US Elections 2018: Democrats take House, Republicans keep Senate, - Polidicks

For like the tenth time, I don't want democrats to compromise on Nazi ideas.

Just try taking things out of a formalized political system and start seeing this system for what it is.

Why would he? He's a democrat. He's not a member of the Trump Party. We're not talking about Booker. We're talking about Republicans -- the Party of Trump. We're talking about them because they would vote yes.

So where do they compromise on voters rights? on healthcare? on immigration? on economy? One side is proposing flatly insane, unfounded, and unreasonable policy. Should they compromise on that? This is the danger of believing "The truth always lies in the middle". It rarely does. I don't frankly care WHERE the truth is, I care about having it. The truth is even "reasonable" republican legislation is explicitly contrary to the desires of the democrats. So you're saying "Compromise by doing republican bidding". Why?

Because he thinks it'll afford them more room to compromise -- failing to understand that it would give them less room to compromise.

what republican policy would you like them to compromise on then? should we compromise on climate change? defunding health care? the systematic terrorizing of asylum seekers? the abolishing of the 14th amendment? the wall? gerrymandering? the nomination of petulant manchildren to the supreme court? should we compromise on the labeling of longtime allies like fucking canada as "national security threats"? should we compromise on presidential pardon power being used to raise political allies like joe arpaio above the law? what compromise would you be happy to see, exactly?

I just do not understand how two parties refusing to do anything that either wants will solve literally anything. At least having one party trying to work things out is a net positive. I guess I'm naive.

so you're asking for democrats to compromise when you don't even know what they'd be compromising on? have you even taken the most cursory glance at the policy the GOP has proposed over the last two years?

Sure. Which party is capable of 'trying to work things out' which is pursuing 'trying to work things out' again? Let's say there are two men. One has a gun pointed at the other. The other has their gun in their holster. Should the one being threatened by the gun allow the gun to continue to be pointed at them to 'allow literally anything to be solved' or would you find it acceptable for the other man to draw his gun and hold the other at a Mexican Standoff -- where both guns are now raised? Would you find it an acceptable outcome for the other man to not draw his gun and get shot simply because 'he didn't want to get in the other guy's way'?

I've explained it to you, but I will do so again. The republican want Agenda A. They will not compromise on Agenda A. They may float Agenda B, and Agenda C, as options, but ultimately will not do anything less than Agenda A. The republicans previously occupied all 3 wings of the government, and did not have to compromise on anything to get Agenda A. They just "Did what they wanted". During the terms of Obama, the republicans under Mitch McConnel refused to compromise on any items on the Democratic agenda. They wanted their Agenda A item, and nothing less. The democrats compromised, and acted out of bipartisan interests. The republicans used this as leverage to destroy Democratic proposals, bury democratic agenda items, and attack democrats as if they had NEVER attempted to be bipartisan. The result we have today is Donald Trump. Compromise to a party that seeks to be dishonest, and manipulative is HANDING THEM A FUCKING VICTORY.

"A little"? You mean like the tax cut that republicans passed? The tax cut which was their sole major legislative accomplishment? The tax cut which has resulted in a near trillion dollar annual deficit, which republicans are now using as a justification to cut social safety nets like medicaid? That's the kind of policy you want to see more compromise on?

Alright, here's your million dollar question then. It's a governmental policy on the ballot that kicks out or ghetto-izes anyone who is not predominately light-skinned. Is it OK for the Democrats to not compromise on that, even if to force that to not pass requires full obstruction efforts? If you truly are 'willing to accept policies you don't agree with it if lots of others do agree with it' then are you OK with a 'Nazi Majority' ruling the country simply because 'they're the majority'?

Jesus christ I;m advocating the opposite of 'at any cost' compromising. I'm saying there is a limit!

You don't seem to be setting any. You say 'obviously no nazi policy' while saying 'but there's lots of policy that isn't nazi policy' while it keeps getting pointed out to you, again and again, that what is being pushed is more or less nazi policy. And so you're decrying that 'all they're doing is obstructing and they shouldn't do that' while also saying 'they should do that only if its necessary' while also saying 'I don't think it's necessary'. You should take a second to really think about all the statements you've made here. What you're advocating for is an absolute mess which is just straight up ignoring the context of the present situation.

I would not try to only give them the blacks because, for the twelth time, I would not compromise on racist or nazi policy.

