What is something you agree with the "other side" about?

[Jhhnn]

If the US corporate rate were too high we wouldn't have ~1/3 of US equities owned by foreigners. They only pay US taxes on income if the rate in their own country is lower.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I agree that Trump is the worst President in our history and the GOP is spineless for not impeaching him.

 

[sandorski]

There is a Swamp in DC.

 

[Jaskalas]

Difficult to know what the party of Trump stands for these days, having sold out their moral courage. Not all of them are behind restricting immigration. And that's the one big ticket item where I know I stand closer than not.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Trump is his own person, Republican in name only. Question can be answered in regards to him and his policies or in regards to either the Republican Party or the right as a political ideology.

 

[Ken g6]

I've been thinking there are a number of things Trump has done that I would have also done, but I would have done them differently.

I agree with adjusting taxes on companies to promote jobs, but I would set up the tax code to ensure that companies create good paying (but not millionaire) jobs to get lower taxes.

I also agree with deporting illegal immigrants, but I thought Obama was doing a good job of that until he set up DACA. I do think there should be exceptions for some groups, probably including dreamers and those married to American citizens, but the President doesn't have the power to declare those without Congress. So I also agree with getting rid of DACA. Just not with "zero tolerance".

 

[Jhhnn]

I've been thinking there are a number of things Trump has done that I would have also done, but I would have done them differently.

I agree with adjusting taxes on companies to promote jobs, but I would set up the tax code to ensure that companies create good paying (but not millionaire) jobs to get lower taxes.

I also agree with deporting illegal immigrants, but I thought Obama was doing a good job of that until he set up DACA. I do think there should be exceptions for some groups, probably including dreamers and those married to American citizens, but the President doesn't have the power to declare those without Congress. So I also agree with getting rid of DACA. Just not with "zero tolerance".

Yeh, fuck those dreamers! We can't accept this act of mercy towards these 20-somethings raised in this country! Obama didn't have the authority! Fuck their green cards, their jobs, their lives, & their little brown American citizen rugrats! Fuck those Salvadoran refugees here since 2001 the same way! And all the rest of 'em, too!

On the basis of principle, of course.

 

[Ken g6]

Yeh, fuck those dreamers! We can't accept this act of mercy towards these 20-somethings raised in this country! Obama didn't have the authority! Fuck their green cards, their jobs, their lives, & their little brown American citizen rugrats! Fuck those Salvadoran refugees here since 2001 the same way! And all the rest of 'em, too!

On the basis of principle, of course.

I'm not saying to go after the dreamers. I'm saying the President shouldn't have the power to decide not to follow a law or part of a law from Congress. It's also about "separation of powers". I could understand waiting for a court to strike down the program, but a court should have done that. I don't know about you, but I am very glad now that a court struck down the line-item veto back during the Clinton administration.

 

[dank69]

I agree with the other side that liberals hate America and should never be allowed to implement a single policy.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm not saying to go after the dreamers. I'm saying the President shouldn't have the power to decide not to follow a law or part of a law from Congress. It's also about "separation of powers". I could understand waiting for a court to strike down the program, but a court should have done that. I don't know about you, but I am very glad now that a court struck down the line-item veto back during the Clinton administration.

You're trying to reduce mass fuckovers to an abstraction. That's right. There's reality & there's the way you think it should have been so we should make it that way now, as if it's somehow right to go back on our word & screw millions of people.

It's not right. We're better than that. This great country can swallow them up with ease, just as we've done with many waves of immigrants in the past. Fucking them over is entirely optional.

 

[ivwshane]

I'm not sure who the "other side" is so I can't really answer the question but these are the generic policies I agree with:

Environmental protection (once a Republican value)
An efficient government (not to be confused with "small government")
A progressive tax system
A safety net for those in need or unable to take care of themselves (I'm not stuck on any one particular method to achieve that)
I'm for a small military (1/3 of our current budget would be great if it meets the efficient government standard) and international intervention when it's combined with the help of NATO members
I'm for regulations that protect citizens
I'm for health care reform with a goal of reducing costs and improving coverage
I'm for a woman's right to choose and to have that choice be between her and her doctor
I'm for public education and government provided extended education like college and trade schools that are ran by the government (mostly as competition to private schools)
I support an increase of the amount of representatives we have in the house
I support our territories becoming states
I support trade agreements that raise the quality of living standards and provide environmental protections
I support immigration reform that improves security and a path to citizenship and that goes after businesses hiring illegals

 

[UglyCasanova]

I'm not sure who the "other side" is

Bullshit

 

[soulcougher73]

The irony is incredible. You create a list of negative features about a straw man version of the Democrats, only to find that Trump actually fits the profile better than the real Democrats. That's a truly impressive fuck up. Anti-law enforcement? Check. Anti-military? Check. Higher taxes for the majority? Check. Anti-energy production? Check. Meanwhile the only thing on that list the Democrats actually go for is higher taxes, which makes sense considering the massive debt the Republicans keep trying to avoid paying off.

The problem was trying to compare video gaming with tv shows, video game are very competitive and this can be addicting. Watching a tv show doesn’t compare as you are not competing with another viewer to gain anything, so it’s not competitive, outside of actually being a contestant on a game show.

 

[soulcougher73]

I can’t really say I agree with anything the right does. Now some of the things they pay lip service I ageee with, but they are hypocrites and never do what they say they would do.

 

[UglyCasanova]

The problem was trying to compare video gaming with tv shows, video game are very competitive and this can be addicting. Watching a tv show doesn’t compare as you are not competing with another viewer to gain anything, so it’s not competitive, outside of actually being a contestant on a game show.

