All governance is COMPROMISE.

[MineralMan]

It cannot be otherwise. I've never met a single person with whom I shared all my beliefs and principles. We live in a nation of over 300 million individuals. There is not universal agreement on any subject at all.

The only government system that does not require compromise is anarchy. The moment a government is in place, it must begin to compromise within itself. There is no alternative. Even when people agree on a principle, how to make that principle work involves a process. Agreement on that process will require compromise.

We elect our leaders, especially our President, based on the most general of principles. We have only one President, who is the person who can convince a majority of voters to vote for that person. Every vote is a compromise. Every decision is a compromise. Every piece of legislation is a compromise.

There is no government without compromise.

Vote for Democrats! They come closer to my principles, and probably yours. We have just one President at a time. Elect the nominee who will push for compromise in our favor.

That is all. You can now return to normal bickering about the details.

[bkkyosemite]

1. But the corruption is above compromise at this stage.

[MineralMan]

3. The process of choosing our government is already

in progress. Vote according to your best judgment. It is too late to start the process over this year.

Vote for the candidates you prefer in the primary elections. Vote for the better of the two candidates in the general election. It's not rocket surgery. Those are our choices this year. Make the best one you can at each stage.

We will end up with a President and all those legislators we elect. Vote intelligently for the best outcome possible.

In the end, compromises will take place, once the election is over. There is no way that will not occur. Anticipate those compromises and vote accordingly. Your vote in November will set the course for the next four years. If we're lucky, we'll live long enough to do this whole thing again in 2020.

Perfection is not possible, since each of us has a different definition of perfection. Outcomes will occur, regardless of our personal beliefs. We will have a government elected in November. Do your best to elect the better candidate for each office.

That's it. That's what we have to work with right now.

[puffy socks]

12. "Vote intelligently for the best outcome possible."

I wish more people understood this. Voting individual consciences may feel really good at the time but it misses the whole picture.
Progressives shoot themselves in the foot in so many elections over this.

How do we even begin to debate the Progressive solutions to the country's issues if we can't get enough seats to stop having to battle the GOP?
We constantly fight ourselves. Here we are again with so many Bernie Sanders supporters dividing the party and accusing the actual Democrat of doing the same. , leading me to believe we're going to have an even longer wait than previously anticipated to get any meaningful legislation passed.

[Hortensis]

40. Radical movements do indeed shoot themselves in the foot

and destroy their own efforts time after time. But sometimes, some places they put in power absolutist authoritarian governments that don't believe in compromise.

IMO, we should take a lesson from our exposure this election to, not only the vast intolerance, hostility and intractability of zealots, but the way some sympathizers can be swept up and altered by their passions. Now we know why so many conservative moderates didn't say no to the takeover of the GOP by the far right -- they became part of it.

Btw, we really need the factions of the far left to have their own identities -- ones they can't use to hide their activities among the very large crowd of American progressives, which includes effectively everyone on the left and a few on the right too.

[Baobab]

87. Trade deals eliminate politics from having any effect so no more compromise- Then they just WON

then there is no hope.

Politicians become liars who must pretend to argue and lie that they still offer hope and change.

[Hortensis]

89. Tell THAT to Obama! :)

[JoePhilly]

2. My prediction ...

for the kind of responses you will get to your reality based OP.

[MineralMan]

4. That's OK. Neither I nor anyone else can alter

reality. We're just individuals in a massive collection of other individuals. We must compromise or we will have anarchy.

[puffy socks]

6. Yep.

Honest open debate and especially compromise spoils the my way or the highway crowd of perpetual complainers. It exposes the weaknesses in their beliefs and they can't stand it.
I sometimes think some of them really don't want to solve any problems they just like to argue, complain and fight all the time.
They are paranoid , suspicious people. It's got to be hell living like that.

[lovemydog]

92. Agree.

It's funny to me because most Sanders and Clinton supporters that I've met in person are really nice people. I enjoy speaking with people both in person and online. I get along with most people very well. I think you're right - many online appear miserable, histrionic and hostile. I wouldn't want to live like that either.

[mcar]

5. It is indeed

[CrowCityDem]

7. Apparently, if you yell loud enough, everyone will eventually agree with you. So I've been hearing.

[MineralMan]

20. Yah...that trick never works.

However, if people think hard enough, they may make a better decision than they would if they just yell. I'm cautiously hopeful for November, whoever the nominee is. Cautiously. Hopeful.

If people think, we'll do OK. OK is better than terrible, which is the other option.

