Constructive political compromise -- possible? Desirable?

[Roderick_Femm]

@Czarcasm

Funny thing about fence-sitters: Complain about Republican shenanigans and they pop up to explain how the Democrats are somehow equally as bad…but anyone who complains about Democrats gets a free pass from them.

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.

[begbert2]

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.

[septimus]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Originally Posted by septimus
AFAIK only Bricker among the Board’s right-wingers voted for Hillary.
I figure I qualify.

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.

[Roderick_Femm]

@septimus

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_Love_Me_Vol.I]

@septimus

XT, IIRC, voted for Hillary. Puddle is definitely no moderate. Recall Hurricane’s famous quote about Tim McVeigh: How could you possibly call him a moderate?

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

[septimus]

@I_Love_Me_Vol.I

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

@HurricaneDitka

I think Timothy McVeigh’s actions were not an entirely unreasonable reaction to Ruby Ridge and Waco.

…

[I_Love_Me_Vol.I]

Thanks, septimus.

[Wesley_Clark]

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.

[septimus]

@Kearsen1

… hell I’d even lump Hurricane in the moderate category…

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

[Annoyed]

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.

[Wesley_Clark]

@Annoyed

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.

.

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?

[Ale]

@Roderick_Femm

When I was learning to drive, there was a rather narrow busy 2-lane street near our house. When I was driving alone with my mother she said I was too close to the parked cars. When I was driving alone with my father he said I was too close to the center line. Even at 15 I figured out I must be doing it about right.

My attitude towards a centrist, bi-partisan, compromise approach to national politics is that we need someone who wants to and who can make it work. I might still agitate for a more liberal answer to issues than the compromise position, but I would still celebrate any moves in my direction.

I think it’s a mistake to call the entire Republican party corrupt or insane. There is plenty of corruption to go around in both parties; I don’t think it’s the fault of the ideology, it’s the fault of there being so much money in it, as Kearsen 1 mentioned. Reform of the things that allow money to rule is a genuinely bi-partisan issue that it should be possible to sell to the voters.

One issue I would like to talk about is the possibility of understanding what it is that the other guy really wants. You don’t do this by throwing brickbats or cherry-picking the most outrageous thing you can find. You do it by asking, and listening, and validating that you heard correctly. For example, some Trump supporters like him because he is so clearly not a politician. This is more important to them than policies or issues they don’t really understand, but because they are so sick and tired of politicians who, by and large, talk out of one side of their mouths while acting completely differently. They seem to like that they can often understand where he is coming from and what he wants. The idea that what he wants is not good for the country doesn’t seem to resonate as much.

So how do you address that? By calling them names? Their dislike of regular politicians is very understandable to me. There’s a way of talking that instantly says “politician weasel words” to me. The way to address that is to meet the need with an outspoken and straight-speaking candidate who says plainly what they mean, and who means generally good things for the country. That’s supposed to be political suicide. I would sure like to see that proven wrong.

Of course this person would have to be smart enough not to be taken in, and strong enough not to be walked over. That’s a pretty tall order, and I rather doubt the Democrats have anyone like that in their stable this round.

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.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Wesley_Clark

I’m genuinely curious what was so wrong about what was done to Kavanaugh. If he has a history of sexually abusing women …

That’s a pretty big “if”

[Annoyed]

@Wesley_Clark

I’m genuinely curious what was so wrong about what was done to Kavanaugh. If he has a history of sexually abusing women

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.

@Wesley_Clark

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

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.

[Horatius]

@Roderick_Femm

Suppose your side wins the presidency and both houses in 2020.

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.

[Wesley_Clark]

@Annoyed

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.

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.

[survinga]

@Hari_Seldon

Go back to 2008 and ask that question. I think Obama sacrificed his whole presidency on this point. The Republicans said publicly that their only goal was to prevent Obama from winning reelection. Obama was a slightly rewarmed Republican health care proposal. But not one single Republican supported it and now they are trying their damnedest to destroy it in the courts. Had Obama known what was coming he could have put in a real medicare for all plan with his 60 votes in the senate. Now anything like that is dead for a generation. If anything, the Republicans are even less interested in compromise now than they were 10 years ago.

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.

[Bone]

@septimus

XT, IIRC, voted for Hillary. Puddle is definitely no moderate. Recall Hurricane’s famous quote about Tim McVeigh: How could you possibly call him a moderate?

@I_Love_Me_Vol.I

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

@septimus

@HurricaneDitka

I think Timothy McVeigh’s actions were not an entirely unreasonable reaction to Ruby Ridge and Waco.

@septimus

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

@**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:

@Bone

I considered issuing a warning for this given my previous note in post #166, but I am open to the possibility it wasn’t crystal clear. McVeigh isn’t germane to this thread. Introducing it in this fashion is akin to harassment. Don’t do this any further.

[/moderating]

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

@septimus

Oh, Hurricane. I remember you!

Have we asked the liberals whether they can condemn Timothy McAntifa’s mass murder of 169 people in Oklahoma? Sure, that massacre committed by a liberal crusader wasn’t entirely unreasonable, and hardly as egregious as petite Yvette Felarca’s oh-so-very-unreasonable shoving of a Nazi; but you’d think these liberal hypocrites would at least offer a token apology. They got their panties twisted when despicable Heather Heyer threw herself in front of a Nazi car which couldn’t stop in time, but can’t quite bring themselves to admit McAntifa’s mass murder in Oklahoma wasn’t entirely reasonable. Sheeeeesh. How can you pro-Nazis put up with this place?

@septimus

To paraphrase OP when he was applauding the patriotic gesture of Tim McVeigh, I’m not entirely sure that Mr. Ditka is entirely …

[deleted]

@septimus

Too optimistic? Perhaps. But we must hope for something, lest we start thinking that solutions involving explosives are not entirely unreasonable.

@septimus

@ Hurricane: Your insightful commentaries are always … interesting to read; but I, for one, wish you’d sometimes follow through and complete a thought. Would that be entirely unreasonable?

@septimus

Once upon a time it wasn’t entirely unreasonable to think some of the posts from you two were not entirely unreasonable. What happened? Dawning realization that your boy is an incompetent criminal is causing cognitive breakdown?

@septimus

Are you sure AOC’s diction is entirely unreasonable?

**
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]

[Velocity]

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.

[Kearsen1]

@Velocity

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