We can't compromise! We can't collaborate! We can't cooperate!

[Correll]

Are you serious? Is that what you got from my post?


First of all, I never talk of compromise. Mac brought up the idea.


My point was the lack of indication from the other side that they are open to giving ANYTHING to us.


And my example was that Mac, despite all his complaints about Hillary and her supporters, still voted for her.


Do you, CAN you see the problem there?

I don't understand why you can't see my reasoning: I didn't care much for Hillary, but I cared even less for Trump.

My issues with the Regressive Left had to take a back seat to that higher priority.

Why is that so difficult to understand?
.

Because the concerns about Trump were panic mongerings, FROM the regressive left.


There is nothing radical about Trump's policies, nor actions.

*I* had concerns about the Orange Virus five years ago when he ran. I predicted this shit. I knew he was low rent since the 80s, and he's even more low rent today. He's a poor excuse for a dime-a-dozen 'business man' and a poor person's idea of a rich guy. It has nothing to do with political bent, because he used to be a Democrat. He's just an obnoxious loudmouth and carnival show barker.

WHat shit did you predict? The largest jump in manufacturing employment in over 10 years?

I predicted his run in 2016 and eventual win (even though I hated myself for it). As for your second remark, the Orange Virus is taking credit for a decent economy started by the previous administration. As for manufacturing, output is up, but jobs are at 1940s levels. In other words, you, like your president, live to exaggerate shit to root for your 'team' because you're nothing but a cheerleader. I'm tired of you types. You offer nothing constructive. Go shake your poms poms at someone who doesn't know better.

1940 levels? What does that mean?


The largest jump in manufacturing employment in over 10 years. That is something that people like you said could not happen.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

I'm sure glad these guys didn't say what today's parties are saying.
.

There will never be the cooperation of ideas, when all politics are strictly ideologically driven with the attitude of "it's my way or get out of the way". That approach is guaranteed to fail, when you have a country that achieved it's greatness by citizens and leaders with a diverse menu of ideas and ideals.
There not enough adults in the room today leading America as demonstrated by some of the childish responses to the OP.

When the Prez VENTS I take it as a wind in the air. It just his way. You could say "locker room talk" we all have done it at one time or the other and people just let it go. What I look for in people is you can take a room of 10 people and at lease 2 of them are going to be assholes. I just don't want to be one of them. Trump is a aggressive person who uses all of the arrogation to get your attention and when the hammer fall his whole demeanor changes. Call him a name and he will call you one. Buttheads of the world wake up and smell the crap.View attachment 204005

Well, I disagree. I believe The Orange Virus has no sense of decorum. Thus, he could never be a good leader.

 

[Mac1958]

Yeah, okay. It must have someone ELSE talking about the size of his dick during a nationally-televised debate and saying "I have the best words", among a zillion or so other embarrassing antics.

And I think your post is pretty ironic, for the record. I hear talk radio saying all the same things, pretty much word for word.
.

"Embarrassing antics"?

That is your reason for validating the Godwin mongering, the panic mongering, the identify politics, the smearing of nearly half the nation, ect, ect ect. of HIllary?



That does not make sense.


Also, Mark Rubio is the one that started the dick debate.


And Trump is not one to let a challenge like that, go unanswered.

Good for him. He says what he says, no one makes him. We're all responsible for our words.

"But he started it" doesn't cut it for me.
.

Why not?


What did you want? FOr Trump to let some one cast aspersions on his manhood with no pushback?


That type of "Being above it all", just allows those who play dirty to win.

Yes, it would have been nice if he could have just been the adult in the room.

But that wouldn't have been Trump.
.

Would you have respect that? WOuld you have voted for him then?



Or would you have just focused, or been focused on some other reason to vote against him?


That type of "above it all" is just seen as weakness in today's America.

That one thing surely wouldn't have been enough, since it was just one of a non-stop flood of embarrassing moments.

I knew that if Trump or Cruz won the nomination, I'd have to vote for Hillary. Otherwise, I would have voted third party. I don't care much for her.
.

 

[Correll]

"Embarrassing antics"?

That is your reason for validating the Godwin mongering, the panic mongering, the identify politics, the smearing of nearly half the nation, ect, ect ect. of HIllary?



