Constructive political compromise -- possible? Desirable?

Was this directed at me? If so, I think it is inaccurate and misleading.

A fence-sitter is someone who can’t make up their mind. On the contrary, my mind is quite made up. I suspect your problem with me is that I don’t think that the Democrats, as they exist today, are the answer or the solution to the Republicans, as they exist today. The fact that I’m not screaming in every post about how bad the Republicans are you mistake for indifference or complacency. Not so.

What I am groping for here is a different way for us to direct our political energies, one that doesn’t end either in one-party rule or in complete chaos. Neither party seems very interested in that sort of discussion, nor do any of the candidates that I’ve heard. That’s what I would like to change.

The only way we’re going to get one-party rule is if the republican vote-interference initiatives succeed. America has historically shown that when one political party dies out another springs up to replace it. You know, like happens with sith lords.

Yes, sorry. I did have that vague memory, but you’ve not been vocal lately.

For those who do NOT think I’m a “centrist,” I wonder what specific policies you can point to that I’ve advocated that make me a “leftist.” I’ve specifically denounced Warren’s M4A and student loan forgiveness (although I adore her as a person). I’ve advocated a libertarian (in the old 20th-century sense) approach to pollution mitigation. Guns Guns Guns are the three dominant political issues for many “conservatives” — I’ve ridiculed both sides of that debate, and recently was denounced for calling the thousands of extra American gun-deaths “irrelevant.”

Hint: Anger at ignorant right-wing haters does not make me a “left-winger,” no matter how extreme that well-placed anger might be.

Demonstrating the trouble, of course, with Us and Them thinking – if you’re not Us you must be Them. And vice versa.

It seems ridiculous to me for anyone to have to recite their bona fides in this way. Individual people have individual positions on different issues; there are lots of people who don’t follow the party line down the whole ticket.

I don’t recall. Could you link to that quote please? Thanks.

Thanks, septimus.

I don’t think bipartisanship is possible anymore. I feel the right has become reactionary and hateful towards the left, and now the left has responded in kind.

I mean, I think on the left we’d be open to working in good faith on solving serious problems. The issue is that we disagree on what count as serious problems. Climate change, health care? We don’t agree that these are problems.

On issues where we agree there is a problem (like long term deficits) our approaches are totally different.

I think W Bush was the last president who enjoyed and real bipartisanship or for the parties to cross the isle on political agendas (he got republicans to vote for medicare D).

It’ll probably be the 2030s before bipartisanship is possible again. If that.

I’m curious. Does #37 have an effect on this assessment?

If the posters of this board and in this thread are any indication of the real feelings of the left then abs-o-fucking-lutely NO compromise.

Why should anyone have to compromise with another person/group who calls them Nazis & Racists & whatever else?

I despise the hardcore left more than just about anything and I’m in full support of any politician who gives them a nice public middle finger at every available opportunity.

I mean Kavanaugh was a perfect example of the pure filth the left will lay out without a fucking care in the world. Compromise with that? Fuck no.

The game is broken, both sides do everything in their power to manipulate, poison-pill, soundbite. Everything is an angle. Bills are blocked for no good reason other than not wanting the other side to have a win.

I’m genuinely curious what was so wrong about what was done to Kavanaugh. If he has a history of sexually abusing women that is going to factor into his attitudes about women’s rights.

Also the right has no issue going back to the 70s to dig up dirt on the Clintons, so why is this different?

I also use a car analogy for politics, you can’t have a car that only has an accelerator (Progressivism) or only has a brake (Conservatism) is useless, you need both because while it’s good that you can accelerate towards a destination if you don’t have functioning brakes you are going nowhere but the hospital.
I would say that, personally I think that the people on the pedal-to-the-metal side of the continuum are the most likely to cause the most damage; I do recognize that parking in the middle of a train crossing is bound to end in tragedy, but statistically speaking, its the speeding that kills.

This is why, if anything, I’d call myself a moderate, which contrary to what the extremist love to claim doesn’t mean that if I’m in a car going 100km/h and a dear old lady walks into the road my choice would be to slow down to 50km/h and run down the old lady anyway.

That’s a pretty big “if”

That was one of the biggest and most obvious attempts at public humiliation and slander I think I’ve ever seen and was so obviously partisan it was insane. Its plays into the Democrats whole strategy where facts dont matter, just news cycles and soundbites, truth and objectivity be damned.

The Clintons are legacy Democrats with actual dirt to dig up.

But again, it seems like the left justifies everything they do by what the right does, aka a twisted form of ‘retaliation’ so I guess if thats the political standard you wanna go by then go for it.

See, here’s the thing: That outcome would be the compromise. There’s no way the Democrats can pull this off without lots of former GOP voters essentially deciding for themselves to compromise with the Democratic Party, in opposition to what the GOP has become over the last 10 years.

Compromise with the GOP party leadership is effectively impossible at this point. But with their voters? Maybe. Leave the GOP party out in the cold for a few election cycles, and see if that convinces them to reign in the crazy wing.

This is pretty much where I am at with respect to Canadian politics, btw.

So your argument is its ok when Republicans dig up dirt but when democrats do it it is unfair slander?

To me, you are so radicalized that facts, law, morality and good/evil have been abandoned in favor of tribalism. You remind me of the gop voters who felt Roy Moore was being ‘railroaded’ because the press investigated him being a child abuser.

If he had tried for an M4A plan in 2008, it wouldn’t have passed even with a filibuster-proof senate. There were Democrats who wouldn’t pass the ACA with a public option. So, I don’t think there’s anything else that Obama or Pelosi could’ve done at that time, even with large majorities in the Senate. The Democrats were bargaining amongst themselves.

@**septimus **- I realize you offered this loosely in response to ongoing discussions, but this is a hijack and it’s out of place in this forum to personalize discussion in this fashion. You seem to have a fixation on this particular point. I have previously cautioned you against bringing this up in unrelated threads else you be warned for harassment:

After that instruction, you proceeded to bring it up several times. In chronological order:

**
If you continue to bring up McVeigh, “entirely unreasonable”, or anything that I think is along those lines a single time in any GD or Elections thread in any fashion that isn’t specifically and directly related to the topic, you will receive a warning. Do not do this again.
**
[/moderating]

There are compromise-able issues and uncompromisable ones.

Fixing the budget deficit/debt is perfectly compromisable. Just get Democrats to agree to enough spending cuts, and Republicans to agree to enough tax hikes, and you get there.

Abortion, on the other hand, is not compromisable. You have one side who considers abortion to be murder (how can you agree to 50% murders instead of 100%?) and another side who sees it as a blatant violation of a woman’s autonomy and right to her body (how can you agree to a woman being controlled/overriden only 50% instead of 100%?) There is no happy middle ground.

You don’t compromise in that way. You compromise in whatever the general consensus is about the bright red line. Like now.
Hint: There aren’t really all that many (and I’d bet the number is falling as well) that believe that abortion is truly murder