> I’m trying to figure out if anyone actually want to heal societal schisms? And the measure of that is what folks are willing to compromise on?
...you reply:
> How about that one side stops peddling conspiracy theories and following every idiot that promises them what they want to hear in terms of gun rights, abortion and immigration.
...which involves no compromise on your part.
> Compromise = fact based middle ground between reasonable people.
> When one side consistently treats politics like winner-takes-all and lies out of their asses to get to power and to stay in power then the burden to compromise would be on them.
Perhaps, if this was an accurate description of reality.
But for the sake of discussion, let's say that this characterization is indeed correct - if you could influence Democratic party strategy, and behavior of their followers, would your recommendation be to stick with the same general approach of the last decade, including generous deployment of misleading rhetoric like:
> How about that one side stops peddling conspiracy theories and following every idiot that promises them what they want to hear in terms of gun rights, abortion and immigration.
(Which also may run afoul of your "[fact based] middle ground between [reasonable people]" statement above.)
> I’m trying to figure out if anyone actually want to heal societal schisms? And the measure of that is what folks are willing to compromise on?
...you reply:
> How about that one side stops peddling conspiracy theories and following every idiot that promises them what they want to hear in terms of gun rights, abortion and immigration.
...which involves no compromise on your part.
> Compromise = fact based middle ground between reasonable people.
Let's check...
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compromise
compromise - verb compromised; compromising
1a : to come to agreement by mutual concession
b : to find or follow a way between extremes
see also: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concession
> When one side consistently treats politics like winner-takes-all and lies out of their asses to get to power and to stay in power then the burden to compromise would be on them.
Perhaps, if this was an accurate description of reality.
But for the sake of discussion, let's say that this characterization is indeed correct - if you could influence Democratic party strategy, and behavior of their followers, would your recommendation be to stick with the same general approach of the last decade, including generous deployment of misleading rhetoric like:
> How about that one side stops peddling conspiracy theories and following every idiot that promises them what they want to hear in terms of gun rights, abortion and immigration.
(Which also may run afoul of your "[fact based] middle ground between [reasonable people]" statement above.)