......I want those on the Right and Left to discuss the visions put forward with this one objective in mind. If the election of 20/20 depends on being able to sway voters from one side or the other to give your side a win, which of your opponent's ideas would you be willing to compromise with in order to win and why?

In other words put together your platform for victory including the points your side would insist upon with compromise points from your opponents. This is after all how we once governed!

Eveyone's ideas are pinned in two threads in the important threads section if you need to reread the opinions already expressed.

I'll take a stab at this later in the week when I have more time. Right off the top of my head though, the biggest issue is so many visions are mutually exclusive that convincing one side or the other to compromise will be nearly impossible.

Millennials needs a unifying moment, they were too young to understand the political implications of 9/11 and don't realize the potential harm that their big tech companies are trying to inflict. Bringing them together with the aging but still relevant boomers and the once rebellious, now matter-of-fact and blunt gen xers will be a tall order.

(07-01-2019 02:36 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I'll take a stab at this later in the week when I have more time. Right off the top of my head though, the biggest issue is so many visions are mutually exclusive that convincing one side or the other to compromise will be nearly impossible.

Millennials needs a unifying moment, they were too young to understand the political implications of 9/11 and don't realize the potential harm that their big tech companies are trying to inflict. Bringing them together with the aging but still relevant boomers and the once rebellious, now matter-of-fact and blunt gen xers will be a tall order.

I intend to respond more fully at the end. But that said the most obvious thing to me is that with a little compromise on environmental issues the Republicans might be able to make bigger inroads among the young middle class. I do think that amid the political hooey over the environment that real concerns are there, just not the ones being frequently politicized. A reasonable approach to the environment seems to me to be a healthy compromise for conservatives, provided the focus is on actual concerns that can be addressed.

From the pinned thread:

"1. Climate change needs to be taken seriously by our elected officials. We need to stop bickering over whether it's man-made and blah blah blah, and just start working on things to protect our environment for the future.

2. I continually hear elected officials claim how they're combating the opioid addiction problem. But until treatment is either free or actually affordable (and accessible to all) it will only get worse.

3. We've actually had some decent bi-partisan immigration reforms proposed and agreed upon that just simply never made it into law, usually for ignorant or petty reasons. Again, politicians need to stop fighting over the minutia when they agree on the major details.

4. Raise the stupid minimum wage! It's long past time."

1. Stop subsidizing coastal development. Work on relocation of key infrastructure to deal with potential rising sea levels over the next hundred years. Raise gas taxes to fund infrastructure and reduce usage. Continue credits for electric cars. Mandate transition of public transit fleets to electric or natural gas. Provide tax incentives for commercial fleets to switch to electric. Fund research on alternative energy. Restart on a limited basis addition of nuclear power plants (assuming we can agree on a place for long term storage-and implement it, unlike the current status where Yucca Mnt. is the depository with nothing deposited). Fund research on cleaning up coal. Fund research on where carbon can be "deposited."

2. Get a national bi-partisan group to work on mental health issues, which is a big part of the opoid addiction issue. I'm more for non-profit programs which can subsidize people who need help through donations.

3. There are few issues that really are differences. At least until the Democrats started to demand open borders. Reform has been stopped by political gamesmanship by both parties. The 1980s reform is a good basis with 2 caveats. 1) Actually implement plans to reduce crossings and penalize employers unlike last time; and 2) No citizenship. Green cards yes. Kicking 12 million people out of the country would be a disaster for the economy. But citizenship is why the 3 million person problem in the 80s became a 12 million person problem. I could compromise on citizenship for "dreamers." And we need to reform our immigration program to one closer to Canada's where people are admitted primarily on what they offer to the country.

4. Yes, raise the minimum wage, but understand that this is a trade-off that WILL cost teenagers jobs. Raise it only for inflation since the last increase. Don't go to $15 because what makes sense in New York City is not what makes sense in Monkey's Eyebrow, Kentucky. Continue to let municipalities and states set up a higher minimum wage if they believe it appropriate due to their cost of living.

(07-01-2019 04:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  From the pinned thread:

"1. Climate change needs to be taken seriously by our elected officials. We need to stop bickering over whether it's man-made and blah blah blah, and just start working on things to protect our environment for the future.

2. I continually hear elected officials claim how they're combating the opioid addiction problem. But until treatment is either free or actually affordable (and accessible to all) it will only get worse.