That does not make sense.


Also, Mark Rubio is the one that started the dick debate.


And Trump is not one to let a challenge like that, go unanswered.

Good for him. He says what he says, no one makes him. We're all responsible for our words.

"But he started it" doesn't cut it for me.
.

Why not?


What did you want? FOr Trump to let some one cast aspersions on his manhood with no pushback?


That type of "Being above it all", just allows those who play dirty to win.

Yes, it would have been nice if he could have just been the adult in the room.

But that wouldn't have been Trump.
.

Would you have respect that? WOuld you have voted for him then?



Or would you have just focused, or been focused on some other reason to vote against him?


That type of "above it all" is just seen as weakness in today's America.

That one thing surely wouldn't have been enough, since it was just one of a non-stop flood of embarrassing moments.

I knew that if Trump or Cruz won the nomination, I'd have to vote for Hillary. Otherwise, I would have voted third party. I don't care much for her.
.

So, where is the positive feedback for being the better person then?


People like you, don't care. YOu talk like you, do, but it does not effect your voting.


Meanwhile to the undecided, the blue dogs, ect, people in play,


it looks like weakness, to let someone insult you like that, and say nothing back.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

I don't understand why you can't see my reasoning: I didn't care much for Hillary, but I cared even less for Trump.

My issues with the Regressive Left had to take a back seat to that higher priority.

Why is that so difficult to understand?
.

Because the concerns about Trump were panic mongerings, FROM the regressive left.


There is nothing radical about Trump's policies, nor actions.

*I* had concerns about the Orange Virus five years ago when he ran. I predicted this shit. I knew he was low rent since the 80s, and he's even more low rent today. He's a poor excuse for a dime-a-dozen 'business man' and a poor person's idea of a rich guy. It has nothing to do with political bent, because he used to be a Democrat. He's just an obnoxious loudmouth and carnival show barker.

WHat shit did you predict? The largest jump in manufacturing employment in over 10 years?

I predicted his run in 2016 and eventual win (even though I hated myself for it). As for your second remark, the Orange Virus is taking credit for a decent economy started by the previous administration. As for manufacturing, output is up, but jobs are at 1940s levels. In other words, you, like your president, live to exaggerate shit to root for your 'team' because you're nothing but a cheerleader. I'm tired of you types. You offer nothing constructive. Go shake your poms poms at someone who doesn't know better.

1940 levels? What does that mean?


The largest jump in manufacturing employment in over 10 years. That is something that people like you said could not happen.

Don't put words in my mouth, you disingenuous asshole. I provided a link. It's called 'automation'. Manufacturing jobs will continue to shrink. If you can't see that, then you're dumber than dirt.

 

[jillian]

I'm sure glad these guys didn't say what today's parties are saying.
.

No. They weren’t insane trumpkin theocrats.

 

[Pogo]

I'm sure glad these guys didn't say what today's parties are saying.
.

There will never be the cooperation of ideas, when all politics are strictly ideologically driven with the attitude of "it's my way or get out of the way". That approach is guaranteed to fail, when you have a country that achieved it's greatness by citizens and leaders with a diverse menu of ideas and ideals.
There not enough adults in the room today leading America as demonstrated by some of the childish responses to the OP.

When the Prez VENTS I take it as a wind in the air. It just his way. You could say "locker room talk" we all have done it at one time or the other and people just let it go. What I look for in people is you can take a room of 10 people and at lease 2 of them are going to be assholes. I just don't want to be one of them. Trump is a aggressive person who uses all of the arrogation to get your attention and when the hammer fall his whole demeanor changes. Call him a name and he will call you one. Buttheads of the world wake up and smell the crap.

You mean like buttheads so insecure they think their own posts have to be posted in fucking 52-point bold fonts?

And then you wanna talk "bullying". SMFH

 

[John Shaw]

Fact of the matter is, there is nothing to cooperate on. The two parties have fundamentally opposing views of America's future. The right wants a purely capitalist society that works best for the wealthiest, preferably white, with as few foreigners or non-whites as possible. The left wants a socialist, welfare society where people are judged first and foremost by their victimhood status, highly "diverse" (aka, not many white people), that is ultimately not very functional or sustainable.