[Bluenorthwest]

8. All business is about compromise as well. Not all compromises are good ones, not all are fair.

Knowing when not to make a compromise is a definitive survival skill. Sometimes it is better to walk away than to meet the mediocre or the malicious half way just for the sake of the meeting. Compromise must remain a tactic, not an end goal. Compromise is always a matter of concession by both or all sides, concession that is not shared is not compromise.

And there are in fact some issues on which there is no compromise with some parties. This is a fact of life. It is upon occasion all or nothing.

[MineralMan]

16. There is not one, single compromise when it comes to government.

Every decision for a period of between two to four years is a process of constant compromises. Of course it is a tactic, nor a principle or goal. It is simply a reality.

We will have very limited choices to make as voters, but those choices will make an enormous difference in many outcomes. I suggest we vote wisely and get the better of two options in every race.

Do you have a better suggestion for 2016?

I'll be voting for the Democratic nominee for President and for the Democrat in every legislative race. What will you be doing?

[Bluenorthwest]

23. Is the subject here 'voting' or 'compromise'? You seem to be promoting compromise as a

principle in and of itself. Also, you failed to address even in passing any part of what I actually said, which was in response to surface content of your OP, not to the passive aggressive agenda of the OP.

This is a Primary right now, ongoing in my State and upcoming in my home State. My Primary ballot is out, not yet counted. Others are still being collected and lots of effort is going into getting those ballots returned, this serves Hillary, Bernie and all the down ticket Democrats. In other States, they are preparing for the same thing, collecting early votes, motivating participation that serves all the Democratic candidates. That's what's going on right now. I suggest supporting the efforts of those who are busy getting the vote out in the election we are having right now. I oppose efforts to suppress interest in the ongoing process. I see your efforts on DU of late as falling into the second category.

[MineralMan]

24. We can and should vote for the primary candidate we think

best fits our ideas of how government should work. We are engaged in that process, as you have said.

That process will soon end. I'm thinking beyond it. You have voted and your state will report the results on Tuesday night or Wednesday morning at the latest. Three weeks later, we'll have what is really the final set of primaries. At that point, the primary process will effectively end.

I'm thinking past that end. I'm thinking about a longer range set of actions. I'll accept the results of the primary process. Realistically, as an individual, I have no option but to do that. Like most people, I will participate in the general election, too. I will do that in a way that helps the better choice of two win. It's a pretty simple equation, really.

[puffy socks]

22. True.

But the GOP has refused to budge and the only way to turn that around to the point where you get concessions from other elected people is to elect the most progressive candidates available that have a chance of getting elected. Digging in our heels only continues the status quo.

Progressives didn't show up and stabbed our reps and senators in the back in 2010 and 2014. In a census year! That allowed the GOP to gerrymander districts to death. Take a look at the uniquely shaped districts in Michigan , for example.


“The Republicans did not win the midterm election in November,” the senator said. “The Democrats lost that election because voter turnout was abysmally low, and millions of working people, minorities and young people gave up on politics as usual and stayed home.” Bernie Sanders 8/28/2015

Even if you want to say they showed up, as some insist, then they voted for the GOP or third party losers. This isn't going to get seats. This hamstrings us. Then people get discouraged, then give up and the cycle goes on and on....


"all or nothing" is how violent revolutions start, and it's the average Joe who pays the highest price. compromise allows us to let people see which way works best for the most people. Then we grab more at the next compromise.

[TheKentuckian]

50. Bullshit, why is the blame on the progressives for not showing up when it looks like

the "middle" voted Republican in higher numbers, minorities turned out in far less numbers even if the percentage held, and a ton of the youth vote did the same?

While for the most part progressives held their seats and blue dogs took it on the chin?

Weird how it is progressive that take the rap here to me. Damn, it is fucking tiresome listening to lies and excuses from the people constantly screwing up and selling out when I sure didn't stay at home and in fact was phone banking, knocking on doors, and donating my tight money to try to keep shit afloat while being stabbed in the back and legs cut underneath me the whole way while being dogged by traitors that are supposedly allies who fold to or unmask as the right every time the heat is on...foolishly in both regards.

[puffy socks]

53. Do continue being bitter and blind

Eventually it may become clear to you, If it doesn't you'll just sit around and whine about all you couldn't get accomplished.
Enjoy your life!

[TheKentuckian]

74. It is clear you will make accusations and then flail around when you get pushback

because you cannot defend what you assert but insist on spouting it as if it was wisdom when it is vapor or less.

No amount of time will make fabrication fact.

[mikehiggins]

9. all things being equal...

but they aren't at this point, are they? I don't propose to waste your time with the litany of complaints voters have with the system. I'd just point out two things...

