CDZ has the US forgotten the art of the political compromise?

peacefan

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2018
Messages
331
Reaction score
63
Points
80
i watch a lot of CNN-US national and Fox News national..

constantly, i see the democrats "aiming high" and then being stubborn about it,
and the Republicans "aiming low" and then being very stubborn about that.
this is true for for instance the Green New Deal, and for the COVID unemployment benefits,
but i bet it applies to more domestic situations than that.

meanwhile, the US populations and employers are left to fend for themselves.
i believe this leads to more grief than is necessary, to say it lightly.

i beg the US leaders to (re-)learn the arts of internal diplomacy and political compromise building,
in other words to add a little water to the wine of their deals, to reach a settlement in shorter time spans,
and to find ways other than stubbornness to advertise themselves to their voter audiences.

with regards,
peacefan (real name : Rene Veerman)
Rene Veerman
 

Mac1958

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
72,103
Reaction score
17,059
Points
2,210
Location
Opposing Authoritarian Ideological Fundamentalism.
i watch a lot of CNN-US national and Fox News national..

constantly, i see the democrats "aiming high" and then being stubborn about it,
and the Republicans "aiming low" and then being very stubborn about that.
this is true for for instance the Green New Deal, and for the COVID unemployment benefits,
but i bet it applies to more domestic situations than that.

meanwhile, the US populations and employers are left to fend for themselves.
i believe this leads to more grief than is necessary, to say it lightly.

i beg the US leaders to (re-)learn the arts of internal diplomacy and political compromise building,
in other words to add a little water to the wine of their deals, to reach a settlement in shorter time spans,
and to find ways other than stubbornness to advertise themselves to their voter audiences.

with regards,
peacefan (real name : Rene Veerman)
Rene Veerman
A couple of years ago I read a piece that asked a question that I found to be very worrisome: "Is it possible it has been so long since we communicated like adults that we have lost the ability to do so?"

If the answer is yes, we're in trouble.
 

jwoodie

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
14,497
Reaction score
3,169
Points
280
There is a difference between compromise and extortion. For example, the Democrats will not discuss COVID unemployment benefits unless they are bribed with $2 trillion in bailout funds for their corrupt cities and states.
 

SeaGal

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
Messages
1,301
Reaction score
499
Points
200
Location
a land remembered
i watch a lot of CNN-US national and Fox News national..

constantly, i see the democrats "aiming high" and then being stubborn about it,
and the Republicans "aiming low" and then being very stubborn about that.
this is true for for instance the Green New Deal, and for the COVID unemployment benefits,
but i bet it applies to more domestic situations than that.

meanwhile, the US populations and employers are left to fend for themselves.
i believe this leads to more grief than is necessary, to say it lightly.

i beg the US leaders to (re-)learn the arts of internal diplomacy and political compromise building,
in other words to add a little water to the wine of their deals, to reach a settlement in shorter time spans,
and to find ways other than stubbornness to advertise themselves to their voter audiences.

with regards,
peacefan (real name : Rene Veerman)
Rene Veerman
Historically the Republican leadership has been too willing to compromise and for the Democrat leadership compromise means "give us 90% of what we want, and you can have the rest".

Some schools of thought believe that the less Congress does the better off the country is. :)
 

sartre play

Gold Member
Joined
May 4, 2015
Messages
4,621
Reaction score
635
Points
140
Negotiations always start with asking for more than you really are willing to settle for, countered by giving something you don't really care about in order to get something you want that really helps no one but your big money supporters. So just our usual political mess.
 

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
64,576
Reaction score
9,769
Points
2,030
The way it's supposed to work is that one house of Congress passes legislation then it is sent to the other house.

The other house marks up the legislation and then a conference committee made of members of both houses gets together and hammers out differences and then both houses vote on the new bill with the differences hammered out.

If it passes both houses, it goes to the President for a signature or veto.

On the large bills, this doesn't happen. The House passed a Covid Relief package in May. The Senate let it die and didn't even begin looking at a relief bill until late July.
 

Flash

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
37,881
Reaction score
12,739
Points
1,590
Location
Florida
There is a difference between compromise and extortion. For example, the Democrats will not discuss COVID unemployment benefits unless they are bribed with $2 trillion in bailout funds for their corrupt cities and states.

Democrat leadership has failed America and now the sorry incompetent jackasses demand to be bailed out by the Republican taxpayers.
 

sakinago

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
4,825
Reaction score
1,185
Points
185
i watch a lot of CNN-US national and Fox News national..

constantly, i see the democrats "aiming high" and then being stubborn about it,
and the Republicans "aiming low" and then being very stubborn about that.
this is true for for instance the Green New Deal, and for the COVID unemployment benefits,
but i bet it applies to more domestic situations than that.

meanwhile, the US populations and employers are left to fend for themselves.
i believe this leads to more grief than is necessary, to say it lightly.

i beg the US leaders to (re-)learn the arts of internal diplomacy and political compromise building,
in other words to add a little water to the wine of their deals, to reach a settlement in shorter time spans,
and to find ways other than stubbornness to advertise themselves to their voter audiences.

with regards,
peacefan (real name : Rene Veerman)
Rene Veerman
See here’s the problem with compromise. You have the dem party “cultural” leaders rapidly moving to the left over the last decade and half. That should be a non-controversial statement. Obama 08 was against gay marriage, publicly at least. Now the cultural leaders of the left are not only advocating for, but declaring its evil to be against giving hormone blockers and even sex changes to a 7 year old. Even when it’s going against clearly established medical science that states that over 80% of kids with gender dysphoria at that age wind up growing out of it (usually becoming gay). I digress. The problem with compromise is that when one party continually moves to the extremes, the other party compromising will eventually compromise to the extreme. Take healthcare for instance. The left argues for more Medicaid benefits applied to a larger base, a compromise is made somewhere in the middle of the status quo and what is being proposed by the left. Next year the left argues for even more benefits and extension of the application. A compromise is made somewhere in the middle. Next year the argument is for a public option, instead benefits are increased again. Next year the argument is for single payer, a public option is created in the compromise. On and on until socialized medicine is created.

20 years ago both parties both believed in the enlightenment values to different degrees. The argument was how do we apply those enlightenment values in government. That’s no longer the argument. It’s now how fast should we move away from the enlightenment values and the constitution. This is why the country is so divided right now. The argument is no longer “Is it a free speech violation for the government to censor curse words on the radio?” The argument is now “free speech isn’t morally ok because it means people can say hurtful things.” The argument today is that capitalism is inherently evil, not what rights does the government have over business regulation. One party believes in the enlightenment values, the other (at least the cultural leaders of the other) believes those values are evil. If that’s the case, then it is wrong, from the prospective of each party, to compromise.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top