One thing that "everyone" needs to "get straight"

[iguanaman]

Your idea to have more bipartisanship, is to eliminate the opposition party.

So you don't even know what bipartisanship is anymore? This is a huge problem

 

[iguanaman]

the divide today is no worse than before, senators and congressmen used to shoot each other on Washington streets, and this divide is no worse than the Civil War, civil rights, or even the Vietnam War, however, both sides despite differences in ideologies wanted to make the country better. however, what is different now is that a minority group of legislators is set on scorch earth policies They are not there to make things better for everyone, but rather if they don't get what they want then they will let it all burn so that no one gets what they want, that is the major difference between now and then. Jan 6 was a good example, everything since then is a testament to that

Diving Mullah

You forgot to mention that the GOP is allowing this "minority group" to hijack their party instead of pushing back on their insanity and treason. The need to find their spines...

 

[RF667799]

So you don't even know what bipartisanship is anymore? This is a huge problem

^^^Another didn't really read the OP^^^^

 

[Rucker61]

Compromise is viewed as capitulation.

There are elected reps who would rather burn down the country than find common ground with the opposition….

Some issues just shouldn't have compromise as a solution.

 

[iguanaman]

^^^Another didn't really read the OP^^^^

Projection is not a pretty thing. The OP described what bipartisanship is perfectly and you have no clue.

 

[Mach]

Some issues just shouldn't have compromise as a solution.

Like what?

 

[RF667799]

Projection is not a pretty thing. The OP described what bipartisanship is perfectly and you have no clue.

And concluded that what needed to happen was to get rid of the party that is either A) too partisan, or B) not partisan enough.

(The thread is ironically titled.)

 

[Rucker61]

Like what?

Women's right to choose. LGBTQ rights. Gun rights.

 

[Mach]

Women's right to choose. LGBTQ rights. Gun rights.

Gun rights sticks out like a sore thumb. Are you really telling me, that you believe there should be no limitations on guns whatsoever?

 

[Rucker61]

Gun rights sticks out like a sore thumb. Are you really telling me, that you believe there should be no limitations on guns whatsoever?

I'm talking about how the various sides want to use compromise . Gun control advocates continously push for compromise, which implies "give and take", yet offer nothing in return. Similarly after Dobbs made a abortion a state's rights issue the Republicans immediately sought to ignore that "compromise" to ban it at the federal level.

 

[Mach]

I'm talking about how the various sides want to use compromise . Gun control advocates continously push for compromise, which implies "give and take", yet offer nothing in return.

I see your position, but I believe it doesn't accurately capture the issue.

My interpretation of what you describe above, is that saving lives is what they offer in return. It's the entire goal. There would be no gun control movement if lives were not taken/injured.
Restricting firearms is 100% about an attempt to reduce gun violence in the United States. There is no other viable reason to push for significant gun control that I'm aware of.
Gun control is about restricting gun ownership/carrying/operation in ways that will significantly reduce gun deaths. That's the contribution to society, and it's one of the most important...life has primacy in most cases.

I do agree they do not always do a good job of crafting laws that achieve that goal. A safer society, less death and injury, less completed suicides (more second chances at life) is still the give, the goal.
Part of the reason they don't always get it right, is because the pro-gun lobby has stifled research, has made it a third rail to back or investigate, and has filled the discussion with misinformation. And, yes some (maybe most) are poorly informed about firearms when they try to craft such laws, and that's on them too.

 

[Rucker61]

I see your position, but I believe it doesn't accurately capture the issue.

My interpretation of what you describe above, is that saving lives is what they offer in return. It's the entire goal. There would be no gun control movement if lives were not taken/injured.
Restricting firearms is 100% about an attempt to reduce gun violence in the United States. There is no other viable reason to push for significant gun control that I'm aware of.
Gun control is about restricting gun ownership/carrying/operation in ways that will significantly reduce gun deaths. That's the contribution to society, and it's one of the most important...life has primacy in most cases.

Should the government be allowed to ignore the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and SCOTUS to try to save lives?

If saving one life has primacy over anyone's rights, are there any limits on government actions at all?

I do agree they do not always do a good job of crafting laws that achieve that goal. A safer society, less death and injury, less completed suicides (more second chances at life) is still the give, the goal.
Part of the reason they don't always get it right, is because the pro-gun lobby has stifled research, has made it a third rail to back or investigate, and has filled the discussion with misinformation.

This isn't really true:

Post-Dickey Act CDC studies

First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws

Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence | Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence | The National Academies Press

Read chapter Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence: In 2010, more than 105,000 people were injured or killed in the Uni...

www.nap.edu

https://dhss.delaware.gov/dhss/dms/files/cdcgunviolencereport10315.pdf

DOJ studies:

Publications Listing

nij.ojp.gov

DOJ statistics:

Home

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) is the United States' primary source for criminal justice statistics that cover a wide range of topics.

www.bjs.gov

CDC data:

WISQARS (Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System) | Injury Center | CDC

WISQARS (Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System) is an interactive database system that provides customized reports of injury-related data.

webappa.cdc.gov

FBI UCR - government violence tracking.