One. Compromise means reaching an agreement. It implies two (or more) positions which have to be hammered out in conference and discussion and old-fashioned horse trading. Presenting one position as the one a particular side is working for presents the starting point for negotiations. You can't negotiate when you've already laid out what you consider the end game. That simple gives the other side(s) a place to start in fighting for their positions. Announcing something is "off the table" similarly throws away bargaining chips. No single payer. No investigation of culpability in the financial collapse. Things like that tie your hands before you even sit down at the table.

Two. There is no level playing field. The GOP leaders agreed at the outset to oppose everything the President proposed. They made this decision more or less openly, and certainly demonstrated their resolve all the way throughout President Obama's terms. You cannot negotiate with people whose only position is "no".

Presenting the current situation as being open to "compromise" is really missing the point. One side of the table is clear and united as to what they want. The other side is much less so, if at all.

Certainly we should all vote for whomever the Democratic Party puts at the head of the ticket. That is just common sense. The major difference in opinion on the Democratic side is regarding who would be the stronger candidate opposing the GOP candidate AND who would go into office with a Progressive agenda that might be compromised "down" but would not be predicated on what can be given away.

And, of course, the water is rising. The period of time in which "compromise" on certain fronts can even be discussed is short, and getting shorter.

[cali]

10. But starting from a place of compromise is not a good tactic

And there are some issues on which compromise is a ridiculous premise.

[TCJ70]

11. This is it exactly...

...the habit of the Democratic Party has become to start at the compromise. That's not effective strategy.

In short, compromise isn't the problem. The starting point is the problem.

[puffy socks]

28. Not really, it depends on how you compromise.

Obama started with most of the original health care plan put forth by The Heritage Foundation
I believe his biggest mistake was believing that any Republicans had the people's interests in mind . They had already become a solid corporate party using social issues, like abortion, LGBT rights to suck in voters by the time he was elected, and black man in the white house just sent them over the edge.
Most mature adults will see that as an olive branch and sit down and rationally discuss viable options and you get more of what you want that way.
But he had the public option, and this strategy IS a better way to convert our system to eventual single payer than just instantly eliminating one system and drastically expanding another, for various reasons.

The fact that the Republican chose to act like racist rubes isn't Obama's fault. But the Dems did get a ton of good legislation passed within the ACA.

Making people angry does not get the results you want..making people angry , as the GOP and fox News are finding out, gets you the now defunct Tea Party and candidates like Trump and Cruz.

[Andy823]

14. True

However starting out with the "my way or the highway" tactic is also ridiculous, and over the years I have seen a lot of those who trash and bash Obama, and the whole party, push the "my way or the highway" way of working out problems. Yes, republicans hate to compromise, and they fight it, but contrary to what many here want to say, Obama got a hell of a lot done in his time in office, and that was due to compromise.

[MineralMan]

19. Wise leaders understand that perfectly well.

They go into every negotiation with a goal that represents the best possible option under whatever conditions prevail. They also realize that their goal may not be met.

In many cases, the stated goal is less optimal than the philosophical goal. Even then, compromise may be needed. It's rare for a starting point to be the ending point in government. It's always a fine line in bargaining regarding where to set the starting point. Any kind of bargaining requires starting points that have some relationship with the expected outcome.

That is why we do not have single-payer. Anyone with any sense knew that single-payer was not possible in 2009. Our President is a man of considerable sense. We got far less than the ultimate goal, but millions of people who could not have health insurance were able to get it due to the compromises. That was a far better outcome than no betterment at all.

Thus it is again in 2015. Starting positions? If I want a new car, I do not start by offering the dealer half the sticker price. Instead, I allow the dealer to quote me a price, and I make a counter offer. I will not get the car at half price, even though I might think that would be a better deal. I go in knowing that. I've done my research and know approximately what the final price will be, based on actually selling prices from that and other dealers. In the end, I will get the best possible price at the time I make the purchase. Both the dealer and I know that I will pay less than the sticker price. How much less depends on many factors, including our skills in negotiating and our willingness to bargain.

I will not get a new car at half of the sticker price. Ever. We will not get many of the things we consider to be the optimal outcome from government, either. We're a divided nation politically. If we do it right, though, we may well have a combination of an executive and at least one house of Congress who generally agree on a better starting point. If we fuck it up, though, we'll end up with a government that is hostile to our goals in all three branches.

We wont get the car at half the list price. Ever.

[cali]

29. What meaningless palaver.

[MineralMan]

30. Thank you for your clearly argued post.

It's always nice to see a cogent, well-written reply.

