Almost everyone agrees there should be more compromises in politics. So I’m curious, how would that play out?

While I love the policy debates and the nuances, most people go for the big issues. So, according to the party platforms/my gut, here’s what I’d put as the 3 for each party:

Democrats: Abortion rights, gun control, climate change.

Republicans: Immigration, culture war (say, critical race theory in schools or gender affirming care for minors) , trump gets to be president. (Sorry but it really seems like a cult of personality at this point.)

Anyway, here’s the exercise: say the other side was willing to give up on all three of their issues but you had to give up on one of your side’s. OR, you can have two of your side’s but have to give up on the third.

Just curious to see how this plays out. (You are of course free to name other priorities you think better represent the parties but obviously if you write “making Joe Pesci day a national holiday” as a priority and give it up, that doesn’t really count.)

Edit: The consensus seems to be a big no to compromise. Which, fair, I imagine those on the Right feel just as strongly about what they would call baby murdering and replacing American workers etc.

Just kind of sad to see it in action.

But thanks/congrats to those who did try and work through a compromise!

    • Lauchs@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Real tough. (Which kind of makes me roll my eyes when fellow Canadians criticize the American Right on immigration.

      We have a points based system, you get points for education, skills etc. (And some specialized seasonal programs etc.)

      That being said, we do take in a boatload of refugees so maybe you can claim asylum?

      • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        We have a points based system, you get points for education, skills etc.

        Well, shit. Guess I’m stuck here.