Almost everyone agrees there should be more compromises in politics. So I’m curious, how would that play out?

While I love the policy debates and the nuances, most people go for the big issues. So, according to the party platforms/my gut, here’s what I’d put as the 3 for each party:

Democrats: Abortion rights, gun control, climate change.

Republicans: Immigration, culture war (say, critical race theory in schools or gender affirming care for minors) , trump gets to be president. (Sorry but it really seems like a cult of personality at this point.)

Anyway, here’s the exercise: say the other side was willing to give up on all three of their issues but you had to give up on one of your side’s. OR, you can have two of your side’s but have to give up on the third.

Just curious to see how this plays out. (You are of course free to name other priorities you think better represent the parties but obviously if you write “making Joe Pesci day a national holiday” as a priority and give it up, that doesn’t really count.)

Edit: The consensus seems to be a big no to compromise. Which, fair, I imagine those on the Right feel just as strongly about what they would call baby murdering and replacing American workers etc.

Just kind of sad to see it in action.

But thanks/congrats to those who did try and work through a compromise!

  • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world
    32·
    7 days ago

    You are being perfectly reasonable and coherent by the way. Whoever is downvoting you doesn’t seem to understand the point of discussion.

    • flicker@lemmy.world
      31·
      7 days ago

      They go on to argue that abortion is murder in a different comment. They’re using careful language but it’s obvious this isn’t a person who is simply “arguing the other side,” this is a conversation done in bad faith.

      • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world
        1·
        7 days ago

        Are you referring to this?

        But yet again, for the pro-lifers, murdering babies, no matter how good the results etc might be is fundamentally wrong.

        Because that’s very obviously referring to the matter in the way that “pro lifers” would.

        And you are ignoring the preceding:

        I tend to agree with you that abortion should be available to all who want one because it’s not my damned decision to make.

        I would read comments more carefully if you’re going to cast aspersions…

        • flicker@lemmy.world
          2·
          7 days ago

          Neither.

          I’m talking about this:

          The reason why it’s worse if she’s pregnant is because you took away her choice and opportunity to have that baby

          To each their own I guess. I personally would feel horrible about killing a child not just removing a temporary opportunity or something. I’m not saying it’s the same as an abortion, just that we on a fundamental level do understand that the fetus isn’t just a clump of cells.

          Go and find the context, see that they used lots of “I’m pro choice” language, but then went on to argue that an embryo is a child. This is someone using lots of careful language, but is making a specific argument.

          • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world
            1·
            7 days ago

            Not really. They sound like someone who was raised conservative, thinks the foetus has some sort of status, but thinks they shouldn’t get in the way of others choices.

            I went through that stage myself on my way out of evangelical Christianity. I don’t find anything particularly disingenuous about how they’re speaking.

            • flicker@lemmy.world
              2·
              7 days ago

              We’re certainly allowed to see this in our own ways. Anyone who says blanket statements about how we perceive an unborn child is making a statement about what we believe.

              In my opinion, that kind of assertion crosses the line between someone championing the opinion of another and becomes championing their own opinion.