Finding Compromise: How far will you go?

Rorschach

Former Staff
Aug 2012
53,875
20,201
america
Much of our discussions (mine in particular) are dedicated to just how far apart (or so it seems) on a wide variety of issues.

As such, I ask anyone to list a few issues, your position, and how far you would go, in order to find some level of "compromise..."
 
Feb 2011
11,977
8,313
The greatest place on Earth California
Republicans have said they wish America to fail. I do not want that. I would chip in to have the republicans leave.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

Rorschach

Former Staff
Aug 2012
53,875
20,201
america
I will go first:

#1. Fiscally responsible Government: On this, I am not prepared to "Compromise." While the balooning deficits may not really be all that much of a concern to me, I do see how they can utterly destroy this nation, at the very least, leaving the next generation in a deep, deep hole. Where I WILL compromise, is on the solution: I like what Bill Clinton did, in the nineties, and, what Simpson/Bowles has suggested recently: Raise taxes/Cut spending. I know, I know, easier said,than done. I would also be open to the idea of "means" testing for Social Security. While that is patently UNFAIR, I do not see any other way of keeping Social Security solvent...

#2. The Environment: I feel that we should do more to push Alternative energies, although, I believe in creating a MARKET, via individual/business tax incentives for the purchase of such, rather than throwing money at billionaires, for some 'start-up, play money.' NOTE: That this is not really a "compromise" for me, but, my consistent position. I am OPPOSED to Cap and Trade, however. (I COULD be convinced to compromise on that position, but, only after we have real alternatives. Right now, such would only increase the cost of EVERYTHING, across the board...) NOTE #2: As yet, I am not convinced of "Man-made Global Warming." IF I must become a member of that faith, in order to believe in Green, alternative energies, I suppose that I could be convinced to simply lie about my position...)

#3. Gay Marriage: NO COMPROMISE. I believe that homosexuals should have the right to get married. OR, at least, to have the Government recognize their union as a full "Marriage." HOWEVER...I also feel that those of faith, should have the right to 'not agree' with such a policy. I do NOT believe that people should face law suites for their faith.

#4. Obamacare: My preference would have been to expand Medicare, so that all those who can not pay for their own healthcare are covered, with a VERY BASIC healthcare insurance: No plastic surgery, no fertility treatments (But, with coverage of birth control and abortion, as it already is...). JUST basic insurance, for basic health. (There will be no compromise sought on this subject until the GOP can retake the Senate. Even then, it is here to stay. All that is left, is how to fix the mess. If that is possible...)

#5. The Second Amendment: I will never compromise on this one. UNLESS...all police in the United states, are restricted from carrying firearms (as per the British model), NO ONE is allowed to have "armed" security. (EXCEPT the President, and certain high-level members of the government..NOT ANYONE IN CONGRESS.). AND that anyone caught using a gun, in the comission of a crime, is given a minimum of ten years in prison. LIFE in prison, with no possibility of parole, for murderers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

Rorschach

Former Staff
Aug 2012
53,875
20,201
america
Republicans have said they wish America to fail. I do not want that. I would chip in to have the republicans leave.
I doubt that I could not find any middle ground with the mythical Republicans you speak of....
 

Czernobog

Former Staff
Dec 2011
35,477
20,095
Phoenix, AZ
Much of our discussions (mine in particular) are dedicated to just how far apart (or so it seems) on a wide variety of issues.

As such, I ask anyone to list a few issues, your position, and how far you would go, in order to find some level of "compromise..."
Well...I think the first task would be to define compromise. I mean, the general consensus, of late, seems to be to equate compromise with capitulation. Take the ACA for example, the Right has, repeatedly, made it clear that compromise means "scrap the whole thing". That's not compromise; that is capitulation. So, I rather think that before any discussion of "compromise" can occur, it becomes necessary to explain just what one means by "compromise".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Feb 2011
11,977
8,313
The greatest place on Earth California
I will go first:

#1. Fiscally responsible Government: On this, I am not prepared to "Compromise." While the balooning deficits may not really be all that much of a concern to me, I do see how they can utterly destroy this nation, at the very least, leaving the next generation in a deep, deep hole. Where I WILL compromise, is on the solution: I like what Bill Clinton did, in the nineties, and, what Simpson/Bowles has suggested recently: Raise taxes/Cut spending. I know, I know, easier said,than done. I would also be open to the idea of "means" testing for Social Security. While that is patently UNFAIR, I do not see any other way of keeping Social Security solvent...

