The debate "Compromise" was started by
January 21, 2017, 10:15 pm.
15 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 10 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
neveralone posted 8 arguments, TheExistentialist posted 1 argument, Blue_ray posted 2 arguments, SalonY posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
PoliticsAsUsual posted 11 arguments to the disagreers part.
TheExistentialist, PsychDave, Blue_ray, pk, Brayden24, neveralone, SalonY, SirIntegra and 7 visitors agree.
PoliticsAsUsual and 9 visitors disagree.
Compromise Z Life & Life Z Compromise. D moment We intolerance Compromise Life Kicks us Out From its comfort Zone...
yes but they also deserve to know what the politicians are doing. thus the problem at hand
But it's the people who don't want to compromise and politicians fear getting the boot if they do, right?
no. I feel that we have gotten ourselves stuck in a complicated situation. idk the answer but it's hard to compromise when that isn't looked on favorably.
So you feel the blame is with the people?
well one part is us. the people. it's a challenge in this one but every time a politician votes we can see it. now most people don't want to see compromise so it anger them when they see a politician vote against there party which in turns makes politicians not do as such so they can keep their job.
what do you think is stopping compromise?
bump. I actually feels this is my best debate and wanted to revisit it.
I believe the people are with this 100%. both sides. however, it seems that your leadership. the people you elect, don't.
any form of ethics reform or oversight, they fight tooth and nail.
first thing the Republican house tried to do this year was to dismantle the only independent committee made to watch them.
so we agree on this
the government is cost effective. it has economics of scale. what it also has is curroption. we need to invest in a nonpartisan (not bipartisan) task force that will systematically comb through and investigate every part of the government.
starting with the (according to some here) flushed education system that can't seem to fund certain schools properly no matter how much $ we allocate.
and also whatever is going on in the military industrial complex.
follow that with the welfare fraud and other social services abuses. I know the right is foaming at the mouth over abuses here... and they aren't wrong. I disagree it's as widespread as they believe, but I don't pretend it's 0, and violators must be punished.
prisoners should not be allowed to vote, but they should be allowed to vote after release. punishment should fit the crime. if you feel a person needs to be punished indefinitely, then give him life. if you feel he has paid his price, then stop punishing them. let them vote. close the record for civilian checks (only for courts in case repeat offenders) and let them try to reenter civilian life.
guess what, if you force them to declare their record on employment and they can't get employed, how do you think they'll pay rent? whether they want to or not, your forcing them back into crime. at this point, you took away their choice.
and the gun issue is an easy and logical one. what was stopping it is that the right was fed the slippery slope conspiracy scenario, and they sheepishly ate it without thought. (obviously not all, but quite possibly a significant majority)
why can't the gov. just be more cost effective? then the people would have more control on what happens in prison.
also, trump said last year he wanted more privatization of prisons. several aides to the new attorney general are now lobbyists for one of those private prison companies. the same private prison company that was accused of illegally donating to a trump super PAC.
I believe the argument for private prisons was that a corporation would be more cost efficient. the government would still be paying, but they thought a private company would be able to save them money.
the most recent stats I could find from 2015 said they held 7% of state prisoners and 18% of federal prisoners.
in August the justice department determined that private prisons compare poorly to federally run ones. they directed the bureau of prisons to begin phasing out private prison contracts. they have a terrible track record of abuse and neglect. they refuse to do what they should to make a prison safe for the employees or provide basic necessities to the prisoners.
I haven't seen any private company prisons but won't the gov. still be paying? just now we decide who we are paying.
well when we come into a conversation like this and know that we need to compromise it helps a lot.
next my turn. Do you think Prisons should be handled by private companies rather than government?
Should prisoners be allowed to vote? No right? Transfer of money from a great father to a son who's criminal is just the same case. I think the father should have the right to transfer money to his son for his survival, but not for weaponry.
Finding common ground doesn't seem that tough if we actually talk about it. I hadn't expected this thread to work as well as it has. I have to commend you for making it.
