Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Behind the scenes
    Joined
    27 Jun '16
    Moves
    1391
    22 Aug '17 18:09
    In reading through these many posts, and talking to others, it seems the left and right wings are so far apart on so many issues they can't seem to agree on anything (except that they dislike each other). For 200 years left and right wing lawmakers worked together to craft legislation, it was called "compromise" neither side got everything they wanted, but both sides got some. In the last 20 years however "It's My Way or the Highway!" is now the prevailing attitude. This has led to a gridlocked government, and little progress on anything. So, will the left and right wings ever learn to work together again like the framers of our constitution intended, or will gridlock be the permanent state of our government?
  2. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    55373
    22 Aug '17 18:24
    Originally posted by @mchill
    In reading through these many posts, and talking to others, it seems the left and right wings are so far apart on so many issues they can't seem to agree on anything (except that they dislike each other). For 200 years left and right wing lawmakers worked together to craft legislation, it was called "compromise" neither side got everything they wanted, but b ...[text shortened]... framers of our constitution intended, or will gridlock be the permanent state of our government?
    Years back candidates like Trump and Sanders would have been considered too extreme and gotten little support. Now they were two of the three most popular candidates. If we continue to have more extreme views, it will be harder to compromise.
  3. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    22 Aug '17 19:06
    Originally posted by @mchill
    In reading through these many posts, and talking to others, it seems the left and right wings are so far apart on so many issues they can't seem to agree on anything (except that they dislike each other). For 200 years left and right wing lawmakers worked together to craft legislation, it was called "compromise" neither side got everything they wanted, but b ...[text shortened]... framers of our constitution intended, or will gridlock be the permanent state of our government?
    As a white man, Mchill presents an absurdly overidealized view of the history of US politics.

    "For 200 years left and right wing lawmakers worked together to craft legislation ..."
    --Mchill

    For most of that period, all (or almost all) American lawmakers were white men.
    Don't white nationalists yearn to return to the 'utopia' when only white men could vote or hold public office?

    "It was called "compromise" "
    --Mchill

    Here's a famous example:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1850

    "The South prevented adoption of the Wilmot Proviso that would have outlawed slavery
    in the new territories, and the new Utah Territory and New Mexico Territory were allowed,
    under popular sovereignty, to decide whether to allow slavery in their borders."

    'Popular sovereignty' meant that the majority of voters (white men) in a state or territory
    could decide whether or not slavery would be legal there.

    "A more stringent Fugitive Slave Law was enacted."

    The Compromise of 1850 essentially 'kicked the can down the road' on states' divisions over slavery.
    And when this system of 'compromise' broke down, a consequence was the US Civil War.

    So when one white politician demands that a black person stay a slave and another white
    politician asks that the slave be set free, exactly what 'compromise' would Mchill endorse?
    In order to appease as many white people as possible, could Mchill find a way to regard
    this black person as both 'half-free' and 'half-slave"?

    Abraham Lincoln criticized this kind of facile 'compromise', apparently endorsed by Mchill:

    "A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure,
    permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do
    not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all
    one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of
    it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of
    ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all
    the States, old as well as new — North as well as South."
    --Abraham Lincoln (16 June 1858)

    Lincoln apparently believed that no compromise is practicable upon some fundamental issues.
  4. Behind the scenes
    Joined
    27 Jun '16
    Moves
    1391
    22 Aug '17 20:04
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    As a white man, Mchill presents an absurdly overidealized view of the history of US politics.

    "For 200 years left and right wing lawmakers worked together to craft legislation ..."
    --Mchill

    For most of that period, all (or almost all) American lawmakers were white men.
    Don't white nationalists yearn to return to the 'utopia' when only white men c ...[text shortened]... )

    Lincoln apparently believed that no compromise is practicable upon some fundamental issues.
    Duchess - Your friendly, warm and nurturing replies are always welcome. Have you ever thought of becoming a therapist? 😵
  5. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    22 Aug '17 20:092 edits
    Originally posted by @mchill
    Duchess - Your friendly, warm and nurturing replies are always welcome. Have you ever thought of becoming a therapist? 😵
    I pointed out that Mchill's ignorant overidealization of US politics--when it was dominated by white men
    and other people had practically no voice in it--is insensitive and offensive toward many Americans.
    I don't expect the racist troll Mchill, to care much about offending people other than white men.

    I present historical facts, however much the ignorant racists hate them and prefer their propaganda.
    Mchill's free, of course, to argue that Abraham Lincoln was wrong and that there oculd
    have been a wonderful 'compromise' making black people both 'half-slave' and 'half-free'.
  6. Behind the scenes
    Joined
    27 Jun '16
    Moves
    1391
    22 Aug '17 20:51
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    I pointed out that Mchill's ignorant overidealization of US politics--when it was dominated by white men
    and other people had practically no voice in it--is insensitive and offensive toward many Americans.
    I don't expect the racist troll Mchill, to care much about offending people other than white men.

    I present historical facts, however much the ign ...[text shortened]... oculd
    have been a wonderful 'compromise' making black people both 'half-slave' and 'half-free'.
    I present historical facts, however much the ignorant racists hate them and prefer their propaganda. Mchill's free, of course, to argue that Abraham Lincoln was wrong and that there oculd have been a wonderful 'compromise' making black people both 'half-slave' and 'half-free'.