That's the problem with ideology; it makes even the smartest into inflexible morons.

 

[Mac1958]

Good for him. He says what he says, no one makes him. We're all responsible for our words.

"But he started it" doesn't cut it for me.
.

Why not?


What did you want? FOr Trump to let some one cast aspersions on his manhood with no pushback?


That type of "Being above it all", just allows those who play dirty to win.

Yes, it would have been nice if he could have just been the adult in the room.

But that wouldn't have been Trump.
.

Would you have respect that? WOuld you have voted for him then?



Or would you have just focused, or been focused on some other reason to vote against him?


That type of "above it all" is just seen as weakness in today's America.

That one thing surely wouldn't have been enough, since it was just one of a non-stop flood of embarrassing moments.

I knew that if Trump or Cruz won the nomination, I'd have to vote for Hillary. Otherwise, I would have voted third party. I don't care much for her.
.

So, where is the positive feedback for being the better person then?


People like you, don't care. YOu talk like you, do, but it does not effect your voting.


Meanwhile to the undecided, the blue dogs, ect, people in play,


it looks like weakness, to let someone insult you like that, and say nothing back.

It only looks like weakness to people of a certain mindset.

But he's your guy. Fine with me. You don't see me insulting you for it.
.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

I'm sure glad these guys didn't say what today's parties are saying.
.

There will never be the cooperation of ideas, when all politics are strictly ideologically driven with the attitude of "it's my way or get out of the way". That approach is guaranteed to fail, when you have a country that achieved it's greatness by citizens and leaders with a diverse menu of ideas and ideals.
There not enough adults in the room today leading America as demonstrated by some of the childish responses to the OP.

When the Prez VENTS I take it as a wind in the air. It just his way. You could say "locker room talk" we all have done it at one time or the other and people just let it go. What I look for in people is you can take a room of 10 people and at lease 2 of them are going to be assholes. I just don't want to be one of them. Trump is a aggressive person who uses all of the arrogation to get your attention and when the hammer fall his whole demeanor changes. Call him a name and he will call you one. Buttheads of the world wake up and smell the crap.

You mean like buttheads so insecure they think their own posts have to be posted in fucking 52-point bold fonts?

And then you wanna talk "bullying". SMFH

Well you have to understand why bigger type is needed. You see I took a bullet in the head and have only one eye that works and it is not doing to well. I am a 80 years old blackman who served his Nation with respect. So its in your court Sonny.

 

[Pogo]

I'm sure glad these guys didn't say what today's parties are saying.
.

There will never be the cooperation of ideas, when all politics are strictly ideologically driven with the attitude of "it's my way or get out of the way". That approach is guaranteed to fail, when you have a country that achieved it's greatness by citizens and leaders with a diverse menu of ideas and ideals.
There not enough adults in the room today leading America as demonstrated by some of the childish responses to the OP.

When the Prez VENTS I take it as a wind in the air. It just his way. You could say "locker room talk" we all have done it at one time or the other and people just let it go. What I look for in people is you can take a room of 10 people and at lease 2 of them are going to be assholes. I just don't want to be one of them. Trump is a aggressive person who uses all of the arrogation to get your attention and when the hammer fall his whole demeanor changes. Call him a name and he will call you one. Buttheads of the world wake up and smell the crap.

You mean like buttheads so insecure they think their own posts have to be posted in fucking 52-point bold fonts?

And then you wanna talk "bullying". SMFH

Well you have to understand why bigger type is needed. You see I took a bullet in the head and have only one eye that works and it is not doing to well. I am a 80 years old blackman who served his Nation with respect. So its in your court Sonny.

Yeah right. The old "I can't see" song and dance.

Which, if we entertain it just to take it where it leads, means you're on a computer with no clue how to magnifiy it for your vision, and therefore are not reading anybody else's posts.

It also means you can't read anything on your computer other than what you write and BLOW UP as if you're the peak of fucking human existence.

Why the fuck are you on a message board if the only thing you can read is your own shit?
And how are you reading this right now?

Sure you wanna plant your flag on this "I can't see" bullshit?
I say, if you have to scream to make a point --- you don't have a point.

