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

[Mac1958]

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

I guess I'll say it again.

Collaborating means that sometimes you get what you want. Other times the other guy gets what they want. Sometimes you can, together, come up with someone new that you can both live with.

I can't believe I actually have to say this.
.

 

[bripat9643]

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.
.

That doesn't mean anything to me.

 

[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.
.

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.

When did I say anything to the contrary?
.

 

[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.

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

I am a liberal. You're not a liberal, you're a leftist. Leftists in fact have nothing in common with liberals. You want oppressive government. You're unlike us in every way

 

[Mac1958]

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.
.

That doesn't mean anything to me.

I know.
.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

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.

When did I say anything to the contrary?
.

I'm explaining to you why collaboration is so difficult, if not impossible.
All paths of divisiveness lead to Trump.
Fox News needs to rename itself The Trump Channel, because they are NOT news, they are Trump's media arm.
They are creating divisiveness too.

 

[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

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 more than I want)

Those are the only three logical possibilities

 

[Mac1958]

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.

When did I say anything to the contrary?
.

I'm explaining to you why collaboration is so difficult, if not impossible.
All paths of divisiveness lead to Trump.
Fox News needs to rename itself The Trump Channel, because they are NOT news, they are Trump's media arm.
They are creating divisiveness too.

Yes they are.

But it appears you can only see the sins of the "other side".
.

 

[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.
.

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.
.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

By "contrarion" you mean he punches back when someone takes a shot at him. I realize you leftwing douchebags prefer a victim who stands and takes a beating without complaining. Republican voters are done with politicians who do that.

Yeah, I hope Trump keeps up the "divisiveness" (punching back).

 

[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

I am a liberal. You're not a liberal, you're a leftist. Leftists in fact have nothing in common with liberals. You want oppressive government. You're unlike us in every way

We are getting oppressive government under Trump, idiot.
Poll: More than half of Republicans would support postponing 2020 election
You're neither liberal nor leftist nor conservative. You're just simply ignorant.

 

[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

I guess I'll say it again.

Collaborating means that sometimes you get what you want. Other times the other guy gets what they want. Sometimes you can, together, come up with someone new that you can both live with.

I can't believe I actually have to say this.
.

AGAIN, at 100,000 feet, I understand that. I already told you that.

What I don't understand is what it means in practicality, and you aren't telling me.

If I want less government, and leftists want more government, why would I give them more? Why would they give me less? Should we agree to do nothing? I'm asking what you are proposing as an application to ANY actual policy

 

[bripat9643]

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.
.

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 more than I want)

Those are the only three logical possibilities

It always means more of what the leftists want. For instance, the leftists have never voted to repeal a single regulation, abolish a single government agency or cut a single tax. The have never voted to cut spending . . . ever.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

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.

By "contrarion" you mean he punches back when someone takes a shot at him. I realize you leftwing douchebags prefer a victim who stands and takes a beating without complaining. Republican voters are done with politicians who do that.

Yeah, I hope Trump keeps up the "divisiveness" (punching back).

Oh, please...the counter-puncher LIE.

So for example: Harley Davidson
Trump has gone off the edge on Twitter about H.D., trashing them right and left.
Was that counter-punching? Simply because they announced moving ops overseas?

Need more? Got all day?

 

[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.

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

I am a liberal. You're not a liberal, you're a leftist. Leftists in fact have nothing in common with liberals. You want oppressive government. You're unlike us in every way

We are getting oppressive government under Trump, idiot.
Poll: More than half of Republicans would support postponing 2020 election
You're neither liberal nor leftist nor conservative. You're just simply ignorant.

So what actual "oppression" has Trump put into effect?

 

[Mac1958]

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

I guess I'll say it again.

Collaborating means that sometimes you get what you want. Other times the other guy gets what they want. Sometimes you can, together, come up with someone new that you can both live with.

I can't believe I actually have to say this.
.

AGAIN, at 100,000 feet, I understand that. I already told you that.

What I don't understand is what it means in practicality, and you aren't telling me.

If I want less government, and leftists want more government, why would I give them more? Why would they give me less? Should we agree to do nothing? I'm asking what you are proposing as an application to ANY actual policy

This is so fundamental that I honestly, truly don't know what to say.

Communicate. LISTEN. Consider new possibilities. Don't shut yourself off. Don't attack. LISTEN. Take one of their ideas and add to it. Ask honest questions. Give honest answers.

Honestly, I'm at a loss here. How do you think a business comes up with wild, innovative new ideas? Do you think they just find a bunch of people who think alike and toss them into a room?

Come on.
.

 

[kaz]

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.
.

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?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

By "contrarion" you mean he punches back when someone takes a shot at him. I realize you leftwing douchebags prefer a victim who stands and takes a beating without complaining. Republican voters are done with politicians who do that.

Yeah, I hope Trump keeps up the "divisiveness" (punching back).

Oh, please...the counter-puncher LIE.

So for example: Harley Davidson
Trump has gone off the edge on Twitter about H.D., trashing them right and left.
Was that counter-punching? Simply because they announced moving ops overseas?

Need more? Got all day?

Sure. We all know that Harely's move was purely for propaganda purposes. They probably planned it years ago and then blamed it on Trump when they anounced it. You don't actually believe corporations decide to move a manufacturing plant in a matter of a few weeks, do you?

 

[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.
.

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?

Oh boy, straw man.

Again: You're right. Don't collaborate. Don't talk to them. Don't go near them.

I think you've got this nailed. You're right. I'm wrong.
.

 

[bripat9643]

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

I guess I'll say it again.

Collaborating means that sometimes you get what you want. Other times the other guy gets what they want. Sometimes you can, together, come up with someone new that you can both live with.

I can't believe I actually have to say this.
.

AGAIN, at 100,000 feet, I understand that. I already told you that.

What I don't understand is what it means in practicality, and you aren't telling me.

If I want less government, and leftists want more government, why would I give them more? Why would they give me less? Should we agree to do nothing? I'm asking what you are proposing as an application to ANY actual policy

This is so fundamental that I honestly, truly don't know what to say.

Communicate. LISTEN. Consider new possibilities. Don't shut yourself off. Don't attack. LISTEN. Take one of their ideas and add to it. Ask honest questions. Give honest answers.

Honestly, I'm at a loss here. How do you think a business comes up with wild, innovative new ideas? Do you think they just find a bunch of people who think alike and toss them into a room?

Come on.
.

We've heard all those douchebags have to say. We're not interested. Stopping it is our agenda.