[Armstead]

13. True. But compromise is always a matter of opinion.

It's one of those truisms -- but the devil is always in the details of the degree and nature of compromise .

[DerekG]

15. Golly gee, that puts everything into perspective

As for myself, I'll be doing my part to rattle the Clinton/Obama cosa nostra before they "compromise" away whatever's left of the New Deal and Great Society.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

17. Governance is compromise....

But Loyalty, Honor and Character are not.

[B Calm]

18. Compromise the takeover of the Democratic Party by pissed off sane republicans

at the Teabaggery going on in the GOP. NO THANKS!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

21. Yes, compromise is always part of any political system.

However, when the game is rigged the way it is now, effective compromise - where each side gets something important that it wants - is often illusory. You don't arrive at a satisfactorily-negotiated solution when your opening offer is something less than what you really want, which is what the Democrats have been doing for years - evidently because they are so afraid of offending the Republicans so they won't "negotiate" at all. So the GOP gets what they want almost every damn time. Any good negotiator knows (1) that your opening demand is for more than you expect to get, and (2) that you have to be prepared to walk away if you aren't getting at least part of what you want. I haven't seen much of that from our lame, weak, bought-and-paid-for party. And I expect more of the same from Hillary. Maybe that's because what she wants is usually just a watered-down version of what the GOP wants, so she'll "compromise" by negotiating away any meaningful progress toward change in our favor unless she has the approval from her Wall Street owners.

[MineralMan]

26. And yet, come November, we will have to make choices.

In November, those choices effectively become binary ones. There will be winners for each office and they will be Democrats or Republicans. Regardless of what we do as individuals, the decisions will be made by millions of voters. Binary decisions.

The primary season is almost over. There are still a few states left to vote. They will, and then we will have our answer. I'm looking past the primaries and thinking about November at this point. I'm switching to binary mathematics. They look different from math using any other number base, really.

Vote as you choose. But vote, knowing that there will be only better and worse choices. Two choices only. Much depends on which choices most voters make.

It's simple, really. Vote now for your ideals. Vote in November to determine actual outcomes.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

32. Oh, I'll hold my nose, suppress my gag reflex and vote for Hillary.

The alternative is too terrible to consider. I regard Hillary as merely a (large) speed bump on the road to a genuinely progressive future, while Trump is far worse, maybe even an existential threat if he's as much of a loose cannon as I fear. We can survive four years (I hope it's no more than that) of Hillary's triangulation, selling out and kissing up to Wall Street, although I fervently hope she doesn't decide to get another war on. I'm not so confident we can come out of a Trump presidency with an economy not in shambles or any international prestige left.

In the meantime, during Hillary's same-old-same-old administration we can build up a grass-roots movement of real progressives so once Hillary is out of the way we can make some real progress for the people, not the banks.

[MineralMan]

38. Good.

And good luck with coming up with something new for the next round. Like I said, it's all compromise, in the end.

If we manage to recapture control of the Senate and make some headway in the House, too, we'll get some positive results over the next four years. Not enough, of course, but there will never be enough, really.

Problem is that progressives will never be a true majority in the United States. If we're lucky, we'll manage to win some elections and move the country forward progressively. If we're lucky. There's always a risk of overestimating the progressiveness of the electorate and getting pushed seriously backward.

Look at the past 50 years, and you'll see exactly what I mean. We're a nation with two general points of view about governance. It's easy for one of those points of view to prevail if the other half oversteps. All too easy. That's always the obstacle. I don't see that changing in the lifetimes of anyone currently on DU. Certainly not in my lifetime, which will be over before most other DUers' lifetimes, really. So good luck with your dreams. I hope you get to realize them. Truly.

[cherokeeprogressive]

25. Is this the bargaining stage?

[MineralMan]

27. Not really. That stage ends on November 7.

then, it's a matter of signing the contract or walking away and letting the other side win. There's still a choice, but it's a binary one. So it is in our system. In the end, it is always a binary choice.

[cali]

31. There are issues democrats should not compromise on. Period.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

36. Yup. While many things can and should be negotiated,

on some issues you have to be ready to draw a line and not budge. The so-called "Democrats" we are currently stuck with seem to be content with moving that line back every time the GOP pushes a bit.

[BootinUp]

33. there are obvious consquences from taking no compromise positions.

While it can definitely be justified in some cases, it eventually costs the party that employs it too often. For every action there is a reaction. You have to look at this in terms of years and decades.

[WheelWalker]

34. You can have governance without compromise, but you can't have politics without it...

Governance without compromise is autocracy. Compromise, however, is the essence of politics. IMO.