 

[Borillar]

The two ends are choosing to hate each other. No one is making this happen.

So we may need each of them to get their shit together before asking them to work together.
.

I don't want to work with them because we have nothing in common and calling yourself an American doesn't make that something in common.

Well, that's the problem. The people who are willing to collaborate will be the people who end up improving things.
.

Nope, the change will go to the last person standing.

Do you feel that your way of doing things is the only way to get them done properly?
.

I like beer you don't we want to start a business together but you refuse to allow beer in it. how long would we be in business together?

Depends on what kind of business it is. If its a delivery business, you wouldn't want the drivers drinking beer, would you?

 

[Dan Stubbs]

I'm sure glad these guys didn't say what today's parties are saying.
.

There will never be the cooperation of ideas, when all politics are strictly ideologically driven with the attitude of "it's my way or get out of the way". That approach is guaranteed to fail, when you have a country that achieved it's greatness by citizens and leaders with a diverse menu of ideas and ideals.
There not enough adults in the room today leading America as demonstrated by some of the childish responses to the OP.

When the Prez VENTS I take it as a wind in the air. It just his way. You could say "locker room talk" we all have done it at one time or the other and people just let it go. What I look for in people is you can take a room of 10 people and at lease 2 of them are going to be assholes. I just don't want to be one of them. Trump is a aggressive person who uses all of the arrogation to get your attention and when the hammer fall his whole demeanor changes. Call him a name and he will call you one. Buttheads of the world wake up and smell the crap.

You mean like buttheads so insecure they think their own posts have to be posted in fucking 52-point bold fonts?

And then you wanna talk "bullying". SMFH

Well you have to understand why bigger type is needed. You see I took a bullet in the head and have only one eye that works and it is not doing to well. I am a 80 years old blackman who served his Nation with respect. So its in your court Sonny.

Yeah right. The old "I can't see" song and dance.

Which, if we entertain it just to take it where it leads, means you're on a computer with no clue how to magnifiy it for your vision, and therefore are not reading anybody else's posts.

It also means you can't read anything on your computer other than what you write and BLOW UP as if you're the peak of fucking human existence.

Why the fuck are you on a message board if the only thing you can read is your own shit?
And how are you reading this right now?

Sure you wanna plant your flag on this "I can't see" bullshit?
I say, if you have to scream to make a point --- you don't have a point.

I get it you are a siber bully and you don't impresse me in any manner so grow up and get a life

 

[Borillar]

Correct. And they compromised into that weird Frankenstein's monster instead of going with what they really wanted.
.

Who did the compromise with? Certainly they didn't compromise with the Republicans. Futhermore, why would any principled Republican allow such a monster to be created?

They evidently compromised with themselves, trying to create a plan that would mollify enough Republicans so that it wouldn't get torn down later. They didn't even include a public option.
.

The discussion is about compromising with Republicans. Who cares about the finaggling the Dims do with themselves.

Neither party is interested in collaborating. That's my original point.
.

Thy would Republicans "collaborate" in the destruction of America?

Repugs have done a pretty good job of fucking things up on their own.

 

[Borillar]

I can't speak for the Left, but I stayed general because there are so many possible examples.

The level of personal taxation, the level of corporate taxation, the size of the military, the level of government involvement in health care, the various departments, on and on and on.

This stuff is so fundamental, I don't know what you want. If two people who are different points on a continuum actually need help in doing something this basic, we're fucked.
.

I can't speak for the Left, but I stayed general because there are so many possible examples.

The level of personal taxation - I want less, the left want more, I want flat, the left want progressive. Explain how we "compromise"

the level of corporate taxation - I want less, the left want more. Explain how we "compromise"

the size of the military - I want less. The left want less when Republicans are in power and not when Democrats are. Where is the "compromise?"

the level of government - I want less, the left want more. How do we "compromise"

involvement in health care - I want government out of it, the left want government to control it. The "compromise" is where?

the various departments, on and on and on - Don't know what that means

This stuff is so fundamental, I don't know what you want. If two people who are different points on a continuum actually need help in doing something this basic, we're fucked. - Of course you should state your overall view. I'm making it easy on my side. Yeah, I'm extreme anti-left.