#2. The Environment: I feel that we should do more to push Alternative energies, although, I believe in creating a MARKET, via individual/business tax incentives for the purchase of such, rather than throwing money at billionaires, for some 'start-up, play money.' NOTE: That this is not really a "compromise" for me, but, my consistent position. I am OPPOSED to Cap and Trade, however. (I COULD be convinced to compromise on that position, but, only after we have real alternatives. Right now, such would only increase the cost of EVERYTHING, across the board...) NOTE #2: As yet, I am not convinced of "Man-made Global Warming." IF I must become a member of that faith, in order to believe in Green, alternative energies, I suppose that I could be convinced to simply lie about my position...)

#3. Gay Marriage: NO COMPROMISE. I believe that homosexuals should have the right to get married. OR, at least, to have the Government recognize their union as a full "Marriage." HOWEVER...I also feel that those of faith, should have the right to 'not agree' with such a policy. I do NOT believe that people should face law suites for their faith.

#4. Obamacare: My preference would have been to expand Medicare, so that all those who can not pay for their own healthcare are covered, with a VERY BASIC healthcare insurance: No plastic surgery, no fertility treatments (But, with coverage of birth control and abortion, as it already is...). JUST basic insurance, for basic health. (There will be no compromise sought on this subject until the GOP can retake the Senate. Even then, it is here to stay. All that is left, is how to fix the mess. If that is possible...)

#5. The Second Amendment: I will never compromise on this one. UNLESS...all police in the United states, are restricted from carrying firearms (as per the British model), NO ONE is allowed to have "armed" security. (EXCEPT the President, and certain high-level members of the government..NOT ANYONE IN CONGRESS.). AND that anyone caught using a gun, in the comission of a crime, is given a minimum of ten years in prison. LIFE in prison, with no possibility of parole, for murderers.
What you suggest sounds reasonable.
 

Rorschach

Former Staff
Aug 2012
53,875
20,201
america
Well...I think the first task would be to define compromise. I mean, the general consensus, of late, seems to be to equate compromise with capitulation. Take the ACA for example, the Right has, repeatedly, made it clear that compromise means "scrap the whole thing". That's not compromise; that is capitulation. So, I rather think that before any discussion of "compromise" can occur, it becomes necessary to explain just what one means by "compromise".
Thank you.

I agree with you, for the most part, but I am not going to debate the definition of "Compromise" with you.
 
May 2012
69,936
14,077
By the wall
Much of our discussions (mine in particular) are dedicated to just how far apart (or so it seems) on a wide variety of issues.

As such, I ask anyone to list a few issues, your position, and how far you would go, in order to find some level of "compromise..."
I would give a minimum wage boost (whatever the democrats want), I would vote for a federal gay marriage bill, and I would consider a corporate tax increase against business who partake in commodities such as oil or coal in exchange for a balanced budget amendment, a welfare revision that demands a work requirement as well as drug testing, and a limit on unemployment not longer than 3 months.
 
Oct 2010
16,145
6,854
I would allow a small increase in military spending as long as bad programs such as F35's and building even more tanks, are removed.

I would allow tax cuts for Corps that actually create new jobs every year.

I reduce banned weapons as long as 100% of all weapons are registered, as registration isn't infringing on the right to own.
 
Jun 2006
100,729
11,026
Vancouver
The problem is, when something is constitutional and supported by supreme court ruings - there is no debate or compromise necessary.

Abortion is legal. Period. Done. It's legal. No one is required to discuss or compromise or negotiate over this. It's done.

Same thing for things I disagree with. Your guys' supreme court seems pretty solid on the political donations (open bribery in my opinion) counting as "expression". I disagree completely.

But they've decided. So there it is. No one needs to compromise with my opinion on this.


As I tried to explain in your other threat, R, misguided people are getting seriously confused about what their rights are.

You have the right to your opinion. Everyone else has the right to be in now whay whatsoever inconvenienced by your opinion.

I'm strongly against divorce. I feel very very strongly about it. If I vote for a person who promises to ban divorce the problem is not divorce, liberals, media, feminists, opposing politicians or socialists... The problem is I've elected a person who promised to enact a tyranical and illegal law against my neighbors based on MY opinions.

If I push my views through laws on those who disagree, the problem is me.

No one has to compromise with me to meet me half way on divorce. My opinions don't have merit on THEIR lives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people