Incrementalism.

 

Conservatives have gave up a ton, Liberals only want total control.

 

Political correctness, caused a neighbor to the terror suspects to NOT speak out.

 

Loretta Lynch defends Muslims and announces investigation in arrest of Texas 'clock kid' - LA Times

 

Now that.

 

The GOP candidate is going to get a lot of traction from Ms. Lynch.

Again I don't buy this at all.

 

I'm a registered Republican , 32 years old. Almost every republican I know under 40 is pretty moderate on social issues. What I see from Liberal friends is moving further to left on every issue.

 

I don't think what you've said is an issue of bipartisan. I think what you've identified is that society evolves and ideologies are relative to society. What were conservative and liberal social issues in 1940 are not the same as they were in 1970 or in 2015 and won't be in 2050.

 

The issue is what are either side willing to bend on to reach an agreement and outside of relatively obscure things like CISA I don't see any willingness to make concessions for the sake of policymaking. The ongoing budget debacle is an obvious example, and I'm reminded of Republican candidates' claim in 2012 that they wouldn't accept a 10:1 spending:tax compromise on the budget because any tax increase was a non-starter.

I don't think what you've said is an issue of bipartisan. I think what you've identified is that society evolves and ideologies are relative to society. What were conservative and liberal social issues in 1940 are not the same as they were in 1970 or in 2015 and won't be in 2050.

 

The issue is what are either side willing to bend on to reach an agreement and outside of relatively obscure things like CISA I don't see any willingness to make concessions for the sake of policymaking. The ongoing budget debacle is an obvious example, and I'm reminded of Republican candidates' claim in 2012 that they wouldn't accept a 10:1 spending:tax compromise on the budget because any tax increase was a non-starter.

 

I'm glad you brought that up. What was actually said was they wouldn't agree to a fake hypothetical because there wasn't a Democrat in office willing to cut spending.

 

The hypothetical might as well asked would you be willing to ride a unicorn because it was the same likely hood of Democrats today shrinking government.

 

If we cut spending there would be no reason for a tax increase , the problem is Washington isn't a revenue problem.

If we cut spending there would be no reason for a tax increase , the problem is Washington isn't a revenue problem.

 

And here's the rub. You've laid the blame for a lack of bipartisanship at the feet of the Democratic Party yet you argue the deficit can be closed only by giving the most extreme faction of Republicans precisely what they want in exchange for nothing.

 

Here's a thought experiment: Both parties claim to support shrinking the deficit. Both parties have entrenched interests on fiscal policy. Republicans want taxes to be as low as possible. Democrats consider funding for major government programs necessary. So, Republicans want to close the deficit by cutting programs. Democrats want to close the deficit by raising taxes.

 

A serious compromise would be a little of both: Major cuts or restructuring of government programs in exchange for increased revenue. Both sides would get a little of what they want. Republicans get major spending cuts and Democrats get to keep some of their favored services. Both sides would find it unpalatable. Republicans would have to agree to a tax increase (though smaller than what the Democrats would ask for) and Democrats would have to agree to drastically cut back on some services (though much less than what Republicans would ask for).

 

Obviously it's my opinion, but I don't think Republicans are anywhere in the ballpark on that, especially with the rise of the Tea Party. A Republican who agrees to that deal - even if it led to a balanced budget and reduced the debt - would be ousted by a primary challenger. I don't think there is anywhere near the pressure from the left in the Democratic Party that would prevent them from making that deal.

 

And this isn't a defense of the Democratic Party. They are flat-footed and poorly led without any good ideas. But the notion that Congressional polarization or a lack of bipartisanship is an equal and opposite thing is wrong. Both parties have moved away from the center, but the Republicans have moved dramatically further.

 

And here's the rub. You've laid the blame for a lack of bipartisanship at the feet of the Democratic Party yet you argue the deficit can be closed only by giving the most extreme faction of Republicans precisely what they want in exchange for nothing.

 

Here's a thought experiment: Both parties claim to support shrinking the deficit. Both parties have entrenched interests on fiscal policy. Republicans want taxes to be as low as possible. Democrats consider funding for major government programs necessary. So, Republicans want to close the deficit by cutting programs. Democrats want to close the deficit by raising taxes.

 

A serious compromise would be a little of both: Major cuts or restructuring of government programs in exchange for increased revenue. Both sides would get a little of what they want. Republicans get major spending cuts and Democrats get to keep some of their favored services. Both sides would find it unpalatable. Republicans would have to agree to a tax increase (though smaller than what the Democrats would ask for) and Democrats would have to agree to drastically cut back on some services (though much less than what Republicans would ask for).

 

Obviously it's my opinion, but I don't think Republicans are anywhere in the ballpark on that, especially with the rise of the Tea Party. A Republican who agrees to that deal - even if it led to a balanced budget and reduced the debt - would be ousted by a primary challenger. I don't think there is anywhere near the pressure from the left in the Democratic Party that would prevent them from making that deal.

 

And this isn't a defense of the Democratic Party. They are flat-footed and poorly led without any good ideas. But the notion that Congressional polarization or a lack of bipartisanship is an equal and opposite thing is wrong. Both parties have moved away from the center, but the Republicans have moved dramatically further.

 

Agreed.

I tend to vote Democratic, but it is harder all the time. The Republicans, in my mind (key my mind), are anti social justice and too "me" centered in my mind.

