The Hidden Tribes of America and the Need for Compromise

77% of Americans understand that our differences are not so big that we cannot come together.


https://hiddentribes.us/

65% of the Exhausted Majority and 51% of the Wings want COMPROMISE.

This poll is an attempt to self identify two things. Which tribe do you fit into and are you one of those who wants to compromise?

In essence there are 4 primary issues where we are currently divided and I would like those who respond to provide suggestions on what they are looking for when it comes to compromises in that area. The divisive issues are Immigration, Race, Gender and Terrorism.

Your suggestions will subsequently be complied into a Ranked Vote thread that will enable us to determine priorities. (Shout out to @Meta777 since I will probably need some help with figuring out the results. )

 

I don't think folks really understand the concept of 'compromise' anymore. They understand that it means they don't get everything they want, but they arent willing to accept anything they oppose in an exchange for what they want.

 

I self identify Traditional Liberal who is willing to Compromise.

Immigration: We need to find a means to treat immigrants respectfully and humanely while ensuring that they become productive members of society. This applies regardless as to how they arrived here.

Race: We need to become a colorblind society. It is who a person is inside that matters. Hiring the best person should depend upon their abilities and education only.

Gender: Which gender someone identifies with is up to them. We need to be tolerant of others because being intolerant only harms ourselves.

Terrorism: We need to stop the fearmongering entirely. FDR would be ashamed of us for allowing a tiny group of fanatics to force us to cower in fear of what they MIGHT do! The reality is that terrorists are ineffective. The odds of any of us actually being harmed by terrorists negligible. The terrorists use our own fear as a weapon against us. Time to tell our political representatives that we will no longer tolerate their fearmongering in order to obtain our votes.

 

Good point but it appears as though 77% of all Americans DO WANT to compromise. I suspect that the poll above is going to show us that it is only those on the WINGS who are not willing and even then HALF of those will still opt for compromise.

In order to clarify the term Compromise this is what Google provides;

 

This poll is a little silly considering the race baiting the MSM does. Not until they stop instigating against whites and tell the truth can there be a compromise. This article doesn't say what compromises will look like. So my vote would depend on that.

 

I agree with the conclusion.

Moral of the story. Stop gorging on click bait and dog whistles from a MSM desperate to stay alive by feeding a compliant audience with never ending biased propaganda.

The vast majority of American's have values and objectives that are very close to each other, and vary only on the best way to maintain and achieve them.

 

What kinds of compromises are you looking for?

You can offer up suggestions on how to stop the MSM from "instigating against whites and tell the truth".

There used to be an FCC rule in journalism about always giving BOTH sides of every story that was called the Fairness Doctrine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

A compromise could be that we require that the MSM must start obeying that "both sides" rule again. Would that be a compromise that you could support?

 

Libs could begin the compromise process by funding the wall

 

Personally, I think a good compromise would be DACA as a law in exchange for a wall.

 

I have always been willing to compromise on DACA

But we should get more in return than just the wall

 

How about the wall and an update and strengthening of eVerify.

 

No such rule exists and never should again.

 

I think the labels are fun ways to describe groups without really having to admit the diversity of views within each individual. I picked traditional liberal only because I am not an activist. As for compromise, how exactly should someone compromise with a rabid dog? Today, there is no way I would compromise on my core issues. I would be willing to compromise on other issues though if the offer is reasonable and genuine. For instance, should I compromise with Trump (thinks NATO is a joke and insults them constantly) on considering NATO a vital strategic alliance that needs to be affirmed and supported? What exactly is the counter offer? Trump gets to insult them at will and everything else is the same? It's like letting your kid swear in church, forget it. My position has been supported by generations of Americans of both stripes since ww2. Why in the world should I compromise with a moron?

Now I would be willing to compromise on estate taxes. They want zero, I want massive taxation above a certain amount of inheritance. I am sure we can find something to agree upon but its not zero.

 

Why should people pay a additional tax, because they inherit something that was taxed to begin with?

Do you have any clue how that destroys farming in this country.

No land

No farming

No American food

You get it?

 

Thank you for that suggestion. It will be included on the Ranked Vote thread.

 

The updating and strengthening of eVerify is an excellent suggestion.

 

You will be able to indicate your own dissatisfaction with that suggestion in the Ranked Vote thread.

 

Am I correct in assuming you are raising the issue of NATO funding to be added to the list?

Your suggestion regarding estate taxes will definitely be included.

