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

[Mac1958]

You just provided it: Less vs. More. That exists on a continuum.

If you said you would only accept 0% government, and they said they would only accept 100%, we'd be at an irreconcilable impasse.

But if you both agree that the answer is somewhere on the continuum, the task would be to find the various points on the continuum that the myriad different costs and responsibilities of the government could exist.

Then, there would be some give and take, where you get something more to your liking, and where they got something else more to their liking. Each side wins a few, each side loses a few, both sides win a few.

Isn't this kind of obvious?
.

It's obvious because you stayed in the clouds and didn't say anything specific.

Give me an example of an issue that the left will compromise on and how someone who is for less government could realistically make an agreement with them to compromise

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.
.

When did they ever compromise on any of that crap?

The ACA, for one glaring example. They wanted Single Payer and instead belched out that monstrous beast that was a giveaway to the insurance companies. They had all the power and folded.
.

The didn't need any Republican votes for the ACA. That bill is 100% a Democrat creation.

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

 

[bripat9643]

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

The only people you can compromise with are those you have common views on
You can't collaborate with people who hate what you stand for
You can't cooperate with people who hate your very existence.

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 "choose" to hate them the way I would choose a paint color. I hate people who are trying to do me harm. That's just a fundamental law of animal behavior.

I'd disagree. Hate is something that we learn. We can choose not to give in to emotion. If a person can't, that's on that person.
.

True, sort of. We don't hate a Tiger when it it tries to eat you. That doesn't mean you open the cage door.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

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

"It's not about "Left vs. Right". It's about the WINGERS on BOTH ends vs. a MAJORITY of America. That's MY "side of the fence". ""

That was before 2015 and the descent on the escalator in His Majesty's palace on 5th Avenue. And the lies that followed, and the denial of those lie by the idiots who voted for him.

Trump does not evoke neutral feelings....from anyone. And he never did.

 

[bripat9643]

It's obvious because you stayed in the clouds and didn't say anything specific.

Give me an example of an issue that the left will compromise on and how someone who is for less government could realistically make an agreement with them to compromise

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.
.

When did they ever compromise on any of that crap?

The ACA, for one glaring example. They wanted Single Payer and instead belched out that monstrous beast that was a giveaway to the insurance companies. They had all the power and folded.
.

The didn't need any Republican votes for the ACA. That bill is 100% a Democrat creation.

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

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

 

[Mac1958]

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

"It's not about "Left vs. Right". It's about the WINGERS on BOTH ends vs. a MAJORITY of America. That's MY "side of the fence". ""

That was before 2015 and the descent on the escalator in His Majesty's palace on 5th Avenue. And the lies that followed, and the denial of those lie by the idiots who voted for him.

Trump does not evoke neutral feelings....from anyone. And he never did.

No, it remains true today, and more than ever.
.

 

[Mac1958]

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.
.

When did they ever compromise on any of that crap?

The ACA, for one glaring example. They wanted Single Payer and instead belched out that monstrous beast that was a giveaway to the insurance companies. They had all the power and folded.
.

The didn't need any Republican votes for the ACA. That bill is 100% a Democrat creation.

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.
.

 

[bripat9643]

When did they ever compromise on any of that crap?

The ACA, for one glaring example. They wanted Single Payer and instead belched out that monstrous beast that was a giveaway to the insurance companies. They had all the power and folded.
.

The didn't need any Republican votes for the ACA. That bill is 100% a Democrat creation.

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.

 

[Mac1958]

The ACA, for one glaring example. They wanted Single Payer and instead belched out that monstrous beast that was a giveaway to the insurance companies. They had all the power and folded.
.

The didn't need any Republican votes for the ACA. That bill is 100% a Democrat creation.

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.
.

 

[kaz]

I want less government and the left wants more. Give me an example of how I should be compromising with that

You just provided it: Less vs. More. That exists on a continuum.

If you said you would only accept 0% government, and they said they would only accept 100%, we'd be at an irreconcilable impasse.

But if you both agree that the answer is somewhere on the continuum, the task would be to find the various points on the continuum that the myriad different costs and responsibilities of the government could exist.

Then, there would be some give and take, where you get something more to your liking, and where they got something else more to their liking. Each side wins a few, each side loses a few, both sides win a few.

Isn't this kind of obvious?
.

It's obvious because you stayed in the clouds and didn't say anything specific.

Give me an example of an issue that the left will compromise on and how someone who is for less government could realistically make an agreement with them to compromise

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

 

[WaitingFor2020]

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

I want less government and the left wants more. Give me an example of how I should be compromising with that

You must not know any liberals. I don't want more gov't.
I know lots of liberals and they don't want more gov't, either.
They want the health care system fixed.
They want the war to end in Afghanistan.
They want the tax relief they were supposed to get, but didn't. Increase in take-home pay was only 2.2%+/- (Here's exactly how much paychecks changed after tax reform for people at every income level from $20,000 to $269,000 a year)
They want immigration reform without putting kids in cages and babies in "tender age" centers where they have disappeared, 3000 to-date.
They don't want a trade war. If the economy was so good, like Trump boasts, why is he fucking it up now? Why did Gary Cohn quit?
They don't want assholes like Pruitt in the EPA. Good riddance to filth.
They want millennials to be able to buy houses and have children. That's not happening due to student loan scam and their debt.
Pretty simple stuff.
Oh, and they don't want a lying, petty, 24/7 Tweeting 14-year-old in the Oval Office who has the highest turn-over in administration in the last 100 years.

From the Brookings Institute, not exactly a bastion of liberal thought:
Trump’s lies corrode democracy

 

[bripat9643]

The didn't need any Republican votes for the ACA. That bill is 100% a Democrat creation.

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?

