How Compromise Works

[iiandyiiii]

@puddleglum

There is no incentive for compromise. For the last 20+ years there has been a cycle of power. The governing party is unpopular and loses big allowing the other party to gain the presidency and congress. They then push through whatever piece of their agenda they think is important and popular. This makes them unpopular and they lose the congressional majority at the next election. This leads to six years of gridlock which renders the incumbent’s party unpopular and the cycle repeats itself. Why compromise if you can get what you want just by waiting for your party’s turn to be on top?

This is exacerbated by the partisanship of much of the electorate and the hatred of politics by the rest. Partisans hate the other side more than they want to accomplish legislation so giving the other side something is anathema to them. Independents claim to want compromise but the process of vote trading, insult hurling, and negotiation puts them off and so they vote the incumbent party out.

Plus one side nominated and elected and largely continues to support an admitted violator of sexual assault who spent years spreading a racist conspiracy theory and has absolutely no idea of how to run government, nor any actual interest in putting in the effort to learning how.

That hasn’t helped.

[Shodan]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

This is what that looks like in reality:

Democrats already know that Trump’s not a reliable negotiator. He wants to act like he’ll agree to a reasonable compromise, but when it comes time to agree, he’s repeatedly backed out. It’s no longer possible to trust him in a compromise.

Post 14 already covered this ground.

From your cite -

In negotiations last year, Democrats offered their support for enhanced border security as long as it was explicit that the money would not go toward planning and constructing a new border wall.

Trump has already made a counter-offer that includes DACA and things like that, but Democrats won’t compromise this time.

I think the lesson they have learned is that another shut-down will hurt Trump more than them. Which may or may not be true.

The White House pushed back on Schumer’s description of his meeting with Trump. Officials have said Schumer only agreed to authorize the full amount Trump requested over several years, as opposed to the immediate appropriation the president wanted. If Congress authorizes but doesn’t appropriate funds, Democrats could conceivably withhold them if they won control of one or both chambers of Congress in November.

So perhaps there might be more than one unreliable negotiator involved. Again, see Bush 41, where Bush agreed to break a promise in return for future spending cuts. Which, unsurprisingly, didn’t happen.

Regards,
Shodan

[puddleglum]

@iiandyiiii

Plus one side nominated and elected and largely continues to support an admitted violator of sexual assault who spent years spreading a racist conspiracy theory and has absolutely no idea of how to run government, nor any actual interest in putting in the effort to learning how.

That hasn’t helped.

True, but to be fair the presidents since Bill Clinton have not done any better.

[iiandyiiii]

@puddleglum

True, but to be fair the presidents since Bill Clinton have not done any better.

In my reality, Trump is far, far worse than the others.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Shodan

From your cite -

In negotiations last year, Democrats offered their support for enhanced border security as long as it was explicit that the money would not go toward planning and constructing a new border wall.

Trump has already made a counter-offer that includes DACA and things like that, but Democrats won’t compromise this time.

How . . . intriguing . . . that you left off the very next sentence from the cite:

@The Atlantic

But as it became clear Trump would never make the same rhetorical distinction, they reluctantly moved off their position.

And then you continue:

@Shodan

The White House pushed back on Schumer’s description of his meeting with Trump. Officials have said Schumer only agreed to authorize the full amount Trump requested over several years, as opposed to the immediate appropriation the president wanted. If Congress authorizes but doesn’t appropriate funds, Democrats could conceivably withhold them if they won control of one or both chambers of Congress in November.

So perhaps there might be more than one unreliable negotiator involved. Again, see Bush 41, where Bush agreed to break a promise in return for future spending cuts. Which, unsurprisingly, didn’t happen.

Something’s unreliable here, but it ain’t the Democrats. Again, you left off the next sentence:

@The Atlantic

The Democratic aide told me Schumer agreed to a “significant” immediate appropriation above the $1.6 billion the administration initially requested last spring, with the rest authorized over several years.

Very intriguing.

[doorhinge]

@Kimstu

Democrats undertook to resist the destructive, criminal, destabilizing and/or racist measures that the Trump administration and its Republican lackeys were proposing. The fact that those categories happen to include almost everything in the Trump/Republican agenda is not the fault of the Democrats.

Elected Democrats made it very clear that they would resist and not compromise with Republicans. You can chose to ignore that.

Good government is based on the ability, and willingness, of elected officials to reach a compromise. And by that I mean actually reaching a working compromise. Not making some promise to reach a compromise while having no intentions of actually compromising.

[TimeWinder]

@doorhinge

Elected Democrats made it very clear that they would resist and not compromise with Republicans. You can chose to ignore that.

Yeah, yeah, both sides do it, blah blah blah. Elected Democrats made it very clear they would not support blatantly racist policies, suppression of voting, and forcible separation of children from their parents, and putting them into concentration camps with inadequate medical care to keep them alive.

These are no the sort of policies there should be disagreement on, yet somehow there is. If the Republicans decide to become human again, then the elected Democrats will be delighted to compromise with them.

Until then, keep up the blah, blah, blah.

[doorhinge]

@Bryan_Ekers

I read the OP. Did you read the history of the United States, January 2017 - January 2019?

Did they mention Carmen in your history of the U.S., Jan 2017 - Jan 2019? Is there any chance that Alonzo and Bree can reach a compromise?

[doorhinge]

@TimeWinder

These are no the sort of policies there should be disagreement on, yet somehow there is. If the Republicans decide to become human again, then the elected Democrats will be delighted to compromise with them.