3. We've actually had some decent bi-partisan immigration reforms proposed and agreed upon that just simply never made it into law, usually for ignorant or petty reasons. Again, politicians need to stop fighting over the minutia when they agree on the major details.

4. Raise the stupid minimum wage! It's long past time."

1. Stop subsidizing coastal development. Work on relocation of key infrastructure to deal with potential rising sea levels over the next hundred years. Raise gas taxes to fund infrastructure and reduce usage. Continue credits for electric cars. Mandate transition of public transit fleets to electric or natural gas. Provide tax incentives for commercial fleets to switch to electric. Fund research on alternative energy. Restart on a limited basis addition of nuclear power plants (assuming we can agree on a place for long term storage-and implement it, unlike the current status where Yucca Mnt. is the depository with nothing deposited). Fund research on cleaning up coal. Fund research on where carbon can be "deposited."

2. Get a national bi-partisan group to work on mental health issues, which is a big part of the opoid addiction issue. I'm more for non-profit programs which can subsidize people who need help through donations.

3. There are few issues that really are differences. At least until the Democrats started to demand open borders. Reform has been stopped by political gamesmanship by both parties. The 1980s reform is a good basis with 2 caveats. 1) Actually implement plans to reduce crossings and penalize employers unlike last time; and 2) No citizenship. Green cards yes. Kicking 12 million people out of the country would be a disaster for the economy. But citizenship is why the 3 million person problem in the 80s became a 12 million person problem. I could compromise on citizenship for "dreamers." And we need to reform our immigration program to one closer to Canada's where people are admitted primarily on what they offer to the country.

4. Yes, raise the minimum wage, but understand that this is a trade-off that WILL cost teenagers jobs. Raise it only for inflation since the last increase. Don't go to $15 because what makes sense in New York City is not what makes sense in Monkey's Eyebrow, Kentucky. Continue to let municipalities and states set up a higher minimum wage if they believe it appropriate due to their cost of living.

I noted that our friends on the left were very general with what they claim to be their vision. One or two went into specifics but most of the specifics came from Three Date Owl.

But what I found interesting was that there is a intersection in a key demographic that Republicans could reach if they attempted to do so. Any erosion of support among 30 somethings, particularly 30 something young mothers, would be helpful and worth the effort. As the left alienates a tremendous % of the electorate the right needs to reach out to those who might see themselves as socially progressive, but can't swallow the wacko shenanigans of the extremist left. There's your big victory if you are Republican.

To me it's not at all about these articulated ideas. I can get behind most of what the left claims to want, even if I don't fully agree which is why I have never voted straight ticket.

What I can't get behind is the tactics currently being employed.
If you're not a Democrat and you talk about illegal immigration, you're a racist.
If you're not a Democrat and you talk about the fact that we can't simply buy innovation and certainly can't control all these other countries and you're a climate change denier
If you're not a Democrat and you talk about reducing overhead in government and you're trying to harm 'some group'
If you're not a Democrat and you don't buy every bit of what is being sold, you've got some awful label designed only to shut you up and out.

THAT is what keeps me from supporting most Democrats and thus their proposals right now.
The power to shut down unpopular opinions... not actions but opinions... is not the sort of power a government should ever have. Throughout history, this has always lead to awful outcomes.

A strong economy is absolutely vital to accomplishing any of our goals, including climate change and a higher minimum wage. We can't do things that allow places like China who have clearly demonstrated little independent interest in climate issues, and certainly not Russia to lead on this. Nobody else can.

(06-16-2019 08:44 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The price of higher ed is out of control. The professor's make less than a high school teacher in some cases, State governments are cutting higher ed at an alarming rate. I would like to see our federal government support higher ed more.

I would also like to see a VAT tax instituted with the desired purpose of paying off the federal debt.

I think part of it is that we're feeling the pain of telling everyone they're nothing without a degree for a long time while skilled labor jobs moved overseas.

Of course I agree on VAT, but we really haven't seen one proposal from the left supporting VAT, and they've all railed on how regressive the proposals from the right are (often without facts).... so this is going to be tough for the left to accomplish. I think the left could attract some of the right (especially some who 'accept' but don't support Trump) if they did this and were able to convince the right that it wasn't just a new tax so they didn't have to cut any spending.

The left needs to have some fiscal responsibility and we need to stop calling a reduction in 'assistance' because of a growing economy, or even just a reduction in the rate of acceleration as a 'spending cut'.

