The great political art of compromise

weagle

Senior Member
I think you meant to say anti-federalists. Had the constitution been left as it was originally written indeed we would be another Mexico or worse at this point in time. We aren't far off the mark right now and the only thing that has carried us this far is the bill of rights. You sound like someone who has never read the writings of the anti-federalists.
Both those with federalist and anti-federalist leanings signed the constitution. They both negotiated to the best of their abilities and they signed. Or perhaps your understanding is that all the founding fathers walked in lockstep.
 

Balrog

Senior Member
The founding fathers also thought it was ok for white people to make slaves out of black people. Do you agree with slavery, or do you agree that even the founders could make mistakes?
 

redlevel

Senior Member
The founding fathers also thought it was ok for white people to make slaves out of black people. Do you agree with slavery, or do you agree that even the founders could make mistakes?
That just isn't true. Some, of course, thought it was acceptable. There were plenty of them, north and South who saw the evils of slavery. They realized, though, that they were not going to get a Constitution without a compromise(s). Three-fifths compromise. Commerce and Slave Trade Compromise. Maybe they made a mistake. Maybe they would have been better off to forget a Constitution with slavery. How many years would that have taken? How would the country have fragmented? What deals with European powers would have been cut? Remember, Europe was becoming dependent on Americn goods more by the day. The time was ripe. If they had not struck while the iron was hot, there probably would have never been a United States of America.

I'm sure there were, even then, a few one-half of one-percenters sitting on the sidelines, decrying the lack of principle displayed by the compromising hacks like James Madison, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton. Ben Franklin, John Dickinson, Abraham Baldwin, etc. A-hunter will be along to tell us they were statists who had no right to sign away the rights of the states and the people of the states, and that the document only applied to the signers, not the people, because Lysander Spooner said so. VTRman will be here to tell us they were all pawns of the illuminati, lizard-men, Freemasons, and build-a-burgers. pbradley never was a big fan of any of them.
 

Throwback

🌽 LIBERTAW!!! 🌽
The founding fathers also thought it was ok for white people to make slaves out of black people. Do you agree with slavery, or do you agree that even the founders could make mistakes?
I see you went to a government school.


T
 

Throwback

🌽 LIBERTAW!!! 🌽
That just isn't true. Some, of course, thought it was acceptable. There were plenty of them, north and South who saw the evils of slavery. They realized, though, that they were not going to get a Constitution without a compromise(s). Three-fifths compromise. Commerce and Slave Trade Compromise. Maybe they made a mistake. Maybe they would have been better off to forget a Constitution with slavery. How many years would that have taken? How would the country have fragmented? What deals with European powers would have been cut? Remember, Europe was becoming dependent on Americn goods more by the day. The time was ripe. If they had not struck while the iron was hot, there probably would have never been a United States of America.

I'm sure there were, even then, a few one-half of one-percenters sitting on the sidelines, decrying the lack of principle displayed by the compromising hacks like James Madison, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton. Ben Franklin, John Dickinson, Abraham Baldwin, etc. A-hunter will be along to tell us they were statists who had no right to sign away the rights of the states and the people of the states, and that the document only applied to the signers, not the people, because Lysander Spooner said so. VTRman will be here to tell us they were all pawns of the illuminati, lizard-men, Freemasons, and build-a-burgers. pbradley never was a big fan of any of them.


and we will also be told to read Pat Buchanan's latest book to learn all we didn't know about "them" and how "they" are going to "get us".


T
 
The problem with not compromising is it takes too many people to win. The liberals/conservatives/libertarians are all quite diverse and have different ideas on what is a pure liberal/conservative/libertarian. What is a huge compromise to one party member is sometimes just the right thing to do for another.

The other problem is the people. We thought we found our pure fiscal ideological voice with the Tea Party. They held the line on some things (I know not all), but it did not take much from the media and the left to start crumbling public support. I Obama wins and the Tea Party stands firm and we "fall off the fiscal cliff", it's going to get wild. When people stop getting their handouts, paychecks, and government contracts, support will wither. Then what?