I don't think a background check is needed for a family transfer, but if he knows his son is a violent felon, then he should face charges if found out.
however, transfer of registration will still need to be filed. again, as in a car.
honestly, treat guns like cars should be the motto. straight forward and the rules are already written. no politics needed. may even require liability insurance.
Minimum wage needs to be livable. It should be geared to cost of living and evaluated fairly often. In large cities with high costs of living it should be higher than in rural areas. I can't really put a number to it because I obviously believe it needs to flexible.
I think it should be sufficient so that someone working full time can live on their income. I would wish it was enough for a family to live on, but I think that might be out of reach at this point. The days of a single breadwinner are largely gone for most Americans as wages have not kept up with cost of living for too long.
Yes, even in such a case. If the father was a wonderful man and the son is a felon and a criminal, there should have to be a check before that gun is handed down. It should be possible to hand it down to someone who is not eligible, but it would need to be rendered inoperable first if it was for sentimental reasons. It would allow fathers to pass on family heirlooms without endangering people.
Also with private transfers like father to son?
how about minimum wage.
I agree on this. maybe a psych evaluation as well but that should be free of charge
I can't speak for him, but if you are selling a gun to someone, a background check should be done. no matter who the seller is.
My mistake haha the name is silly. Im used to ffls!
And politics, do you mean only gun shows or all private transfers?
unfortunately it is totally legal. and the Republicans like it that way.
You find me a gun show that doesnt require it and you have found felons. Same with online purchases.
yet you have gun show unregistered, unchecked sales. that's all Democrats want.
weren't these things done by executive order that yall are promising to revoke? an order is not a law. why is Congress not acting the way people want? the way you now claim to support?
besides that I would like to limit carry in populated public areas.
we can also talk about huge magazine or other serious weaponry. I think a city/County militia armory is acceptable for those but not individual ownership.
that would be the totality of what I feel is necessary and anything beyond that is too far.
Firearms are registered. And every official gun purchase must be met with a background check. Its a felony to break those laws.
register fire Arms and decrease unregistered no background sales.
I know that language has been demonized but it's no different than how we treat cars and bank accounts.
k sounds good. so what would we like to do next
depends on what you break.
get caught with a gun in the city? fine.
discharge the gun recklessly or killing/injuring an innocent? lose of any carry privilege, and if continued, loss of ownership privilege.
if said situation happens u could have the gun zones like a range where u could shoot ur gun and maybe have a place their to leave it. on the side what would be the punishment for not obeying this.
On the surface that makes sense, but i think it would break down in implementation let's say it plays out like you described. If I wanted a gun but lived in the city, I would just drive out of town, get one, then come back. That's already what happens in areas with gun control in place.
I like the idea, I just would have concerns about the viability.
I think that solves a bunch of the problems.
it matters because it's a populated area, and if a significant portion of them are armed, all hell could break loose.
for example, there's a shooter in a mall. if there's a good guy with a gun around, great! a great catastrophe can be avoided. but what if a significant portion of the people there are armed? big mall, let's say 30 guns come out. how will that situation play out?
or how about someone defending his home against robbers... in a multifamily dwelling? strays kill.
I would say giving local municipalities and public vote more options to both restrict and permit firearms would be a good way to compromise. This would be counties rather than state governments. Most urban areas tend to be more liberal while rural areas tend to be more conservative. If you put gun restrictions on ballots you'd likely get more gun restrictions in urban areas and more lax laws in rural. You'd have to be aware when traveling between counties as to the gun policy, but since different counties already have different alcohol laws, smoking laws, etc.... I don't think this is enough of an obstacle to dismiss the idea.
You would end up with more representative laws for the populations which live under them. In urban areas, too many guns obviously cause more problems than they solve. The data is simply undeniable there. Rural areas, however don't have the same problems as urban areas. It doesn't seem to make sense to restrict right in these areas as much as in urban areas.