[azurnoir]

35. where a compromise ends depends entirely on where it starts

IOW can't even begin to carve a turkey that isn;t allowed to be on the table in the first place

[Martin Eden]

37. There is an underlying assumption which you do not address

It appears you assume that one side of the compromise (current Democratic leadership and the leading candidate for president) actually represents the interests of average working Americans in the first place.

[MineralMan]

41. Frankly, it's quite a bit too late to address that for 2016.

As far as "average working Americans" is concerned, there is no unanimity among that group, either. Many of them will be voting for Donald Trump in November. They're also divided in the Democratic primaries. There is no uniform voting bloc made up of "average working Americans." There simply isn't.

In fact, it's almost impossible to actually define that group in the first place, since it is made up of most Americans. It's not really a homogeneous group at all, nor can you predict how "average working Americans" will vote in any election.

[Martin Eden]

43. Does Donald Trump actually represent the interests of average working Americans who vote for him?

Or is it possible that many voters are too uninformed/misinformed, or taken in by demagoguery, or distracted by hot button culture issues or their own bigotry ... and, in reality, vote against their own interests?

[MineralMan]

44. Probably not. But, that would require knowing what those people

think their actual interests are. They may be very different from yours. Again, there is no clear definition of what an "average working American" thinks or believes. That's because there are countless millions of them, each with his or her own definition.

It is not a bloc. It is not definable. It is not reliable. It is what it is, which is a poorly defined majority of the U.S. population.

"Average working Americans" do not exist as a definable group, politically. Each of them is an individual, with unique interests.

Finally, neither you nor I are able to determine whether or not they are capable of deciding for themselves intelligently. That would be a very presumptuous thing to decide for someone else, I think.

[Martin Eden]

51. "able to determine whether or not they are capable of deciding for themselves intelligently"

Presumptuous or not, when voters believe nonsense that is clearly disprovable, I will take the bold step and assert they are not deciding intelligently.

I do not subscribe to the idea that every viewpoint, regardless of how absurd or factually wrong or racist, is equally valid.

Given the actions of our own government, especially over the course of the last 35 years, I think it is apparent the American people frequently vote for candidates who do not act in the best interests of the citizens who voted them into office.

But this thread really isn't about that.

It's about the concept of "compromise" in governance, my point being that the starting position is of paramount importance. If both sides are uninterested in upsetting the economic power structure that has rigged the economic game against the vast majority of citizens or ending the militarism that serves corporate interests while starving funds for education and infrastructure at home, then "compromise" is fairly close to meaningless.

Context is relevant. This is the Primaries forum. Your OP can accurately be perceived as support for the kind of compromise that many of us have come to know as the fairly close to meaningless kind.

In order to achieve progress for a better future I believe we need a peaceful political revolution in this country that will significantly change the existing economic power structure to truly represent the interests of average working Americans and end the militarism that has made us less secure while enriching a few.

Any line of argument which seeks to rationalize the current status quo and persuade voters to settle for it, to the detriment of necessary change, I will argue against.

Regardless of short term political expediency and limitations, the long term goal must always be kept in sight and be a central part of political strategy and the candidates we choose to represent us.

[Bread and Circus]

39. Ah yes roll over before you fight... the New Democrat way...

[MineralMan]

42. My DU friend, the primaries are almost over.

We're going to know who the Democratic candidate will be very soon. Most of the country has already decided. Most people have already accepted who the two candidates will be.

It's time to look beyond that, since we're not really going to affect the results.

It's time to begin working together again, instead of fighting among ourselves. We'll have another opportunity to do that in 2020.

[Bread and Circus]

91. Clinton will be the nominee. No doubt in my mind. But might doesn't make right.

[lumberjack_jeff]

45. Governance is also having ideas and a vision. Clinton makes compromise to Republican vision.

In the absence of ideas, principles and vision, all compromise is bad.

[MineralMan]

46. You know, I think that Hillary Clinton has all three.

Ideas, principles and vision. It's just that you disagree with her ideas, principles and vision. I was on her website a couple of weeks ago, looking at her expression of those things. I recommend a visit. You may still disagree with her, but she has those things, even if they don't match yours. They don't match mine exactly, either, but I've never encountered anyone who shared mine completely, either. Just a suggestion.

[lumberjack_jeff]

47. I've seen no principles, ideas or vision that serve anything other than her net worth.

A principle to which she doesn't compromise at all.

[longship]

48. One thing one does not want to do, is preemptive compromise!!!

Compromise must necessarily be from a position of strength, not a position of weakness. When Democrats walk into the halls of governance with hats in hand, willing to compromise, the game is already over.

