Definition of Compromise - Democratic Underground

SeanQuinn

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon May-23-05 06:58 PM
Original message

Definition of Compromise

compromise (noun) -

A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.

Doesn't smell like compromise to me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Itsthetruth

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon May-23-05 06:59 PM
Response to Original message

1. The Correct Term In This Case Is Unconditional Surrender

eom

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TahitiNut

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon May-23-05 07:00 PM
Response to Original message

2. It's not. It's capitulation.

They totally and completely surrendered on SIX of the WORST! It's the Quisling Democrats all over again.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

housewolf

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon May-23-05 07:06 PM
Response to Original message

3. This was not a cave-in or capitualtion

Both sides gave something. What happens now is that there will be votes on Owen, Brown and Pryor. We retain the right to filibuster in the future if more extremist judges are nominated, including supreme court nominations. There will be an attempt consult with the admin to make an agreement on less extremist judges.

The country has won and the senate has won. Both parties lost a little but not all.

The repubs have lost more than we have. Frist has to deal with the fact that he hasn't completely emasculated the dems as the rw-ers have been thirsting for our blood. The have WAY more to be angry about than we do.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

SeanQuinn

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon May-23-05 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #3

5. Thank you..you've changed my opinion. n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Internut

(436 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon May-23-05 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #3

7. So let's see -

if I understand you correctly, we should be glad we were not "completely emasculated".

You're right. I am ecstatic.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

housewolf

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon May-23-05 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #7

9. We lost a little but not anyways near what the repubs lost

Politics is about the art of compromise, give and take on both sides. Both sides lost something in this deal. We didn't lose as much as they did. We stood to lose it all if they hadn't been able to make a deal. They have more votes than we do. Would that have made you happier - to trigger the nuclear option tomorrow and lose?

Both sides lost something. They lost WAY more than we did. I think that's cause for celebration.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

cally

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon May-23-05 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #3

8. This is good for Democrats

We retain the right to Filibuster! We were going to lose on these judges so we didn't give anything away. We saved the Senate and dealt a huge blow to Frist and Cheney.

Best of all, we now have moderates banding together. If it lasts, then the lockstep of the republicans with the crazy christian right agenda is broken. The Senate goes back to debate and considering the moderates. This is huge.

Yes, I would prefer if Dems won and progressives controlled the government. That ain't reality.

I personally burst into tears of relief when I heard there was a compromise. I'm thrilled.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Democat

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon May-23-05 07:07 PM
Response to Original message

4. When Republicans want 10 things they ask for 50 and Dems give them 25

Edited on Mon May-23-05 07:08 PM by Democat

And then Democrats think they won.

Democrats don't seem to realize that Bush never expected all of those judges to get through. He nominated all of them hoping for a few of them at least. Democrats gamv him more than he ever hoped for and Dems still think they won.

Our side is so stupid.

We also let the Republicans look moderate because they won't have to use the "Nuclear Option" and they are getting the same result.

Where is the strategy here?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Gothmog

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon May-23-05 07:11 PM
Response to Original message

6. Without compromise, Scalia or Thomas would be Chief Justice

Without this compromise, either Scalia or Thomas would be chief justice when Rehnquist retires. This gives up a chance to fight these two stooges if Bush puts them up for Chief Justice. This is a victory.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

no_hypocrisy

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon May-23-05 09:30 PM
Response to Original message

10. It's a successful compromise if both sides are unhappy with the deal.

So quoth my mother who presided over lots of rancor during salary negotiations when she was on the Board of Education.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Sun May 05th 2024, 02:42 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.