But I see no actual positions with any potential for compromise with them. They want more government, I want less. Are you saying that I should give them more government, just less than they want? Why would I agree to that? They aren't going to agree to less anything.

I know of no example where we could compromise

Well, unfortunately, there are going to be people who just aren't part of any collaboration that does take place, if ever.

The key will be in satisfying enough people such that that group won't matter.
.

Evading the question yet again.

It really is simple. I want less government, leftists want more government. Isn't the compromise to that in your terms to leave it where it is?

Does a compromise to more versus left government to you mean

1) More government (but less than leftists want)

2) The same government

3) Less government (but less than I want)

Those are the only three logical possibilities

I'm not evading.

Don't collaborate. Don't do anything. That's your call.
.

Of course you're evading. You're saying let's hold hands and sing Kumbaya, but you have no idea how we "compromise" between wanting to grow and shrink government.

I'm willing to trade. But I'm not going to agree to grow government in doing it. How am I being obstinate by not taking a choice I don't have?

You keep going on about how the left wants to grow government. The right has given us the EPA, the DEA, the TSA, the DHS, the ICE, a huge military, and the Patriot Act. Is that your idea of smaller government?

 

[John Shaw]

I can't speak for the Left, but I stayed general because there are so many possible examples.

The level of personal taxation - I want less, the left want more, I want flat, the left want progressive. Explain how we "compromise"

the level of corporate taxation - I want less, the left want more. Explain how we "compromise"

the size of the military - I want less. The left want less when Republicans are in power and not when Democrats are. Where is the "compromise?"

the level of government - I want less, the left want more. How do we "compromise"

involvement in health care - I want government out of it, the left want government to control it. The "compromise" is where?

the various departments, on and on and on - Don't know what that means

This stuff is so fundamental, I don't know what you want. If two people who are different points on a continuum actually need help in doing something this basic, we're fucked. - Of course you should state your overall view. I'm making it easy on my side. Yeah, I'm extreme anti-left.

But I see no actual positions with any potential for compromise with them. They want more government, I want less. Are you saying that I should give them more government, just less than they want? Why would I agree to that? They aren't going to agree to less anything.

I know of no example where we could compromise

Well, unfortunately, there are going to be people who just aren't part of any collaboration that does take place, if ever.

The key will be in satisfying enough people such that that group won't matter.
.

Evading the question yet again.

It really is simple. I want less government, leftists want more government. Isn't the compromise to that in your terms to leave it where it is?

Does a compromise to more versus left government to you mean

1) More government (but less than leftists want)

2) The same government

3) Less government (but less than I want)

Those are the only three logical possibilities

I'm not evading.

Don't collaborate. Don't do anything. That's your call.
.

Of course you're evading. You're saying let's hold hands and sing Kumbaya, but you have no idea how we "compromise" between wanting to grow and shrink government.

I'm willing to trade. But I'm not going to agree to grow government in doing it. How am I being obstinate by not taking a choice I don't have?

You keep going on about how the left wants to grow government. The right has given us the EPA, the DEA, the TSA, the DHS, the ICE, a huge military, and the Patriot Act. Is that your idea of smaller government?

They are always conspicuously silent when it comes to explaining why we need such a massively bloated military. Never understood what it had to do with conservatism either.

 

[kaz]

I can't speak for the Left, but I stayed general because there are so many possible examples.

The level of personal taxation - I want less, the left want more, I want flat, the left want progressive. Explain how we "compromise"

the level of corporate taxation - I want less, the left want more. Explain how we "compromise"

the size of the military - I want less. The left want less when Republicans are in power and not when Democrats are. Where is the "compromise?"

the level of government - I want less, the left want more. How do we "compromise"

involvement in health care - I want government out of it, the left want government to control it. The "compromise" is where?

the various departments, on and on and on - Don't know what that means

This stuff is so fundamental, I don't know what you want. If two people who are different points on a continuum actually need help in doing something this basic, we're fucked. - Of course you should state your overall view. I'm making it easy on my side. Yeah, I'm extreme anti-left.

But I see no actual positions with any potential for compromise with them. They want more government, I want less. Are you saying that I should give them more government, just less than they want? Why would I agree to that? They aren't going to agree to less anything.