You, MineralMan, already know this, and you likely have spoken about it before in these very forums. Why you would sacrifice such principles on the altar of a single candidate is mind boggling. Apparently, Hillary's advantage is that she already has hat in hand.

How is that in anyway an advantage?

[MineralMan]

49. In most cases, assessment of the strength of one's position is wise

before stating a starting position in any negotiation. That's what successful politicians, like President Obama, do.

Others fail by over-estimating their initial strength in the situation.

It's a fine balance, really. Sadly, I'm usually not in a position to judge such things when it comes to national policies. I'm usually short on information in many areas, particularly in assessing the level of compromise that will be required. Others are much better at that than I am.

[longship]

52. However, you are sure enough to judge Hillary vs Bernie and post such here.

And your recent posts here, especially those which buy into the anti-Bernie rhetoric, do you no good in your argument that you claim to be not in a position to judge.

Please, get this straight, MineralMan. You are amongst the elite of DU. I, and many others here, hold you in high esteem. However, one would hope that one would not sacrifice such credibility on the alter of a single Democratic candidate. Why not stay out of the corners? Especially seeing the toxic waste dump of DU GD.P? Why would one willingly participate in that unless one wants to add to the waste dump?

That is what apparently you recently want to do.

For shame.

[MineralMan]

55. I have chosen to support Hillary Clinton in the primaries.

However, if Bernie Sanders is the nominee, I'll gladly vote for him in November. I haven't attacked Sanders here, but have supported Hillary Clinton. At this point, it seems obvious to me that Clinton will be the nominee.

Don't mistake my support for Clinton, who I believe has the best chance of being elected, with an attack on Bernie Sanders.

[longship]

65. Do you mean other than this post?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511950053

It's over? Before it's over.

Yes, and sadly, Hillary Clinton will likely win the Democratic nomination. The third way Democrat --third way meaning Republican Party friendly -- wins.

Yes, I will support and vote for Hillary if she gets the party nod. But it will be the most difficult vote of my lifetime. That considering that Donald Fucking Trump will likely be the GOP candidate. Many agree with me.

I think that your position is weak given the alternatives. But that wouldn't align with thinking in DC, would it.

[MineralMan]

67. That was not an attack on Bernie Sanders.

It was a poke at his supporters who seem to think a miracle will occur. It was satire.

I no longer can influence the remaining primaries. That will be up to the voters in each remaining state. That business is almost over, and, as you say, Clinton will probably emerge as the nominee, as I believed she would all along.

As for your vote in November, that's your decision as well. I will argue that people should vote for the Democratic nominee, as I have for decades. Like Hillary or not, she will be the better alternative in the binary general election.

I don't ever expect a government that reflects my own personal philosophy. I'll be OK with one that doesn't completely oppose that philosophy. That's my compromise, and it's a necessary one, since I'm just one voter.

[longship]

71. I will gladly support and vote for the Democratic nominee.

And I agree with your general philosophy. I also have been in this game for many decades. I was born early in the Truman administration.

But like Hillary herself said in 2008, bowing out before the votes are cast is a non-starter.

Possibly you have forgotten about that when you callously called for Bernie to give up.

I post this with my highest respect for your judgement, except for this.

No! Bernie will not stop his campaign before the convention. Nor should he. And when Hillary Clinton inevitably wins the nod, there is no question in my eyes that Bernie will wholly support her. And I will, too.

So, MM, let's just let this thing play out. It's a win-win for everybody. Except for those who are trumpeting for Bernie to give up before it's over. And they have been doing such for fucking months! Please don't be part of it. Let the process go to completion; so everybody gets to vote.

That is what your candidate herself said in 2008.

[HumanityExperiment]

54. PRIMARIES aren't about compromise...

So why would I accept your premise?

The primaries are ALL about pushing one 'beliefs and principles' over another, within the rules of each party during the primaries...

So far within this DEM primary neither candidate will earn enough delegates before convention SO... based upon the rules guess what happens....

SDs come into play and for THAT I am grabbin my popcorn , sitting back and will enjoy the show and MSM trying to 'report' on that during convention

So MM, hold back you OP until after convention OR move it elsewhere since clearly you mistakenly started it in the wrong forum, right?

[MineralMan]

57. I think you should vote in the primaries as you think best.

I think everyone should. They are still going on. The outcome will be known after the June 7 elections, and will be pretty obvious. I'm discussing the General Election, since it will certainly occur. I will vote for the Democratic nominee, either way, so I'm encouraging people to focus on issues where we generally agree, starting now.

Most DUers have already voted in their primaries, so there's no primary decision for us to make at this point.