(06-17-2019 09:12 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  4. Raise the stupid minimum wage! It's long past time.

I've addressed most of the other comments, but I'll touch on this one.

The way to address a minimum wage is to have a growing economy that doesn't have anyone willing to work for less than $x/hr and not simply mandating a wage of $x. If you do the latter, all you do is make more jobs 'minimum wage' jobs or fewer jobs. Do this perhaps in conjunction with illegal immigration, because those aren't jobs American's won't do... there merely jobs American's don't need to do because of alternatives, including support. Clean up our support systems (a VAT prefund can do this and also suport a min wage) and have a booming economy and you won't be able to hire someone to work the counter at McDonald's for $8 because In and Out will pay them $12.

(07-01-2019 03:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 02:36 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I'll take a stab at this later in the week when I have more time. Right off the top of my head though, the biggest issue is so many visions are mutually exclusive that convincing one side or the other to compromise will be nearly impossible.

Millennials needs a unifying moment, they were too young to understand the political implications of 9/11 and don't realize the potential harm that their big tech companies are trying to inflict. Bringing them together with the aging but still relevant boomers and the once rebellious, now matter-of-fact and blunt gen xers will be a tall order.

I intend to respond more fully at the end. But that said the most obvious thing to me is that with a little compromise on environmental issues the Republicans might be able to make bigger inroads among the young middle class. I do think that amid the political hooey over the environment that real concerns are there, just not the ones being frequently politicized. A reasonable approach to the environment seems to me to be a healthy compromise for conservatives, provided the focus is on actual concerns that can be addressed.

I don’t disagree with what you’ve said, but perhaps the premise.

Whatever label one wants to give me, I am a conservative. No party affiliation, I’ve voted both sides here and there.

That said, most of the TRUE environmentalists (I call them, and me, conservationists) are those out there actually doing it. Enjoying our beautiful and unbelievably abundant country.

The hunters, the campers, the fisherman. Those that swim in the ocean, lakes, rivers or ponds. Do they want any of that polluted to where it’s unusable, again?

I know this isn’t really in the spirit of the thread you were asking, but when I give money it’s to our church, our alma mater, Chesapeake bay foundation,VIMS, surfrider fdtn and DU.

The latter four being conservation and restoration efforts.

As someone on the “right” I’d give no ground to not being an “environmentalist”. And I know I’m not alone.

As far as otherwise picking from the bushel basket of “free” stuff coming from the left these days? Taking a look at restoring the vote for certain individuals who have done their time, keep their nose clean and have a job for 2-5 years, yea we can look at that. No sense the now 45 YO street dealer or car thief can’t re-participate.

(07-01-2019 03:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 02:36 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I'll take a stab at this later in the week when I have more time. Right off the top of my head though, the biggest issue is so many visions are mutually exclusive that convincing one side or the other to compromise will be nearly impossible.

Millennials needs a unifying moment, they were too young to understand the political implications of 9/11 and don't realize the potential harm that their big tech companies are trying to inflict. Bringing them together with the aging but still relevant boomers and the once rebellious, now matter-of-fact and blunt gen xers will be a tall order.

I intend to respond more fully at the end. But that said the most obvious thing to me is that with a little compromise on environmental issues the Republicans might be able to make bigger inroads among the young middle class. I do think that amid the political hooey over the environment that real concerns are there, just not the ones being frequently politicized. A reasonable approach to the environment seems to me to be a healthy compromise for conservatives, provided the focus is on actual concerns that can be addressed.

I think if the Reps would focus on Pollution and littering instead of climate change, they'd pretty much be in the wheelhouse of compromise.
Sad truth is that Libs are the big litterers--they throw their used smokes/blunts, bottles out the car window far more. They complain about global warming while they smoke their cigarettes, too obtuse to see the hypocrisy.

I go for a weekend ride on my bike and just traveling the streets and 4-laners near me, there's a ton of trash--plastic, cigs butts, vape pens, etc... so sad to see. When you don;t grow up in a nuclear family, no one's there to teach you to clean up after you8rself. That's why they expect the gub-ment to do i9t for them, and they pick "global warming" because most of them can;t even keep their own rooms/houses clean or their beds made or their bodies washed.