I know of no example where we could compromise

Well, unfortunately, there are going to be people who just aren't part of any collaboration that does take place, if ever.

The key will be in satisfying enough people such that that group won't matter.
.

Evading the question yet again.

It really is simple. I want less government, leftists want more government. Isn't the compromise to that in your terms to leave it where it is?

Does a compromise to more versus left government to you mean

1) More government (but less than leftists want)

2) The same government

3) Less government (but less than I want)

Those are the only three logical possibilities

I'm not evading.

Don't collaborate. Don't do anything. That's your call.
.

Of course you're evading. You're saying let's hold hands and sing Kumbaya, but you have no idea how we "compromise" between wanting to grow and shrink government.

I'm willing to trade. But I'm not going to agree to grow government in doing it. How am I being obstinate by not taking a choice I don't have?

You keep going on about how the left wants to grow government. The right has given us the EPA, the DEA, the TSA, the DHS, the ICE, a huge military, and the Patriot Act. Is that your idea of smaller government?

You've obviously never read my posts before

 

[kaz]

Well, unfortunately, there are going to be people who just aren't part of any collaboration that does take place, if ever.

The key will be in satisfying enough people such that that group won't matter.
.

Evading the question yet again.

It really is simple. I want less government, leftists want more government. Isn't the compromise to that in your terms to leave it where it is?

Does a compromise to more versus left government to you mean

1) More government (but less than leftists want)

2) The same government

3) Less government (but less than I want)

Those are the only three logical possibilities

I'm not evading.

Don't collaborate. Don't do anything. That's your call.
.

Of course you're evading. You're saying let's hold hands and sing Kumbaya, but you have no idea how we "compromise" between wanting to grow and shrink government.

I'm willing to trade. But I'm not going to agree to grow government in doing it. How am I being obstinate by not taking a choice I don't have?

You keep going on about how the left wants to grow government. The right has given us the EPA, the DEA, the TSA, the DHS, the ICE, a huge military, and the Patriot Act. Is that your idea of smaller government?

They are always conspicuously silent when it comes to explaining why we need such a massively bloated military. Never understood what it had to do with conservatism either.

I'm against our bloated military, you stupid fuck. What is wrong with you people?

 

[Borillar]

Evading the question yet again.

It really is simple. I want less government, leftists want more government. Isn't the compromise to that in your terms to leave it where it is?

Does a compromise to more versus left government to you mean

1) More government (but less than leftists want)

2) The same government

3) Less government (but less than I want)

Those are the only three logical possibilities

I'm not evading.

Don't collaborate. Don't do anything. That's your call.
.

Of course you're evading. You're saying let's hold hands and sing Kumbaya, but you have no idea how we "compromise" between wanting to grow and shrink government.

I'm willing to trade. But I'm not going to agree to grow government in doing it. How am I being obstinate by not taking a choice I don't have?

You keep going on about how the left wants to grow government. The right has given us the EPA, the DEA, the TSA, the DHS, the ICE, a huge military, and the Patriot Act. Is that your idea of smaller government?

They are always conspicuously silent when it comes to explaining why we need such a massively bloated military. Never understood what it had to do with conservatism either.

I'm against our bloated military, you stupid fuck. What is wrong with you people?

You keep bitching about how the left wants to grow government, but ignore where the right actually has increased government.

 

[kaz]

I'm not evading.

Don't collaborate. Don't do anything. That's your call.
.

Of course you're evading. You're saying let's hold hands and sing Kumbaya, but you have no idea how we "compromise" between wanting to grow and shrink government.

I'm willing to trade. But I'm not going to agree to grow government in doing it. How am I being obstinate by not taking a choice I don't have?

You keep going on about how the left wants to grow government. The right has given us the EPA, the DEA, the TSA, the DHS, the ICE, a huge military, and the Patriot Act. Is that your idea of smaller government?

They are always conspicuously silent when it comes to explaining why we need such a massively bloated military. Never understood what it had to do with conservatism either.

I'm against our bloated military, you stupid fuck. What is wrong with you people?

You keep bitching about how the left wants to grow government, but ignore where the right actually has increased government.

I'm a libertarian for exactly that reason you stupid mother fucker