Crime/Law Enforcement Stats (UCR Program) | Federal Bureau of Investigation

The UCR Program's primary objective is to generate reliable information for use in law enforcement administration, operation, and management.

www.fbi.gov

NGO studies:

research@BSPH | Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

From laboratories in the Wolfe Street building in Baltimore to maternity wards in densely-packed neighborhoods in urban Bangladesh to field studies in rural Botswana, Bloomberg School faculty lead research that directly addresses the most critical public health issues worldwide.

www.jhsph.edu

Harvard Injury Control Research Center | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

The Center aims to reduce the societal burden of injury and violence through surveillance, research, intervention, evaluation, outreach, and training.

www.hsph.harvard.edu

Nothing that can be found in any study on gun control gives the government any power to unconstitutionally restrict the rights of the people.

And, yes some (maybe most) are poorly informed about firearms when they try to craft such laws, and that's on them too.

This is true.

 

[Luckyone]

Spare me your sanctimonious bull crap. Where were you when the democrats forced through obamacare without a single republican vote? Stop blaming Republicans for a tune that was set by Democrats. You all cry for compromises when Republicans are in power but go silent when the shoe is on the other foot. Democrats fight for everything they can get and so should Republicans.

Your response suggests that you support the idea that "the strongest and most powerful wins".

You mention Obamacare but the reality is that Obamacare won by Democratic vote. The fact that no Republicans voted for it is non-essential, It was done democratically.

What Trump, Gaetz and the right are trying to do is win by force, no matter who gets hurt. Obamacare did not hurt anyone.

Trouble, you have now gone to the far right and it makes you into one of the problems and not one of the solutions.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Your idea to have more bipartisanship, is to eliminate the opposition party.

Dude.

Read his post again.

That is NOT what he said.

 

[RF667799]

Dude.

Read his post again.

That is NOT what he said.

Yeah, he actually said we need to get rid of the party that is acting non-partisan.

 

[iguanaman]

And concluded that what needed to happen was to get rid of the party that is either A) too partisan, or B) not partisan enough.

(The thread is ironically titled.)

He said that those that refuse bipartisanship are nothing but obstructionists that want to burn the govt down and he was right. We are not a dictatorship and no side can ever get all they want. Why is that so difficult to grasp? Do you really have so little knowledge or respect for America that you cannot understand that?

 

[iguanaman]

Some issues just shouldn't have compromise as a solution.

There you go again with more authoritarian nonsense. This is not a war and we are all Americans....or at least we used to be. Democracy=bipartisanship.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Yeah, he actually said we need to get rid of the party that is acting non-partisan.

Read it again. he is talking about the Trump and Gaetz Republicans who put partisanship over country.

And you think the party of Trump is acting non partisan?????

Seriously?????

Amazing!

 

[Luckyone]

Yeah, he actually said we need to get rid of the party that is acting non-partisan.

No, I did not say that. I said that we should get rid of the party that is working in an Autocractic, Tyranical, of Dictatorship way.

If one party wins all three branches of government, they evidently are going to get things passed that are not agreed to by the other party. Then again, getting there was done democratically and passing those laws are also done democratically.

I was very specific about Autocrats, Tyrants, and Dictators, which is what the far left, Gaetz and Trump are trying to be and do.

 

[vanceen]

The Nazis were pretty extreme and they had the majority. ..

No, they didn't. They had 37% of the vote in the 1932 election before Hitler was appointed as Chancellor.

 

[NolanVoyd]

No, they didn't. They had 37% of the vote in the 1932 election before Hitler was appointed as Chancellor.

About what the Republicans have now.

 

[Rucker61]

There you go again with more authoritarian nonsense. This is not a war and we are all Americans....or at least we used to be. Democracy=bipartisanship.

What compromise should we offer the Republicans on gay marriage?

 

[RF667799]

No, I did not say that. I said that we should get rid of the party that is working in an Autocractic, Tyranical, of Dictatorship way.

If one party wins all three branches of government, they evidently are going to get things passed that are not agreed to by the other party. Then again, getting there was done democratically and passing those laws are also done democratically.

I was very specific about Autocrats, Tyrants, and Dictators, which is what the far left, Gaetz and Trump are trying to bassumptions.

Who wrote this:

"This is now failing to occur and that means we need to get rid of the party (or the people within the party) that is doing the non-partisan deeds."

 

[RF667799]

Read it again. he is talking about the Trump and Gaetz Republicans who put partisanship over country.

And you think the party of Trump is acting non partisan?????

Seriously?????

Amazing!

You're saying he was proposing getting rid of the Democrats because they're acting non-partisan?

 

[iguanaman]

No he didnt.

Read it again.

And you think the party of Trump is acting non partisan?????

Seriously?????

Amazin

What compromise should we offer the Republicans on gay marriage?

How about minding your own business? Freedom of choice is an American right. The bedroom police is an authoritarian thing. If being gay bothers you just ignore it.