Worthless meddling moderates and compromise equals FAIL!

It's a given. DUH! Worthless meddling moderates and compromise are a recipe for complete
and abject failure. Period. There's no evidence to support worthless meddling moderates,
there is no other type of moderate, and compromise. We all know compromise and
WMM is a recipe for failure. We know that. It's a DUH thing.

Here is a list of the top 10 accomplishments that worthless meddling moderates and those who
support compromise.

McCain and Romney are worthless meddling moderates. They have no passion. They
have no ardor. They have no fervor. They lost the presidential elections. Why? Because
they are worthless meddling moderates. Nobody believes a worthless meddling moderate.

Since being a moderate (i.e. worthless meddling meddling) and a proponent of compromise
is a recipe for total failure what do you propose for intelligent people to do in order to win
the 2016 election.

 

Nice troll.

 

Compromises do work.

 

Yes, because the my way or the highway style of governing we've seen recently from both major parties has been such a boon to our country. This country and many of the people in it need a serious ego check, a wake-up call, and someone to come around and pop all the blacked out bubbles they live in. There is no one political party or ideology that's going to get things right. There simply isn't. If we were talking about genetics, breeding only within your own group eventually leads to birth defects and sub-par genes. It's literally no different here. If we do not compromise and bring in new ideas and exchange ideas and allow our ideas to be challenged and even proven wrong, we are intellectually incestuous.

There's a reason fanatics of any flavor are usually crazy kooks. That is why.

 

In 2008 it did not matter whom the Republicans ran, they were going to lose. The American people were just tired of Republican rule, the economy was in the dumps and the economy or pocket book issues is usually the number one reason in determining how swing/independent voters will vote. In 2008 according to Gallup on election day 33% of the electorate identified themselves as Democrats compared to 27% as Republicans. When one adds the independent leans, either toward the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, party affiliation in November of 2008 was 51-40 in favor the Democrats. 9% being either true/pure independents with no lean, third party supporters or undecided.

The final result was 54-45 in favor of Obama. The Republicans could have ran Reagan, Lincoln or even Eisenhower and they still would have lost. Americans blamed the Republicans for the recession and they wanted another party in charge. If the problem was just McCain, how do you explain the 54-43 total vote in congressional elections for the Democrats in 2008. Actually McCain received 2 points more votes than all the Republican congressional candidates put together.

2012. the numbers were still stacked against the Republicans. Party affiliation was 35% Democratic, 30% Republican and counting the Independent leans into the equation it came out 50-42 in favor of the Democrats. Romney lost 51-47, even with winning the independents by a 51-48 margin. In contrast in the congressional races the total vote was Democrats 49% Republicans 47%. Romney equaled the totals for all congressional candidates in percentages, Obama did a bit better than the Democratic congressional candidates by 2 points.

The question for 2012 is who in the Republican field could have overcome the 8 point deficit in party affiliation/leans. No one. Not in the field. Not Gingrich, Santorum, Bachman, Perry or Ron Paul. It is true Romney was the wrong candidate to defeat what I seen as a vulnerable sitting president. But so too were all the rest. You best hope, Daniels decided not to run. Again the economy was the number one issue in the 2012 election. Romney did run a very inept campaign thinking he could win just because he was not Obama.

The fact is if someone decides he is not running for a political parties nomination and doesn't, he can't win the general. Elections are decided by the numbers, not what ifs.

 

Wrong. Intransigence and extremism= fail

 

I don't know what this has to do with my post about worthless meddling moderates, not that there's
another kind.

 

Do you think the founding fathers were worthless meddling moderates?

Just about every aspect of the constitution represents a compromise

Some wanted a monarchy

Some wanted a three man panel to run the executive branch

There were many compromises

The United States has survived because our leaders were willing to compromise

 

You're not answering my OP.

What bill, if one exists, that was in the best interest of the US was made by
compromise. Please list the compromises and provide links.

 

The ACA included large numbers of GOP amendments as pointed out by McCain. There were major compromises all along the way, starting with the fact that Obama wanted a single payer system, not the ACA.

Subsequently, there have been many bills to improve the ACA that have passed into law with bipartisan support. Surely they can all be seen as compromises, as the GOP direction throughout the period was to kill our health care system.

The bipartisan immigration bill included numerous significant compromises, including tens of billions of dollars for the "Wall", laws affecting employers, handling of those who have been here for a long time (including those brought as children), etc. This bill passed the Senate and was judged by both sides to have the votes to pass in the House, but Boehner blocked it from coming to a vote.



I'm curious, about your comment about "in the best interest of the US". Can you point to a bill that was created by those who had an intent other than "best interest of the US"?

 

What it has to do is there was no one running for the Republican nomination that had a better chance of defeating Obama in 2012 other than Romney. If no real conservative runs, no real conservative can win. Complaining about moderates which you classify Romney and McCain gets you nowhere.

 

Compromise promotes unity. I would speculate that promoting division would be an unreliable means to maximize favorable votes. I imagine that all of the candidates are intelligent, but voters need to consider who would be most successful at bringing the American people back together again. As I have said before, "UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL" was meant to be a rallying cry for our nation, not its epitaph.

 

Amen.

This points to our need to end gerrymandering.

Today, the rigging of "safe" districts promotes radicalism and intolerance for compromise. And, that is doing serious damage to our legislative branch of government.

We need districts where leaders must prove they can reach a broader audience and deal with opposition as adults, not as 2 year olds who have just learned the word "no".

Gerrymandering might just be our most important issue today.

 

obamacare WASN'T in the best interest of the US. The overwhelming majority wanted
nothing to do with obamacare.

At any rate, please make a list WITH LINKS, to the compromises. You only mentioned the
items where there was no compromise whatsoever.

 

OHHHHH. I agree. worthless meddling moderates don't stand a chance.

Thanx.

 

Which is why we're in the mess we're in.

We don't need unity. We need what works in the best interest of the US.

 

It's pretty much a given. Compromise doesn't work.

Someone mentioned a monarchy. If compromise was used then we'd have a monarchy.

Think about it. PLEASE!

We need compromise like we need another democrat president. WHICH WE DON'T NEED!

 

The UNITED States of America doesn't need unity? We need what works in the best interest of the U.S., and you, alone, will decide that, without compromise? The characteristic absence of discernible logic in this thread identifies you as one of the terminally irrational ultraconservatives, so I will not waste any more time arguing with you.

 

Exactly. After all Romney and McCain were bad enough. Why would the GOP want to run a conservative. No one wants a conservative for president.

 

We'll find out in Nov. 2016. I think you're going to find more people want a Conservative than a proven liar/scorned wife.

 

So you agree there was no one on the republican side that could have defeated Obama.

 

Please acquaint yourself with the correct grammatical use of the world "Fail".

 

I think most Americans want a competent president, these last two are/were wanting.

 

There were over 150 GOP amendments the ACA through the exceptionally long period of negotiation. Suggesting there was no compromise is ridiculous.

If you want verification, Google McCain.

And, your statement about what the US wanted is not true. The features of the ACA were what polls showed that the US wanted.

 

Talk about taking what I said out of context.
Good grief.

Look at where compromise has got us. Because of worthless meddling moderates we
have obamacare. Because of compromise we have an out of control NSA. Tips of the
iceberg.

Can you name one bill that's good for the US that involved compromise? Please list
the compromises and why they were rejected or accepted.

- - - Updated - - -

No, the current president wouldn't be president if a Republican with passion has run against him.

What did the Republicans do? They ran worthless meddling moderates.