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!
Compromise doesn't have to mean giving up on anything. It's more often about finding a middle way solution on an issue that both sides can accept.
This is how I would suggest compromising on each issue without either part giving up on any:
Abortion: Religious people can give up all the rights they want.
Gun control: Ban guns in cities. Allow them in the wilderness.
Climate change: Allow industries to pollute as long as they pay for cleaning it up.
Immigration: The whole thing could be solved by not allowing employers to hire people without their paperwork in order.
Culture wars: The fear is that certain cultures get to control others? Don't allow anyone to force their culture on others.
Trump gets president: Okay, if all power is removed from the position, then he can be the representative of the country. Not a good one but whatever.
Climate change: do they have to pay to clean it up before or after it hurts people?
Immigration: We already do not allow employers to hire people without their paperwork in order. The issue is way more complex than that.
Trump: I 100% support replacing Congress and POTUS with a Parliament and Prime Minister, and would compromise by making POTUS a ceremonial office with the only function being wearing a bald eagle costume at international sporting events, and letting Trump do it until he quits after being tackled by the Canadian in a maple syrup bottle costume.
Climate Change: they should clean up as they go. It ought to be part of the production cost.
Immigration: Why aren't the laws enforced? The issue is that employers absolutely do hire unregistered immigrants, otherwise they wouldn't come. Even Trump himself has Mar-a-Lago staffed with illegal immigrants. Either make them legal, or stop the employers from dumping the employment market with "they took our jobs"-employees. It's the most hypocritical thing. It's not complex at all. It's just racist slavery.