I know some here will be shocked to hear this, but I support compromise.

[white_wolf]

However, I have a different definition of compromise than the President and a lot of members of Congress. For instance, when it comes to Healthcare reform, the starting point for our side should be single payer or socialized medicine and if we absolutely cannot get that, then the compromise should be an option to buy into medicare. Compromise does not mean you give the other side almost everything they want, compromise means you get everything you reasonably can for the people you were elected to fight for.

[daleanime]

1. But, but....

that's reasonable.:wow:








Which means, we'll never see it happen.

[Drale]

2. I do as well but

you can not compromise with crazy people, it is doesn't work.

[apples and oranges]

3. The first objective should be to make congress as liberal as possible

It is only then that the discussion can start with universal healthcare and end in medicare buy ins.

[Zorra]

4. Yes. Always start bargaining from the absolute best possible outcome,

and hold your ground to get as close to that outcome as possible to get the best possible deal.

Not rocket science, is it?

[white_wolf]

5. You wouldn't think so. nt

[lonestarnot]

6. K & R!

[toddwv]

7. Everybody does.

However, there is a difference between compromise and capitulation.

[white_wolf]

8. That's my point.

I don't think Congress and especially the President, understand that difference.

[EFerrari]

10. I think they understand the difference perfectly well

but compromise and even capitulation sells better than complicity.

[Prophet 451]

9. In the way you describe, so do I

Problem is, the current crowd of Congressional Republicans aren't interested in compromise, only capitulation.