What?

 

[Atreus21]

Liberals can be too politically correct. There's one.

I've noticed you seem (seem, mind you), to be pro-Israel too.

 

[soulcougher73]

What?

Lol not sure How this ended up here. Ignore my post, was for another thread.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I'm more of a libertarian, so if anything, I would agree with things from both sides


Agree with the right: No matter what it is, I support your right to state whatever you believe or feel. I don't believe you should ever be punished or fired from a job just because someone doesn't agree with your stance. That doesn't mean that you have a right to not be offended - there is no such thing as "hate speech" - this is where the left turn into looney tunes

Also agree that in general - government is incompetent. We need as little government as possible.

For example: Our city was hit by hurricane Harvey. Bad. We are JUST NOW - over a year later about to get federal funds. It seriously takes 365+ days to simply allocate and transfer funds? It's the perfect example of how many monkey's does it take to screw in a lightbulb? You know who has done a fuckload more already? EVERYONE. Every non-profit, a furniture store owner, the food bank, the city, etc..

Agree with the left: My libertarian side says this: My morals aren't your morals. So no matter if I find it immoral to have an abortion, that shouldn't take away your ability to do it. Do as you will as long as it doesn't infringe upon me. So I'm for abortion. For legalizing weed. Also fuck churches, pay your taxes deadbeats.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I disagree with this. It did take both people and I totally get that, but it’s her body not his. I wonder how often it even comes up that the dad is against it. If they are in a relationship then I’d think it’s pretty much always a joint decision. If they aren’t in a relationship I’d imagine the dad wouldn’t be opposed. If the woman didn’t want it but the dad did I would be for him having sole custody and the woman never sees it nor pays child support. That opens up cans of worms though.

I'm in agreeance here. If a man doesn't want it (and they aren't married) - he should be able to sign on the dotted line along with her signing it saying she takes full custody and full responsibility. No child support payment will be made because it was solely her decisions to have the child. Obviously this has to be done within a reasonable timeframe and not late in the pregnancy.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I'm not saying to go after the dreamers. I'm saying the President shouldn't have the power to decide not to follow a law or part of a law from Congress. It's also about "separation of powers". I could understand waiting for a court to strike down the program, but a court should have done that. I don't know about you, but I am very glad now that a court struck down the line-item veto back during the Clinton administration.

I definitely agree with that. The job of the executive branch is to...execute. Not DECIDE which to execute. Otherwise, why do we even have the fucking legislative if you get to cherry pick which ones you like and how you wish to identify them?

 

[Brainonska511]

Agree with the right: No matter what it is, I support your right to state whatever you believe or feel. I don't believe you should ever be punished or fired from a job just because someone doesn't agree with your stance. That doesn't mean that you have a right to not be offended - there is no such thing as "hate speech" - this is where the left turn into looney tunes

So you believe in "freedom from consequences from free speech"? Of course you should be allowed to be socially punished if you use your free speech rights to promote hateful garbage. Freedom of speech only means the government won't punish you for speech; it doesn't mean that private individuals have to provide you a platform or put up with your shit.

 

[UglyCasanova]

I'm in agreeance here. If a man doesn't want it (and they aren't married) - he should be able to sign on the dotted line along with her signing it saying she takes full custody and full responsibility. No child support payment will be made because it was solely her decisions to have the child. Obviously this has to be done within a reasonable timeframe and not late in the pregnancy.

That’s where I said it opened up a can of worms. If the woman is fine with it I’m pretty sure she can just take custody with no child support right now. If the woman doesn’t want to have an abortion the guy can’t simply say well I don’t want it abort or I’m not payin squat though.

 

[fskimospy]

I definitely agree with that. The job of the executive branch is to...execute. Not DECIDE which to execute. Otherwise, why do we even have the fucking legislative if you get to cherry pick which ones you like and how you wish to identify them?

Do we really want to live in a world where all laws are enforced with equal vigor? I know I don’t. It would be a very sad day if the police devoted exactly as much care and interest into prosecuting jaywalking as they did murder, for example. DACA said that, given limited resources, we would focus on criminal aliens and not people who were in every way but having been brought here illegally by their parents when they were small children, law abiding Americans. That to me seems pretty smart.

That’s not to trivialize the issue that you bring up, which is that while prioritized enforcement happens in every police station ever, there is a very real risk of it being taken too far and then the executive no longer follows the law. DACA is definitely troubling in that way but as it stands I don’t think it’s possible to enforce US immigration law in a sane way so what is to be done?

Do we devote equal resources to deporting grandmas and small children as we do to deporting violent gangsters? That’s what Trump is doing and it’s just dumb.

 

[fskimospy]

So you believe in "freedom from consequences from free speech"? Of course you should be allowed to be socially punished if you use your free speech rights to promote hateful garbage. Freedom of speech only means the government won't punish you for speech; it doesn't mean that private individuals have to provide you a platform or put up with your shit.

I’ve always been of the opinion that true freedom includes accepting the consequences for that action as well. People often want the freedom but aren’t willing to accept what comes from that.

 

[Jhhnn]

I definitely agree with that. The job of the executive branch is to...execute. Not DECIDE which to execute. Otherwise, why do we even have the fucking legislative if you get to cherry pick which ones you like and how you wish to identify them?

Yeh, put form ahead of substance to fuck those icky browns. Trump is doing exactly that when it comes to the Salvadoran refugees. Both GWB & Obama let 'em stay. 17 years into it Trump tells 'em to get fucked. That's right- get fucked. Their lives, their jobs, their American kids, their businesses & mortgages? Fuck them too! GTFO!