Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...compromises to get things done, or sticks to his principles no matter what?
Personally, I'd rather have a congressman who's willing to compromise to get things done. I simply don't see compromise as a dirty word. Be willing to bend, so that you don't break, and all that. So what do you all think? And explain your reasoning if you care to.
I could not vote in the poll and my position is it is acceptable to compromise if you are getting something in return. The last big battle is a good example, the {R}s received the Bush Tax cut extension and some budget cuts. In return the {R}s agreed to the UE extension, this is a good horse trade. Very rarely do I want my rep to compromise but if he is part of a horse trade I am not going to verbally beat him up for it.
I could not vote in the poll and my position is it is acceptable to compromise if you are getting something in return. The last big battle is a good example, the {R}s received the Bush Tax cut extension and some budget cuts. In return the {R}s agreed to the UE extension, this is a good horse trade. Very rarely do I want my rep to compromise but if he is part of a horse trade I am not going to verbally beat him up for it.
So basically you're for compromise but against selling out, right?
Sticking to your principles is less important than compromising to get things done?
No wonder this world and this nation is up **** creek with voters who actually do not care for principles.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.