I'd also compromise on healthcare: require handwashing after every bathroom use and watch communicable diseases drop to maybe 10% of what they are now. Issue citations just like traffic tickets. How many times have you seen (or are you the guilty ones reading this?) someone go to the bathroom in a public restroom and leave without washing their hands at all, let alone drying them?

healthcare is chicken soup, washing hands, a bottle of Pepto and some green tea and honey for your throat. Wasteful gub'ment medical spending is $300 doctor visits and popping pills that mostly get peed out into our rivers and water sources instead of taking regular showers, cleaning mold out of your bathrooms and houses and keeping your hands and bodies clean.
But hey, single mothers are great, aren't they?

(07-01-2019 10:59 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 03:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 02:36 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I'll take a stab at this later in the week when I have more time. Right off the top of my head though, the biggest issue is so many visions are mutually exclusive that convincing one side or the other to compromise will be nearly impossible.

Millennials needs a unifying moment, they were too young to understand the political implications of 9/11 and don't realize the potential harm that their big tech companies are trying to inflict. Bringing them together with the aging but still relevant boomers and the once rebellious, now matter-of-fact and blunt gen xers will be a tall order.

I intend to respond more fully at the end. But that said the most obvious thing to me is that with a little compromise on environmental issues the Republicans might be able to make bigger inroads among the young middle class. I do think that amid the political hooey over the environment that real concerns are there, just not the ones being frequently politicized. A reasonable approach to the environment seems to me to be a healthy compromise for conservatives, provided the focus is on actual concerns that can be addressed.

I think if the Reps would focus on Pollution and littering instead of climate change, they'd pretty much be in the wheelhouse of compromise.
Sad truth is that Libs are the big litterers--they throw their used smokes/blunts, bottles out the car window far more. They complain about global warming while they smoke their cigarettes, too obtuse to see the hypocrisy.

I go for a weekend ride on my bike and just traveling the streets and 4-laners near me, there's a ton of trash--plastic, cigs butts, vape pens, etc... so sad to see. When you don;t grow up in a nuclear family, no one's there to teach you to clean up after you8rself. That's why they expect the gub-ment to do i9t for them, and they pick "global warming" because most of them can;t even keep their own rooms/houses clean or their beds made or their bodies washed.

I'd also compromise on healthcare: require handwashing after every bathroom use and watch communicable diseases drop to maybe 10% of what they are now. Issue citations just like traffic tickets. How many times have you seen (or are you the guilty ones reading this?) someone go to the bathroom in a public restroom and leave without washing their hands at all, let alone drying them?

healthcare is chicken soup, washing hands, a bottle of Pepto and some green tea and honey for your throat. Wasteful gub'ment medical spending is $300 doctor visits and popping pills that mostly get peed out into our rivers and water sources instead of taking regular showers, cleaning mold out of your bathrooms and houses and keeping your hands and bodies clean.
But hey, single mothers are great, aren't they?

I own farm property just outside the city limits, there's no telling how much I've spent cleaning up other peoples litter from the entrances and road frontage. It's an ongoing battle.

As to hand-washing, I touch absolutely nothing in a public restroom except myself. Some facilities are just nasty all the way around including the sink. Occasionally I have to vacate the place post haste and don't worry about washing up.

I've avoided this thread topic in favor of seeing what more erudite person than I have to say but...

I could get behind truly free healthcare for all but since there's no such thing I can't.

I could get behind truly free higher education for all but, see above.

I firmly support common sense conservation/environmentalism in theory but there doesn't appear to be such a thing that exists in fact.

As a firm supporter of the constitution and the 1st Amendment I have no issue with groups like ANTIFA peacefully protesting anything they wish but since they don't engage in peaceful protests I cannot support them in any way.

As a 3rd generation Italian and the descendant of true immigrants I firmly support legal immigration so build the freakin wall already and stop financially supporting illegals.

As the son of a career Army MP I proudly support our military but get the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan and stop being the worlds policemen. Dedicate those resources to defending this country at home.

I fully support Trumps actions regarding our economy, all the way to effective tariffs and deregulation. Keep the corporate tax rate low enough to provide sufficient incentive for companies to stay here and bring back those who invested in off shore business.

Institute some variation, if not the whole enchilada, of the Fair Tax and do away with FICA.

Make receiving welfare and food stamps temporary and contingent on a recipient actually going out and getting a freakin job, don't make it more financially attractive for a person to sit on their ass collecting a check but maintain sufficient safety nets for those who truly need them.

I'm sure there are other issues but for me those are key.

Keep you focus on the OP. How would you use the issues discussed to build a winning coalition among the electorate?

