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!

    • qantravon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      3 months ago

      Here’s the thing: you’re not wrong on what each side seems to have as priorities. It’s just absurd that anyone should think there’s any kind of equivalence between them.

      • Lauchs@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Half of America seems to think so. And whether we like it or not, we live in a pluralistic society.

        • Sundial@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          The point of my original comment was on how bad compromise is in these scenarios. We got to this point where we are arguing for basic human decency with complete sociopaths. When I read your post all I could think of is “this is literally asking us to choose which demographic we should screw over for the sake of appeasement and compromise”.

          I know I’m coming off really bitter, and none of it is targeted towards you. I’m just really tired of this all.