    Duchess - I don't recall ever bringing up the subject of Abraham Lincoln, except I liked the fact he was a lawyer. Your replies however are always so full of kindness and warmth, I see a bright future ahead for you! 🙄
  7. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    22 Aug '17 20:591 edit
    Originally posted by @mchill
    I present historical facts, however much the ignorant racists hate them and prefer their propaganda. Mchill's free, of course, to argue that Abraham Lincoln was wrong and that there oculd have been a wonderful 'compromise' making black people both 'half-slave' and 'half-free'.

    Duchess - I don't recall ever bringing up the subject of Abraham Lincoln, excep ...[text shortened]... plies however are always so full of kindness and warmth, I see a bright future ahead for you! 🙄
    "For 200 years left and right wing lawmakers worked together to craft legislation, it was
    called "compromise" neither side got everything they wanted, but both sides got some."
    --Mchill

    For most of these 200 years, 'both sides' consisted of white men.
    Non-white people and women hardly had their interests represented.
    This is the kind of narrow US politics that Mchill apparently prefers to idealize.
  8. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56264
    23 Aug '17 04:38
    Originally posted by @mchill
    In reading through these many posts, and talking to others, it seems the left and right wings are so far apart on so many issues they can't seem to agree on anything (except that they dislike each other). For 200 years left and right wing lawmakers worked together to craft legislation, it was called "compromise" neither side got everything they wanted, but b ...[text shortened]... framers of our constitution intended, or will gridlock be the permanent state of our government?
    The problem on this site is that most of the right-wingers are extremely right wing Americans.
    Even right wing Europeans seem left wing to them (calling Tony Blair and Obama socialists, for example).

    There is no way to compromise with people who's reality is based on assumptions like: America first, anything-even-Trump-is-better-than-Clinton, there's nothing wrong with racism & abortion is murder.

    It's like putting me in a cage with Geert Wilders... only one's gonna come out alive.
  9. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35839
    23 Aug '17 06:151 edit
    Originally posted by @shavixmir
    The problem on this site is that most of the right-wingers are extremely right wing Americans.
    Even right wing Europeans seem left wing to them (calling Tony Blair and Obama socialists, for example).

    There is no way to compromise with people who's reality is based on assumptions like: America first, anything-even-Trump-is-better-than-Clinton, there's ...[text shortened]... murder.

    It's like putting me in a cage with Geert Wilders... only one's gonna come out alive.
    That's right. The extremist right has been pushing back against the liberal inroads being made and they just can't take the idea that they might soon be in the minority even among Americans. That's why they've been fighting to get non-white Americans kicked off voter rolls so they can not only get their white boys' club elected, but to also call their sick, twisted agenda a "mandate" when they do get elected. They even went so far as to completely ignore the US Constitution to steal a Supreme Court Justice nominee position to further their aims. They love to talk about George Soros while conveniently forgetting that the extremist right also has a higher proportion of billionaires to fund their attempted takeover of America.

    No worries, though. The Resistance is alive and well.
  10. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39949
    23 Aug '17 08:29
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    As a white man, Mchill presents an absurdly overidealized view of the history of US politics.

    "For 200 years left and right wing lawmakers worked together to craft legislation ..."
    --Mchill

    For most of that period, all (or almost all) American lawmakers were white men.
    Don't white nationalists yearn to return to the 'utopia' when only white men c ...[text shortened]... )

    Lincoln apparently believed that no compromise is practicable upon some fundamental issues.
    Lincoln was willing to accept the Corwin Amendment which would have protected slavery in the States from Federal government interference. He may well have believed in 1858 that the States themselves would eventually abolish slavery in their own jurisdictions, but he was willing to accept the Corwin Amendment as a compromise in 1861 in an attempt to resolve the secession crisis.
  11. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    23 Aug '17 09:12
    Originally posted by @quackquack
    Years back candidates like Trump and Sanders would have been considered too extreme and gotten little support. Now they were two of the three most popular candidates. If we continue to have more extreme views, it will be harder to compromise.
    yeh, sanders is too extreme. extreme views that are the norm pretty much in every civilised country on earth. extreme views the majority of americans agree with. extreme views such as healthcare as a right, not a privilege, money out of politics and multi millionaires should pay their taxes. outlandish.
  12. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    23 Aug '17 18:401 edit
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    Lincoln was willing to accept the Corwin Amendment which would have protected slavery in the States from Federal government interference. He may well have believed in 1858 that the States themselves would eventually abolish slavery in their own jurisdictions, but he was willing to accept the Corwin Amendment as a compromise in 1861 in an attempt to resolve the secession crisis.
    I already knew that President Lincoln declared that his priority was preserving the Union rather than abolishing slavery.
    While he personally believed slavery was wrong, Lincoln did not campaign as an abolitionist.

    http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

    "I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution.
    The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was."
    If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery,
    I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they
    could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object
    in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.
    If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by
    freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others
    alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because
    I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe
    it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing
    hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.
    I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast
    as they shall appear to be true views.

    I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no
    modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free."
    --President Lincoln (22 August 1862, letter to Horace Greeley)
  13. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    23 Aug '17 18:57
    I once ordered a pizza with a Dim. He wanted peperoni and I wanted sausage on my pizza. We fought for hours and hours. I made signs and protested in the streets and he torched a car.

    At the end of the day we settled for a vegetarian pizza.

    I think it's progress.
Back to Top