 

E-Verify is almost worthless

Its a great idea but will require the Deep State and future attorney generals to actually punish violators

Under a swamp rat president of either party that will probably not happen

Much like the National No-Call law that washington was so proud of when they passed it but was never enforced

I would rather see repeal of the refugee assylum loophole for central Americans that is being so a used

Plus an end to catch and release and santuary city protection

Lets punish california and other cities for not cooperating with ICE

 

Compromise is a very difficult thing when both sides are entrenched in their primary beliefs or desires. No one wants to let go of them. The secret, I've found, is identifying secondary beliefs or desires that can be conceded. It takes a fair amount of introspection to prioritize what you really want versus what would be nice to have.

 

Do you some examples of your own to share?

 

I could. Most every conservative I know of would most definitely not as it would undoubtedly put Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, Hannity, Tucker Carlson and just about all of small time talk radio right out of business. It MIGHT also take Rachel Maddow and many others on CNN and MSNBC, but it might not or they could change and maybe not loss their audiences entirely, Again, I wouldn't care, it would be a major victory for Progressives as most conservatives have no real idea what they're supposed to believe without their pundits to tell them so.

Please note that the real rise of conservatism as we have come to know it dates pretty closely from the end ot the Fairness Doctrine in 1987.

 

Never, the Fairness Doctrine was one of the most expensive and useless rules that FCC even invoked, under that rule any commentary broadcast could be challenged and an equal amount of time had to be provided the challenger, who in many cases was an illiterate, lightly educated dope, who after a minute or so of speaking cost the broadcaster a sizable chunk of audience share as people hit the button or turned the knob, rather than suffer the pain of listening to such or worse yet looking at him.

The Fairness Doctrine also prevented talk shows from even being possible, as a mere challenge could require a broadcaster to handover an hour or more to a non-productive, non-revenue show.

If the Fairness Doctrine was still in place today AM radio would be long dead and gone and FM talk would be non-existent.

A practical solution was to offer to anyone who could muster up the advertisers, time to be booked for any type of show that could turn a profit, this format has made millionaires out of people like Kim Komando, while others who tried it like Nicole Sandler and Al Gore's Current TV totally failed, simply because they couldn't attract enough ears or eyeballs interested in their tripe, resulting in severely sagging advertising revenue bankrupting their programming.

The market is what drives revenue and that is the only radio and TV can operate without public funding, which it very wrong.

 

So you see no market for programs where equally talented orators/debaters on opposite sides of an issue have a spirited exchange of ideas? Instead you are claiming that the "holy market dollar" must be the prime dictator of how issues are presented in a purely partisan and distorted manner.

As noted by @Aleksander Ulyanov above it was when the Fairness Doctrine was outlawed that the DIVISIVENESS we see today originated. That divisiveness did not exist to any remotely similar degree prior to that point. The Almighty Dollar should not be allowed to dictate what We the People need to know about.

 

There is an open market for equally talented talkers, unfortunately very few of them exist.

As for the dollar dictating what We the People need to know about that's a patently false statement, internet has eliminated the monopoly broadcasters had on ears and eyes long ago, what you fail to realize is talk radio is much more than information, it primarily entertainment, people don't want to be talked to, they want to be entertained and that's is where and why the professionals make their money and the clowns get sent off to podcasting where revenues are sketchy and light if at all.

One look at You-Boob quickly demonstrates where many of the losers end up.

As for divisiveness you are way off the mark, that symptom of a societal breakdown is relatively new and less a couple of decades or so in the making, the Fairness Doctrine on the other hand was eliminated thirty one years ago, long before divisiveness in the U.S. even set roots in our society.

The problem is, as it always has been, people who want a certain type of marginalized programming or what is known as micro audience entertainment, expect it to happen free or to be paid for by somebody else, and that's simply not how life works, if such entertainment was truly desired, it would form it's own market.

A perfect example of such is Rachael Maddow, she has the access to the same content as did Gore, Sandler and their minions, but they failed and Maddow succeeded, why?

Maddow understands the industry, she knows it takes a lot of money to hire researchers, copywriters and a top-notch producer, in addition to that she knows she must present the same information that everyone else has access to, in a entertaining manner which she does an over the top job of, from tiny things like vocal inflections, and facial expressions, she has her style down just right and unlike so many failures in the dust bin of broadcasting, she isn't content with todays success's, she is constantly pushing herself to be better and more entertaining every time the tally light goes on.

Doing so takes a lot of work and a dedicated well compensated staff and that is what keeps her on the top of her market and that is the way it should be, the dollar rules and as a result only the best make it and the rest get to take a long walk on a short pier.