Then what is your problem with the Democrats going for active opposition under the present circumstances?

You don't seem to know what you want, or what you're arguing for or against You just seem to not like the idea that people aren't going to play nice. Trump has made it a losing move to place nice for the Republicans. So they will NOT PLAY NICE. You want the democrats to tie their hands behind their back, while their in power, so that they don't seem mean. You're actively making the legislative future of the country more difficult if that is the framework you want to move forward with. You are just failing to understand what literally has been happening for 10 years.

I don't know why "compromise" has become a bad word. I don't know why "compromise" has suddenly meant you endorse the other side's ideas. I, personally, have a line drawn somewhere where I would and would not compromise. Of course I don't know where that line is... there's an infinite amount of propositions you can make. But I draw that line where I view things as starting to get inhumane and Nazi shit. I do not think republicans cutting taxes is inhumane enough to not reach a compromise, if the alternative is saying "fuck off" and nothing gets done for another 8 years.

it is inhumane when the republicans use those tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals and companies to force democrats to compromise on protections for the poorest and most vulnerable https://www.businessinsider.com/mitch-mcconnell-medicare-social-security-medicaid-cuts-trump-2018-10 they are literally using the debt they created as leverage to force compromise on cutting people's access to healthcare this is what you're getting when you ask for compromise

It's not. Nobody has claimed this. However, if the other side doesn't want to compromise on anything and you accept it then, yes, you have endorsed 'the other side's ideas'. The Democrats have held out a hand for the last 10 years. They have received nothing but punches to the face.

So you would rather have "Bad policy" then "No policy"? This is why I don't really think you're thinking about this very logically at all.

NO. We do not have 'our own truths'. Truth is truth. Opinion is opinion. Fact is fact.

More than naive, I just feel you're flat out unaware.

you must be more naive than I thought, if you actually believe that there can be any compromise made with the party of trump and the rest of the american executive. Compromise was tried for the last 2 presidential terms with this lot, where all they did was scream until obummer had to pass a watered down version of the ACA that they used as justification it needed to go. The problem is, they want their way or the highway. There was no indication at all they were actually going to meet the democrats halfway on anything, and a blind man missing his stick in a sandstorm could see that.

If you want people to understand where you're coming from maybe directly address their points? This has been addressed to you twice now and you have yet to bother replying to it yet it directly addresses the issues with what you're saying. All those things listed are vital pieces of the current Republican agenda. Where and how could we compromise here in any reasonable way? NONE of those things can be compromised on because they are objectively atrocious things. Compromising on them is still allowing awful things to happen. So how do we compromise on them? Please actually address those points this time.

I'm all for bipartisanship, but it's very clear which party in America needs to dial down it's agenda in order to achieve bipartisan goals. And you can't even say "ah-ha! of you would say the republicans should be the ones to dial back their politics- You prefer the Democrats!" Because the republicans are the party that has fucked off to the fringes of their politics in the last few years. The Democrats have remained economically centre-right, and progressive on social issues. Meanwhile the Republicans are now at the point where they are actively courting Neo-Nazis and white supremacists, running concentration camps for children separated from their parents, convicted criminals when it's, starting aimless trade wars and attacking the American media. If compromise needs to happen, It's clear who needs to be winding their fucking dicks in right about now.

Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it the dimes have to learn from 2010 and the shot that happened then to lead to now

Apparently my district is still counting mail-in ballots and the gap between our weasel GOP representative and the dem candidate is closing, ballots can still be counted if they are received within 48 hours of voting day. We could claim all but one district in NJ if this keeps up.

I voted last night, but I couldn't post it because I was banned for telling a Russian troll to fuck off. https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/219126/77dfb5cc-9fec-4407-a7e8-d67944048b6f/C21D689E-B5CC-4926-B414-AD341F683224.jpeg

Posted it before, but always relevant: Why are Democratic voters more approving of compromise than Republicans? In a 2014 Pew survey, 64 percent of Democrats and 49 percent of Republicans agreed with the statement, "I like elected officials who "make compromises with people they disagree with" rather than elected officials who "stick to their positions." In a 2015 survey conducted for Al Jazeera America, when asked "What causes more problems in the federal government?" 71 percent of Democrats and 40 percent of Republicans chose "elected officials who are not willing to compromise" as opposed to "elected officials who are not willing to stand up for their principles."