Greece is in a horrible spot, but when the government tries to get serious about real reform, the people riot. So instead, they're playing games with the EU, hoping against hope that the world economy will turn around, and they'll ride the wave back from the abyss. We'll see how that works out for them, but they are clearly not really fixing their problems.

But since you asked what I think the Republicans should compromise on, here is my list. Of course, you say compromise with Democrats, but you have to realize that they have conflicted positions also amongst their membership.

1) Let the churches, synagogues, and mosques teach people how to live moral lives and get the federal government out of that business. Criminalize behavior when it affects the rights of others.

2) Immigration. Actually, both parties need to compromise. This subject is such a mess, because the parties are just playing for votes. If you look at our demographics, we need lots more people, both high and low skilled. High skilled because not enough of our young people want to put forth the work to pursue challenging degrees/careers and low skills because we need lots of workers. I know that last part sounds bizarre when we have such high unemployment. Nevertheless, as the economy improves (as it eventually will), we will need lots of workers earning lots of wages to buy things we make and to pay taxes to get ourselves out of debt.

3) Decriminalize a lot of drugs - goes with (1)

4) Dismantle Patriot Act starting with the TSA.

5) Restore science in the EPA (and USDA, BLM, etc.) instead of letting it be run by activists and lawyers. This requires work on both sides. I don't think we have to enumerate all the ways the Dems need to move to fix their environmental policies. The Republicans need to really wrestle with private property rights and the environment. As many of us deer hunters know, nature does not respect human property boundaries. They also need to get over their "man is too small to affect the climate" foolishness. I don't personally know how much man is, but I do know that very small inputs can result in very large outputs in non-linear feedback systems, especially when there are lots of feedback loops.

6) No, that's enough. This post is too long already and most of you never read past the first paragraph.
 
Not to mention, the offer to compromise and allow Libertarians a part of the process through working with the Republicans is a false one.

We all saw how Ron Paul got treated at the convention.

Did you know they offered RP a chance to speak at the convention?

It's true. RP could speak under two conditions:

1 - He had to give a full and complete endorsement of Mitt Romney;

2 - His speech had to be "vetted" by Romney's campaign before he could speak.

RP said "no thanks" - just like he should have.

Yep. Heads I win, tails you lose. That's compromise with the GOP.

I thought about starting a thread asking this same question the last time the three eyed elf talked about how libertarians won't compromise. Figured it would be a waste of time.
 
Both those with federalist and anti-federalist leanings signed the constitution. They both negotiated to the best of their abilities and they signed. Or perhaps your understanding is that all the founding fathers walked in lockstep.
The constitution wasn't signed it was ratified by state legislatures. Some of the anti-federalists were brought along by promises of a bill of rights, some didn't go along, they simply lost the fight. That isn't the point. The point is their warnings about the constitution proved true. And thank goodness they were able to get the bill of rights. Can you imagine if they hadn't? You wouldn't be owning any firearms by now I'll guarantee you.
 

redlevel

Senior Member
Not to mention, the offer to compromise and allow Libertarians a part of the process through working with the Republicans is a false one.

We all saw how Ron Paul got treated at the convention.

Did you know they offered RP a chance to speak at the convention?

It's true. RP could speak under two conditions:

1 - He had to give a full and complete endorsement of Mitt Romney;

2 - His speech had to be "vetted" by Romney's campaign before he could speak.

RP said "no thanks" - just like he should have.
Yep. Heads I win, tails you lose. That's compromise with the GOP.

I thought about starting a thread asking this same question the last time the three eyed elf talked about how libertarians won't compromise. Figured it would be a waste of time.
He lost, for gosh sake! He had no business speaking anyway. He was a loser, and all he and his supporters wanted to do was disrupt the convention.

"Oh yeah, Ron, we'll be glad to give you 15 minutes to run down the platform and the candidate, while strewing your sour grapes all over the floor." They would have been stupid to do that.