(post shortened)

If I combine your “if” and “then”, your saying that elected Democrats won’t compromise. So the chances of actually reaching a working compromise is somewhere between slim and none.

[TimeWinder]

@doorhinge

(post shortened)

If I combine your “if” and “then”, your saying that elected Democrats won’t compromise. So the chances of actually reaching a working compromise is somewhere between slim and none.

That is the most stunningly selective reading I’ve ever seen. Congrats!

[Buck_Godot]

Also Alonso doesn’t really like pizza, but he told his friend Charles that he was a real Playah who can get a woman to do anything he wants. To prove his point he told Charles to wait at the Pizza place and he’d bring Denise the, the head cheerleader who is known for her allergy to tomato sauce, to the pizza place. Unfortunately Denise told him to fuck off, so now he’s got to bring Bree or Charles will think he’s a loser.

[enipla]

This is silly.

Trump is nothing more than a con man and a crook. He has been his entire life. You don’t compromise with crooks, you show them the door.

The house needs a sign on the door. “No Soliciting”.

Trump thinks he’s playing Three Card Monte, but he only has one card on the table. He’s a moron.

[JB99]

Compromising on Health Care: Bree wants to go out for sauteed tofu with brown rice. Alonso wants to go out for pizza. Bree says, “Okay, I guess we’ll just have pizza.” Alonso immediately begins screaming that he does not actually want pizza, and that Bree is an evil person for giving him the pizza he asked for. Then Bree gives him the keys to the car, and Alonso suddenly decides he’s good with pizza after all.

Compromising with Trump: Bree wants to go out for sautéed tofu with brown rice. Alonso wants a giant, steaming pile of shit. Bree refuses to eat the pile of shit. Alonso asks if it would be okay to just put a teaspoon of shit in her rice. Bree refuses to compromise, because the question of whether she wants to eat shit has nothing to do with the quantity of the shit. It turns out, there is no portion of shit so small that eating shit suddenly becomes acceptable.

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

@doorhinge

Elected Democrats made it very clear that they would resist and not compromise with Republicans. You can chose to ignore that.

Good government is based on the ability, and willingness, of elected officials to reach a compromise. And by that I mean actually reaching a working compromise. Not making some promise to reach a compromise while having no intentions of actually compromising.

You are so full of shit. From here:

@Washington Post

A bipartisan committee of House and Senate lawmakers traded offers behind the scenes, with Democrats saying money for border barriers was on the table and Republicans acknowledging they won’t get Trump the $5.7 billion he has sought for his wall.

Lawmakers hope to have a tentative deal by Friday or soon thereafter, to allow time for the legislation to pass the House and Senate by Feb. 15. That’s when funding will run out for a large portion of the federal government, causing another partial shutdown, if Congress and Trump don’t act first.

Leaders of both parties made clear that, after the nation’s longest-ever government shutdown ended late last month with Trump signing a short-term spending bill that included no new money for his wall, they want to reach finality soon to avoid another funding lapse.

Looks like Democrats are willing to compromise, just as they were last year when they offered more than 20 Billion dollars for border security (including the wall) in exchange for DACA protections and a plan for the dreamers. Now people like Shodan like to say Trump put that back on the table last month (a couple of posts ago), but that is completely bullshit. Trump said he would temporarily defer his actions against the DACA recipients while re-defining what a DACA recipient was. The definition he used reduced the number of dreamers by more than half and the “compromise” also included other changes like a massive overhaul of how legal asylum applications are processed. It was not a good faith offer of compromise at all, but purely partisan bullshit.

You and you comrades can whine about evil Democrats not compromising and continue to put your party before your country, but it continues to be bullshit.

[doorhinge]

@TimeWinder

That is the most stunningly selective reading I’ve ever seen. Congrats!

Thanks.

[doorhinge]

@Happy_Fun_Ball

Looks like Democrats are willing to compromise,

(post shortened)

As I said earlier - Good government is based on the ability, and willingness, of elected officials to reach a compromise. And by that I mean actually reaching a working compromise. Not making some promise to reach a compromise while having no intentions of actually compromising.

Both sides say they are willing to compromise while not actually being willing to reach a compromise.

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

Completely full of shit. Democrats have repeatedly called the Republicans bluff and offered to compromise but Republicans won’t budge.

[Airbeck]

@doorhinge

(post shortened)

As I said earlier - Good government is based on the ability, and willingness, of elected officials to reach a compromise. And by that I mean actually reaching a working compromise. Not making some promise to reach a compromise while having no intentions of actually compromising.

Both sides say they are willing to compromise while not actually being willing to reach a compromise.

You should take it up with Mitch McConnell. Your side doesn’t get to take a shit in the swimming pool and then blame the side that pointed out the turd for the mess. The GOP ruined the concept of compromise in government and they were pretty public about it. Your voters loved it then.

[Kearsen]

@Airbeck

You should take it up with Mitch McConnell. Your side doesn’t get to take a shit in the swimming pool and then blame the side that pointed out the turd for the mess. The GOP ruined the concept of compromise in government and they were pretty public about it. Your voters loved it then.

Every argument I see on this board full of really intelligent people ends up like this:

Argument
“your side does it too”
“Oh but not nearly to the degree your side does”

Every single issue.

Old, Stale.

Eventually people are going to agree with me and make it so compromise for any healthy bill MUST be reached. Say 70% of both the house and the senate.

Then and ONLY then will compromise be back on the table.

[Airbeck]

I don’t see how any bill passes ever with that threshold.

Unless there is some geologic scale shift in American politics coming that doesn’t seem on the horizon