigration into America has actually decreased over the past few years?)
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
SageFromZen said:
That, serotonin reuptake inhibitors and MAOI's are involved in almost every school related shooting and yet all we're being sold is GUNS, GUNS, GUNS. BIG pharma must be in bed with BIG media because there is almost no mention ever that each shooter is taking medications. Period.

You won't find any such information beyond B-rated media outlets on the topic like such: https://www.cchrint.org/school-shooters/

It just is what it is. It isn't about guns at all. It's about marketing.
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing your point, but just wondering what about the millions of people who take the same medications who don't commit acts of terror?

This is the line of reasoning a defense lawyer would argue. So how do you show that some people who use these drugs are prone to commit terrorist acts while many more others, arent?

Some people who play violent video games or watch violent movies are also prone to committing these attacks.. How are we to know if they're part of the cause?


We have to mark it up to mental illness. That's the only outlier. These people are sick, they haven't developed the capacity for empathy, they've been brought up in a world of abuse. The fact that these people have absolute access to weapons of war compounded with their want to harm people is the problem. Could some of these people commit as much terrorism without a gun as they could with one? I'm sure they could. But it's completely groundless to try to argue that more people would not fall victim to a mass shooting if these weapons were not available is absurd. You could not kill 33 people without the kind of weapon the Virginia Tech shooter carried in the time he did. You couldn't kill 58 people without a bump stock like the Las Vegas shooter had..

Nobody significant is calling for an absolute ban on all guns. Comprehensive gun reform is needed.
 
Unclebaldrick

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
SageFromZen said:
That, serotonin reuptake inhibitors and MAOI's are involved in almost every school related shooting and yet all we're being sold is GUNS, GUNS, GUNS. BIG pharma must be in bed with BIG media because there is almost no mention ever that each shooter is taking medications. Period.

You won't find any such information beyond B-rated media outlets on the topic like such: https://www.cchrint.org/school-shooters/

It just is what it is. It isn't about guns at all. It's about marketing.
Click to expand...
It's late and time to go to sleep. But I am not drowsy yet. Can you tell me a story about Margaret Sanger?
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
I think our country will continue to circle the drain until we get money out of politics.

Repeal of Citizens United and related decisions.

Limited public funds for political campaigns.

No one but registered voters may contribute funds, and the limit per campaign season is universally accessible, like $100.

We've tried everything else... maybe it's time to do the right thing.

That's my non negotiable issue.
 
SageFromZen

SageFromZen

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
I'm not arguing your point, but just wondering what about the millions of people who take the same medications who don't commit acts of terror?

This is the line of reasoning a defense lawyer would argue. So how do you show that some people who use these drugs are prone to commit terrorist acts while many more others, arent?

Some people who play violent video games or watch violent movies are also prone to committing these attacks.. How are we to know if they're part of the cause?


We have to mark it up to mental illness. That's the only outlier. These people are sick, they haven't developed the capacity for empathy, they've been brought up in a world of abuse. The fact that these people have absolute access to weapons of war compounded with their want to harm people is the problem. Could some of these people commit as much terrorism without a gun as they could with one? I'm sure they could. But it's completely groundless to try to argue that more people would not fall victim to a mass shooting if these weapons were not available is absurd. You could not kill 33 people without the kind of weapon the Virginia Tech shooter carried in the time he did. You couldn't kill 58 people without a bump stock like the Las Vegas shooter had..

Nobody significant is calling for an absolute ban on all guns. Comprehensive gun reform is needed.
Click to expand...
"You could not kill 33 people without the kind of weapon the Virginia Tech shooter carried in the time he did. You couldn't kill 58 people without a bump stock like the Las Vegas shooter had.. "

Both shooters were on meds. Case closed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top