(07-02-2019 03:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Keep you focus on the OP. How would you use the issues discussed to build a winning coalition among the electorate?

Dang, you don't want much. It only took three threads to get a response to the 2nd one from me in the 3rd one.

(07-02-2019 03:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Keep you focus on the OP. How would you use the issues discussed to build a winning coalition among the electorate?

I don't agree that the country is becoming much more socially liberal. It is becoming much more libertarian socially while becoming less conservative.

(07-02-2019 04:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 03:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Keep you focus on the OP. How would you use the issues discussed to build a winning coalition among the electorate?

I don't agree that the country is becoming much more socially liberal. It is becoming much more libertarian socially while becoming less conservative.

I'm not concerned here with what we believe, what would you do to build a winning coalition? Politics is a give and take over smaller issues in order to be put in position to determine the larger ones. This next election's demographics tell me it will be very very close. So how would you siphon off Democratic support to tip the balance since you will likely vote Republican? And if you were a Democrat the question goes in the opposite direction.

So this exercise calls not only for the identification of the issues, but the priority of them in as much as compromise is concerned. So what is your gestalt issues and what would you be willing to compromise about and to what degree?

It seems to me the easiest venue for a coalition is on environmental issues, but that's my opinion.

Climate Change -

Any discussions must start with serious congressional hearings on the methods of data collection and the "adjustments" that are seemingly made every year. To get many if not most conservatives on board with any legislation there must be greater transparency.

We also need an honest look at the quantities of gasses and other pollution that the US is truly responsible as compared to other countries. Any meaningful legislation CANNOT simply be a redistribution of wealth program in which the US pays a lion's share while developing countries are allowed to continue polluting at a far greater level than the US. Asia in particular needs to address and be held accountable for the plastics found in the ocean.

As far as domestic energy production goes, there is no need to rush the US into "green" energy sources when they currently cannot sustain the energy needs of the country. Invest in development in the private sector. Put federal funds into new nuclear power plants and developing more efficient ways of handling the waste.

We could probably make serious inroads into "climate change" with increased nuclear production and a more transparent discussion about the natural and artificial causes.

My platform would gradually shift subsidies from oil companies to nuclear power plant development, while providing incentives for private companies to continue investment in alternative sources of energy. Subsides would decrease the most for oil companies that do the most business overseas. Those that invest in domestic oil production would see subsidies decreased by a smaller percentage. "Red tape" that has essentially stopped new nuclear power plants from being opened would be addressed immediately.
I would also push the UN to be more proactive in dealing with countries that violate treaties aimed at reducing pollution and greenhouse gasses.

Immigration -

The unchecked flow of migrants from Central America must be stopped and current immigration laws must be enforced before most conservatives will be willing to compromise on any sort of immigration reform or amnesty. A border wall in non-negotiable. We have to have a realistic way to deal with the 20-30 million illegals already here that may or may not include citizenship for the majority.

My platform would include immediate and full funding for a border wall. Any legislation not dealing with immediate national security issues (including non-military budgets) will be vetoed until the border wall is funded. Being born on US soil will no longer grant an individual citizenship, but I would propose a sort of permanent non-resident visa. Parents of non-resident visa holders would be granted a renewable work visa. At 18 an individual holding a non-resident visa can either apply for 8 years of full time military service or in 12 years in the national guard. Upon completion and honorable discharge, they will become full US citizens. Alternatively, completion of a 4 year degree in STEM studies with 4 years of full time or national guard service will also qualify a person for citizenship. When the child becomes a citizen, the permanent non-resident visa status is transferred to the parent. If the parent of a non-resident visa holder commits a violent crime prior to the child entering college or service, both will be deported immediately. Non-resident visa holders nor their parents will be eligible to vote in ANY election on ANY level. This program would be retroactive for any illegal and "anchor baby" ages 10 and under that does not have a criminal record.
To address the millions of adults and aging seniors in the US illegally,I would proposed incentives for them to return to their native countries - a sponsorship program of sorts in conjunction with foreign aid.
A new coalition of North and South American countries should be created to foster development and a self-reliance stretching from military aide, to education, to energy production. The primary goal will be to reduce migration by ending corruption and minimizing the drug trade. The US and Canada should work with the strongest democracies; Costa Rica and Uruguay, to put influence weaker democracies such as Panama, Argentina, Chile, Brazil, and Mexico.


I'll try to tackle some other topics later