And yes, I believe that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee. I have held that opinion since before the very first primary event, and see no reason to change it at this point.

[HumanityExperiment]

66. You posted compromise...

It isn't GE now is it...

'I'm discussing the General Election', so again cart > horse in your post....

And it's not 'known after the June 7', since per the rules, neither candidate will have enough delegates to earn nomination outright, it will come down to SDs at convention... MATH...

'And yes, I believe that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee' that's the fight though MM, you know it and I know it, ISSUE and POLICIES, so the primaries and this forum aren't about compromise... it's a fight over ideology

You have yours and I have mine, so many posts here concerning your candidate aren't about promoting HRC policies and issues, it's more about defending them to the rest of us within DU and this forum specifically

I get the rabid need of HRC to pivot away from Primaries, to force the 'heel' of everyone else or suffer a 'purge', it's that artificial 'compromise' slammed down the throats of those not supporting HRC during primary if she were to earn nomination...

watching the HRC group posts validates this, it's sad... there's no 'compromise' to be had in the context of ideology within party and that's the point

Either you self delete and move your post to the correct forum or your point is mute and my reply stands...

[MineralMan]

68. Even during the primary season, it's important to

recognize the end stage election. My post is about attitudes during the primary period.

You do not get to tell me what I can and cannot post on DU. The admins and hosts are the only ones who determine where a post is appropriate or not appropriate.

I don't pay any attention to "either or" propositions from other DUers, particularly ones who make a habit of calling me a troll. I'm sure you'll understand.

[HumanityExperiment]

70. BS....

no it wasn't, otherwise you'd have posted that exact detail within your post 'All governance is COMPROMISE', primaries aren't governance and you know it

'You do not get to tell me what I can and cannot post on DU.' you're right, but I do get to point out your hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty as well as your trollish behavior

'I'm sure you'll understand'... INDEED

[eggplant]

85. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Sat May 14, 2016, 08:34 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

BS....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1960329

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Poster is calling out the OP for "trollish behavior", "hypocrisy", and "intellectual dishonesty", even though the OP and the OP's responses in this thread thus far couldn't be any more civil. BS, indeed.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat May 14, 2016, 08:42 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[HumanityExperiment]

88. Thx for posting this

appreciate it

[TwilightZone]

84. Primaries are still about compromise

Unless you can find a slate of candidates that meet your ideals 100%, every vote is a compromise, even in the primaries.

[EndElectoral]

56. Compromise? Obama tried that. Now he's gone the executive order route.

[MineralMan]

61. That is a very, very limited option

Actually, Obama did very well, given the circumstances and Congress he was saddled with. He's a master negotiator.

[Autumn]

58. That is why I'm voting for Bernie. I know where he will start the compromise at.

And he won't start with giving the other side what they want and going down from there.

[MineralMan]

59. OK. I have no problem with that.

My point is that he'll be making many compromises, too. Every President does.

Starting points? Well, I couldn't predict any of those for either candidate, frankly. That would be presumptuous of me, I think.

[Autumn]

62. I don't mind compromise. Depends on what someone in office is willing to give up though

before I support that person. Lesson learned.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

60. Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state,

Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

[MineralMan]

63. The key word from Paine is "necessary."

It is, indeed, necessary.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

75. Control of of genvernment power is also "necessary".

Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Lord Acton

In a democracy, we should never "trust" those in power and trust even less those who seek power. Lord Acton also said, "Great men are usually bad men".

We want our "leaders" to do the right thing, and expect they will despite our own history proving otherwise. Of course, the "right thing" is subjective and left in the eyes and opinions of the individual. Thus, how someone votes is up to the individual. The candidate must convince the voter that he/she will "do the right thing". And, it's up to the individual to decide whether to believe or disbelieve the candidate and vote accordingly. I don't believe that Trump or Hillary will do the right thing(s) because, in my eyes, both are ruthless power seekers. Both will do the "right thing" according to their principles which, to a lesser or greater degree, differ from mine.

So, now it's up to me to "do the right thing" and vote accordingly.

[tabasco]

64. Perhaps, but it doesn't have to be BOHICA

which is how the Democrats have played the game recently.

[MineralMan]

69. I would argue that President Obama finessed some pretty

good things through a hostile Congress. I'm surprised at how well he did, actually.

I can't predict the next administration's activities, nor do I know what the makeup of Congress will be. Much will depend on that, which will depend on turnout by Democrats.

[tabasco]

81. "Finesse" is why Democrats have lost so many seats in Congress as well as many

state governorships and legislatures. The Democratic party needs to stop this finesse bullshit and start kicking republican ass.