If he wanted to have some influence, he would have agreed to the terms, given a conciliatory speech asking for support for the candidate but consideration to some of his less cockeyed views. But no, that isn't how Liverterrions work. My way or the highway. They got principles, don't you know. Therefore, instead of having some input, he remains inconsequential. Typical.
 

redlevel

Senior Member
The constitution wasn't signed it was ratified by state legislatures.
Wrong again.

The compromises took place at the Convention where the document was prepared. Before it was printed up and sent to the Ratification Conventions in the states, it was signed by the delegates from the various states. Try telling Georgia descendants of William Few and Abraham Baldwin that the Constitution wasn't signed.

http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/constitution-day/signers.html
 

Throwback

🌽 LIBERTAW!!! 🌽
The constitution wasn't signed it was ratified by state legislatures. Some of the anti-federalists were brought along by promises of a bill of rights, some didn't go along, they simply lost the fight. That isn't the point. The point is their warnings about the constitution proved true. And thank goodness they were able to get the bill of rights. Can you imagine if they hadn't? You wouldn't be owning any firearms by now I'll guarantee you.
yeah thank goodness someone compromised and we got the bill of rights. :)

T
 

Balrog

Senior Member
yeah thank goodness someone compromised and we got the bill of rights.
I think the distinction some are trying to make is that when compromise was reached by the founders regarding the 2nd Amendment, what we got was "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

When Romney reached a compromise, the citizens of Massachussetts got a firearms ban.

Maybe Romney doesnt know the difference between compromise and capitulation.
 

MudDucker

Moderator
Staff member
The GOP had control of the White House and both Houses of Congress under George W. Bush. That's total power.

Did things get better or worse under Dubya? Did the size, scope, cost and intrusiveness of government get smaller, or did Leviathan continue to grow and to consume and destroy?
The GOP did not have total control ever under GWB. The DNC had enough votes to block up the Senate, which they did, much like the RNC is doing now. As for the growth of guberment, please step back and study the growth under GWB before the GOP lost its majority and after. Also, the 9/11 attack was unprecedented as was Katrina. He folded on Katrina, which was disappointing.
 

MudDucker

Moderator
Staff member
No that is absolutely not true, and if you knew anything about Goldwater you would not say that. Romney has much more in common with Obama than Goldwater, and to suggest otherwise is an outright untruth based either in ignorance or maliciousness.

Wow, you really missed his mark and flew off to Uranius on this one. He said "compared to", not "similar to". Much different. I knew Goldwater's policies. Romney is NO Goldwater, but he is far more conservative than Obummer, if for no other reason than the fact that he believes in a free enterprise system rather than a marxist regime.
 

Balrog

Senior Member
Yea, and I believe that if you compare Romney to Goldwater and Obama in an honest fashion, you will find Romney to have more in common with Obama. Your opinion I suppose is different than mine.

For example, Romney and Obama have both supported firearms bans (Goldwater didnt), and have both supported government run healthcare (Goldwater didnt even support Medicare).
 

Throwback

🌽 LIBERTAW!!! 🌽
I wonder if the "no compromise" libertarians live their entire lives that way.

T
 

Throwback

🌽 LIBERTAW!!! 🌽
Yea, and I believe that if you compare Romney to Goldwater and Obama in an honest fashion, you will find Romney to have more in common with Obama. Your opinion I suppose is different than mine.

For example, Romney and Obama have both supported firearms bans (Goldwater didnt), and have both supported government run healthcare (Goldwater didnt even support Medicare).


and how did goldwater fare in the election?




T
 
Thread starter #60
Yep. Heads I win, tails you lose. That's compromise with the GOP.

I thought about starting a thread asking this same question the last time the three eyed elf talked about how libertarians won't compromise. Figured it would be a waste of time.
As far as getting the question answered, you're correct, it has been a complete waste of time. I'm learning a lot about conservatives, though. :bounce::bounce:
 
Top