Some federal guidelines will need to be established, however, if the poling data for the last few years is correct, there is quite a lot of agreement on this and rather we're left with special interest interference. Universal background checks on all gun sales, sensible waiting periods for most (not all) transactions, closing the gun show and internet loopholes. Municipalities could then decide permit issues, registration issues, carrying issues, gun free zones, etc... Most rural municipalities would be unlikely to vote for or have many gun free zones, carrying would also likely be less restricted while urban areas would likely restrict guns in public spaces more heavily and would likely make it harder to people to legally carry in general. This however, addresses the problems of the urban population while being as non-restrictive as possible in rural areas.
One of the main problems preventing such a compromise is that the federal government tends to interfere with gun legislation rather than give local municipalities an opportunity to dictate their own laws. I would argue that the federal government should abstain from involving themselves in municipal legislation regarding gun laws and allow local and state courts to decide the issues. The federal appealscourts should either affirm state court rulings or abstain from hearing them unless there is a blatant constitutional violation.
fair enough. their should be a zone where u can put ur guns securely and make sure they can't be stolen. and if they want to sell there guns hey could meet up there
OK I could accept these but let's make it where if they don't pass they get there money back.
It comes down to how police respond. If lots of people are armed, police need to treat everyone as a potential deadly threat. That means more people get shot because police are jumpier.
I would add a rule that before you can legally own a gun you need to pass a test on safety, care and relevant laws. There would also need to be some sort of licence involving a background check. That way responsible people still have a fairly easy way to get a gun but criminals have a harder time.
OK let me get this straight. on the police in town don't carry a gun thing. why would it matter if ur stable? as long as u don't shoot it(unless needed ) it shouldn't matter if he has it or not. on a side note are u from an urban area? I'm rural personally.
you can't do selective enforcement. urban or rural, federal law should be the same everywhere. owning a gun should be legal everywhere with individual exceptions for those who commit crimes. carrying a gun in town where there are plenty of police should be banned. it will only cause chaos and confusion. in the wilderness or isolated areas, carry away. in public populated areas, hell no, big town or small.
OK fun was not supposed to be there it was supposed to be gun
on gun control. in urban areas where their is more fun crimes we could crack down harder but let it be more loose in rural areas where their is far less.
though if we don't compromise on such issues we won't be able to do either.
true which is why I wasn't saying tod I so. people now a days rarely practice abstinence so it would not be wise.
that is true, abstinence education has been shown to INCREASE young pregnancies, not decrease them. whether it is moral or not, we can't ignore the result it has in reality, and it is counter productive regardless of the intentions behind it.
I can agree with that concept with one caveat. The sex Ed has to be secular and based on scientific research of what works. Abstinence only education has been thoroughly demonstrated to not work.
I don't think abortion is a good place to start compromise. many people on the right see it as the left see other civil rights. not up for negotiation.
definitely an important topic we should tackle, but I don't think it will be a good place to start.
I do believe that more help to young mothers (like not forcing them to drop out of school, even indirectly. don't make a baby the end of any and all dreams a person may have) will help the issue. few people actually want to abort a child, but you only get 1 life.
I think guns are a better place to look for compromise. we should start by dispelling the slippery slope conspiracy. perhaps make a law that includes laguage that has both regulations and a stop to how far those regulations can go.
OK on the case of abortion. for now keep it. but increase on help programs that help single mothers and fathers. also increase sex Ed. and the value of life. after all this if it seems to be going in the right direction in 10 years take out abortion.
OK basically I made this to see if we can come up with answers on issues that could help both parties. we can see how many people will get in this. but think about an issue and come up with a plan and everyone will put it to a vote by pressing agree or disagree on he argument if u get more agrees then it passes if not then u can have a chance to revise and ask what they didn't like.
Depends on the subject. I can compromise on many subjects but I cannot believe lies to compromise, nor will I compromise my or others rights. Otherwise it's certainly possible.
again will start this in the morning. think both parties be involved and will explain it more then