 

[Mac1958]

I want less government and the left wants more. Give me an example of how I should be compromising with that

You just provided it: Less vs. More. That exists on a continuum.

If you said you would only accept 0% government, and they said they would only accept 100%, we'd be at an irreconcilable impasse.

But if you both agree that the answer is somewhere on the continuum, the task would be to find the various points on the continuum that the myriad different costs and responsibilities of the government could exist.

Then, there would be some give and take, where you get something more to your liking, and where they got something else more to their liking. Each side wins a few, each side loses a few, both sides win a few.

Isn't this kind of obvious?
.

It's obvious because you stayed in the clouds and didn't say anything specific.

Give me an example of an issue that the left will compromise on and how someone who is for less government could realistically make an agreement with them to compromise

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.
.

 

[kaz]

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

The only people you can compromise with are those you have common views on
You can't collaborate with people who hate what you stand for
You can't cooperate with people who hate your very existence.

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 "choose" to hate them the way I would choose a paint color. I hate people who are trying to do me harm. That's just a fundamental law of animal behavior.

Yep. And it's only the left who are widely committing and calling for more violence to silence dissent from their views

 

[Mac1958]

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?

Please see post 132.
.

 

[kaz]

I want less government and the left wants more. Give me an example of how I should be compromising with that

You just provided it: Less vs. More. That exists on a continuum.

If you said you would only accept 0% government, and they said they would only accept 100%, we'd be at an irreconcilable impasse.

But if you both agree that the answer is somewhere on the continuum, the task would be to find the various points on the continuum that the myriad different costs and responsibilities of the government could exist.

Then, there would be some give and take, where you get something more to your liking, and where they got something else more to their liking. Each side wins a few, each side loses a few, both sides win a few.

Isn't this kind of obvious?
.

It's obvious because you stayed in the clouds and didn't say anything specific.

Give me an example of an issue that the left will compromise on and how someone who is for less government could realistically make an agreement with them to compromise

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.
.

When did they ever compromise on any of that crap?

The ACA, for one glaring example. They wanted Single Payer and instead belched out that monstrous beast that was a giveaway to the insurance companies. They had all the power and folded.
.

WTF, the left had no ability to get single payer. They took the maximum government they could get. What the hell are you talking about?

 

[bripat9643]

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

I want less government and the left wants more. Give me an example of how I should be compromising with that

You must not know any liberals. I don't want more gov't.
I know lots of liberals and they don't want more gov't, either.
They want the health care system fixed.
They want the war to end in Afghanistan.
They want the tax relief they were supposed to get, but didn't. Increase in take-home pay was only 2.2%+/- (Here's exactly how much paychecks changed after tax reform for people at every income level from $20,000 to $269,000 a year)
They want immigration reform without putting kids in cages and babies in "tender age" centers where they have disappeared, 3000 to-date.
They don't want a trade war. If the economy was so good, like Trump boasts, why is he fucking it up now? Why did Gary Cohn quit?
They don't want assholes like Pruitt in the EPA. Good riddance to filth.
They want millennials to be able to buy houses and have children. That's not happening due to student loan scam and their debt.
Pretty simple stuff.
Oh, and they don't want a lying, petty, 24/7 Tweeting 14-year-old in the Oval Office who has the highest turn-over in administration in the last 100 years.

Bullshit. Their solution to every problem is government. I've never seen one run for office who wasn't proposing more government programs, regulations, spending and taxes.

 

[kaz]

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

"It's not about "Left vs. Right". It's about the WINGERS on BOTH ends vs. a MAJORITY of America. That's MY "side of the fence". ""

That was before 2015 and the descent on the escalator in His Majesty's palace on 5th Avenue. And the lies that followed, and the denial of those lie by the idiots who voted for him.

Trump does not evoke neutral feelings....from anyone. And he never did.

To leftists, a compromise is when you only get some of what you wanted and the other side gets nothing and all you do is bitch about what you wanted and didn't get

 

[kaz]

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

I want less government and the left wants more. Give me an example of how I should be compromising with that

You must not know any liberals. I don't want more gov't.
I know lots of liberals and they don't want more gov't, either.
They want the health care system fixed.
They want the war to end in Afghanistan.
They want the tax relief they were supposed to get, but didn't. Increase in take-home pay was only 2.2%+/- (Here's exactly how much paychecks changed after tax reform for people at every income level from $20,000 to $269,000 a year)
They want immigration reform without putting kids in cages and babies in "tender age" centers where they have disappeared, 3000 to-date.
They don't want a trade war. If the economy was so good, like Trump boasts, why is he fucking it up now? Why did Gary Cohn quit?
They don't want assholes like Pruitt in the EPA. Good riddance to filth.
They want millennials to be able to buy houses and have children. That's not happening due to student loan scam and their debt.
Pretty simple stuff.
Oh, and they don't want a lying, petty, 24/7 Tweeting 14-year-old in the Oval Office who has the highest turn-over in administration in the last 100 years.

Bullshit. Their solution to every problem is government. I've never seen one run for office who wasn't proposing more government programs, regulations, spending and taxes.

Yep. Mac won't address that. It was my original question to him.

Democrats want more government in every way, I want less than we have in every way. How do you "compromise" in that scenario?

Republicans have compromised in every case by giving the Democrats most of what they want, but not all of it and getting nothing in return

 

[Pete7469]

You don't compromise with liberal traitors you defeat them.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

The didn't need any Republican votes for the ACA. That bill is 100% a Democrat creation.

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.
.

Trump is a contrarian who admits he loves conflict. He admits to stirring the pot and pitting people against each other.
He's happy as a pig in shit right now because he's getting what he wants.
And he'll keep up his divisiveness as long as his cult followers allow it.
If you watched even ONE of his rallies you would know that.