[pampango]

72. Polls show liberals accept the need for compromise to govern, conservatives don't accept it. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

73. Compromise what to get what? What are the goals and priorities of the negotiators?

When has one slipped past compromise and fallen into capitulation?

What is a bad deal and are you prepared to walk away when you get there?

Can you both recognize and act when the negotiations are in bad faith?

Compromise is a tactic not a goal.

It also is fiendishly tough to work out with crazy people that on a basic level not only don't believe in the concept of compromise in any meaningful way but more critically have no reasonable positions to find common ground on but yet more vitally don't believe in anything resembling a modern, western democratic state that also see large swaths if not the majority of people as subhuman.

Compromise without clear objectives, clear eyed risk/reward/cost/benefit weightings, and yes the ability and will to walk away if you can't get the right deal is dangerous and stupid.

Compromise is a part of about any dealings between more than one person, few deny this. The debate is the spin that thinking a deal is a bad one is instantly "my way or highway" using the slight of hand "logic" that the only possible deal is the one offered because (get this) if any better was possible it would have already happened.

The art of negotiations is not "I will do and give anything for any scrap or semblance of _____".

Or even worse the new and unimproved version "I will do and give anything for any scrap or semblance of ANYTHING", just talking about compromise on something to get something done, whatever the aimless fuck it is.

I'll continue to look at each compromise in it's own light, it is what it is as concept. Part of every hour and every day to some actually operative way but it is not a goal, a vision, or an objective.

There also seems to be some weird misunderstanding of advocacy. We aren't negotiating, our job is to provide the opposing gravity to the folks pushing the other side's people in the negotiations. There has to be space for a yes to be gotten to true enough but there also has to be enough resolve to walk otherwise the other side had already won before the conversation even started.

When you have neither sticks nor carrots you are left with pleading, don't go into a negotiation equipped only to plead because you're going to get reamed like 999,999,999/billion or so.

[ViseGrip]

76. That is different from the 'compromised'.....and that's what our shitty policies revolve around.

Who's got what on who......

[redstatebluegirl]

77. Thank you MineralMan!

As always the voice of reason in a place filled with anger and little clear thought. . I find myself falling into the nastiness if I spend more time here than I should. This idea of "purity" has made it impossible to have a clear discussion here these days.

[TwilightZone]

78. Agree entirely.

Last edited Sat May 14, 2016, 03:16 PM - Edit history (1)

We're not going to get anywhere holding our breath and stamping our feet until we get our way.

That doesn't mean that we don't fight for progress, but the only way to successfully implement a more progressive agenda is to give Democrats the tools needed to accomplish that agenda. That means electing a Democratic president and giving him or her a Congress more amenable to progress.

We also need to understand that no group is a monolithic bloc. Not Democrats, not Republicans, not liberals, not progressives, not independents, and not voters. There are no blue states and there are no red states. They're all purple and they're all different. Expecting all of those disparate parties to behave the same (as we on the left sometimes have a tendency to do) simply isn't realistic.

[Arugula Latte]

80. That's all well & good, but Hillary gives no indication that she wants to fight for progress

It's all "grow up!" and "stop asking for stuff!" and "that's not realistic!" for things that would actually make people's lives better (like affordable college). But I never hear Hillary or her supporters questioning the very basis of our troubles, like corporate welfare or funding wars for profit or giving most of our taxes to military contractors and the like. There's never the assumption of "we can't afford that!" like there is with social programs.

[TwilightZone]

82. As noted, I was talking about the general election.

If the options are Clinton or Trump, your choices are:

A) Vote for Clinton and give her a more progressive legislative body (you know, the people who actually write the bills that become laws) so they can send her more progressive bills to sign. A president can, for the most part and with a few exceptions, only accomplish what the Congress cooperates with.

B) Vote for Trump and move backwards. Perhaps to the stone age.

C) Vote for Jill Stein or some other also-ran or stay home. See B.

If the options are Sanders or Trump, replace Clinton with Sanders above and replace a few pronouns. The underlying points remain.

[tralala]

79. Very good point

The same thing can also be said of "dictatorial" and one-party states, having to constantly mediate b/w different interests, be they class, ethnic, gender, religious etc.

[merrily]

83. Thanks for the wordy truism. What you negotiate for, your starting point,

how well and intelligently you negotiate, etc. matter. A LOT.

[AgingAmerican]

86. Sequestration was the result of 'compromise'

How'd that work out? Republican wet dream? Oh noes! Say it isn't soooo!

[jeff47]

90. Which is why you keep telling Sanders supporters to STFU.

Demonstrating just how much you believe in compromise.