 

For example, Obamacare has tenets that some polls say both parties support and a few tenets that they are very divided on. The problem is really the average person does not understand it, not because they can't, it is because they fall inline with their party or whom they like. So what happens each party plays the "all or nothing card", when really it shouldn't be that way.

 

On a personal level, I don't like making every one take it, as one area where I agree with the mainstream Republican. I also believe with mainstream Republicans on Right to Work, capital punishment, doing something about Social Security and Medicare/cade without totally wiping out the basic service they provide. I am more fiscally in line with moderate Republicans.

 

I am very liberal on social issues, especially those in poverty, specifically children in poverty. I also cannot understand why the far right call anyone liberal a Socialist. That is just flat out wrong. I think some confuse social justice with Socialism.

 

I know and realize there is waste, abuse, and flat out criminal behavior with government programs. I happen to believe if 15% is wasted, abused, or criminally used, if 85% gets to its intended use, then so be it, although I don't like it. Why punish 85% when 15% abuse or misuse something. The percentages are examples.

 

Finally, it is very confusing and wrong to me to think we are a Christian country. We are a country with a vast majority who are Christians. That is great, but there are those that confuse that. The same people that rail about the second amendment, also, rail church vs state issues and think they should not be separate. No one is allowing anyone not to be Christian and practice their faith. IT is clear in the Constitution and Supreme Court decisions that public money offer space should not be used for religious benefit of proclamation.

 

I support the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms, but there has to be limits on what is considered a weapon that is reasonably used for protection and sport. To strictly get rid of guns as the extreme left wants or to do what Australia has done or what Missouri is proposing is too much. I am not hopeful on any movement, though. Especially, compromise on a Republicans part is political suicide.

 

I truly wish compromise was a real option, but sadly I don't see it anytime soon.

And here's the rub. You've laid the blame for a lack of bipartisanship at the feet of the Democratic Party yet you argue the deficit can be closed only by giving the most extreme faction of Republicans precisely what they want in exchange for nothing.

 

Here's a thought experiment: Both parties claim to support shrinking the deficit. Both parties have entrenched interests on fiscal policy. Republicans want taxes to be as low as possible. Democrats consider funding for major government programs necessary. So, Republicans want to close the deficit by cutting programs. Democrats want to close the deficit by raising taxes.

 

A serious compromise would be a little of both: Major cuts or restructuring of government programs in exchange for increased revenue. Both sides would get a little of what they want. Republicans get major spending cuts and Democrats get to keep some of their favored services. Both sides would find it unpalatable. Republicans would have to agree to a tax increase (though smaller than what the Democrats would ask for) and Democrats would have to agree to drastically cut back on some services (though much less than what Republicans would ask for).

 

Obviously it's my opinion, but I don't think Republicans are anywhere in the ballpark on that, especially with the rise of the Tea Party. A Republican who agrees to that deal - even if it led to a balanced budget and reduced the debt - would be ousted by a primary challenger. I don't think there is anywhere near the pressure from the left in the Democratic Party that would prevent them from making that deal.

 

And this isn't a defense of the Democratic Party. They are flat-footed and poorly led without any good ideas. But the notion that Congressional polarization or a lack of bipartisanship is an equal and opposite thing is wrong. Both parties have moved away from the center, but the Republicans have moved dramatically further.

 

As a fiscal conservative who takes economics seriously this one topic where I'm a hypocrite and I admit it. There is no need for an increase in the income tax. I wouldn't even discuss it until Washington got its spending way under control.

 

I look back on Bernie Sanders quote about climate change being our biggest national security threat. While I happen to think it's people with weapons who want to kill us. If it were anything else it would be our National debt. But giving more money to a government with a spending problem is a non starter. It's like giving your child a new credit card because he maxed out the other.

Bipartisanship is dead. Winning for one's party is much more important than doing good for the country. Neither side is worse than the other.

And here's the rub. You've laid the blame for a lack of bipartisanship at the feet of the Democratic Party yet you argue the deficit can be closed only by giving the most extreme faction of Republicans precisely what they want in exchange for nothing.

 

Here's a thought experiment: Both parties claim to support shrinking the deficit. Both parties have entrenched interests on fiscal policy. Republicans want taxes to be as low as possible. Democrats consider funding for major government programs necessary. So, Republicans want to close the deficit by cutting programs. Democrats want to close the deficit by raising taxes.

 

A serious compromise would be a little of both: Major cuts or restructuring of government programs in exchange for increased revenue. Both sides would get a little of what they want. Republicans get major spending cuts and Democrats get to keep some of their favored services. Both sides would find it unpalatable. Republicans would have to agree to a tax increase (though smaller than what the Democrats would ask for) and Democrats would have to agree to drastically cut back on some services (though much less than what Republicans would ask for).

 

Obviously it's my opinion, but I don't think Republicans are anywhere in the ballpark on that, especially with the rise of the Tea Party. A Republican who agrees to that deal - even if it led to a balanced budget and reduced the debt - would be ousted by a primary challenger. I don't think there is anywhere near the pressure from the left in the Democratic Party that would prevent them from making that deal.

 

And this isn't a defense of the Democratic Party. They are flat-footed and poorly led without any good ideas. But the notion that Congressional polarization or a lack of bipartisanship is an equal and opposite thing is wrong. Both parties have moved away from the center, but the Republicans have moved dramatically further.

 

How can you honestly say that when Harry Reid wouldn't bring votes to the floor for fear enough Dems would vote for it or in other cases he basically strong armed Senators to get them to vote Obama's way?