Almost everyone agrees there should be more compromises in politics. So I’m curious, how would that play out?

While I love the policy debates and the nuances, most people go for the big issues. So, according to the party platforms/my gut, here’s what I’d put as the 3 for each party:

Democrats: Abortion rights, gun control, climate change.

Republicans: Immigration, culture war (say, critical race theory in schools or gender affirming care for minors) , trump gets to be president. (Sorry but it really seems like a cult of personality at this point.)

Anyway, here’s the exercise: say the other side was willing to give up on all three of their issues but you had to give up on one of your side’s. OR, you can have two of your side’s but have to give up on the third.

Just curious to see how this plays out. (You are of course free to name other priorities you think better represent the parties but obviously if you write “making Joe Pesci day a national holiday” as a priority and give it up, that doesn’t really count.)

Edit: The consensus seems to be a big no to compromise. Which, fair, I imagine those on the Right feel just as strongly about what they would call baby murdering and replacing American workers etc.

Just kind of sad to see it in action.

But thanks/congrats to those who did try and work through a compromise!

  • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    2 months ago

    I am willing to compromise and allow trial by combat to be reintroduced as a valid judicial process. The only caveat is that the wealthy cannot appoint champions to fight for them.

    Seriously though, I’m not in love with either party. Honestly, there are things I despise about both. Most Americans are pretty middle of the road. It’s the extremists and the parties holding the country hostage, not the American people.

    • Lauchs@lemmy.worldOP
      0·
      2 months ago

      Ahaha, I really enjoy this comment.

      I think you’re right, most folks are middle of the road but damned if I can think of a way to get the middle to actually dominate politics…

    • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      I am willing to compromise and allow trial by combat to be reintroduced as a valid judicial process.

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

      Trial by combat (also wager of battle, trial by battle or judicial duel) was a method of Germanic law to settle accusations in the absence of witnesses or a confession in which two parties in dispute fought in single combat; the winner of the fight was proclaimed to be right. In essence, it was a judicially sanctioned duel. It remained in use throughout the European Middle Ages, gradually disappearing in the course of the 16th century.

      So that was before the US became a country.

      Wikipedia sadly doesn’t mention it, but a few years ago, some Brit decided to challenge what IIRC was a traffic infraction and demand trial by combat. The judge issued a ruling that trial by combat was no longer permissible, so it’s officially off the books in the UK under case law.

      kagis

      Vehicle registration violation.

      https://medium.com/lessons-from-history/trial-by-combat-one-mans-attempt-to-beat-a-33-motoring-fine-c7a9c9944d93

      Is Trial By Combat Still Legal?

      Citing a law from 1066, a man requested a fight to the death to settle a $33 motoring fine.

      In 2002, in Suffolk in England, a 60-year-old man didn’t tell the country’s motoring authority that his motorcycle was off the road. That authority, the DVLA, can fine individuals for things like not paying road tax and similar admin things.

      The man, Leon Humphreys, was fined £25 ($33) for his small infringement, but the man didn’t pay and was taken to court.

      Trial by combat

      Almost a thousand years earlier, in 1066, William the Conqueror introduced the right to trial by combat – a fight to the death to resolve disputes using swords or other weapons such as pikes.

      The thinking behind this was that God would back who was right, and they would win. Elderly people and women were allowed to nominate a champion to fight on their behalf.

      You couldn’t just demand trial by combat with anyone. Rather, it needed a genuine legal matter to be resolved, and was one official way of resolving that matter. It let God decide the outcome, apparently, and the guilty party would pay the ultimate price.

      Humphreys decided that instead of paying the fine, he would call upon the ancient law, saying;

      “I believe the right to trial by combat is still on the statute books… I am willing to fight a champion put up by the DVLA if they want to accept my challenge – but they must remember it is a fight to the death… I am reasonably fit and not afraid of taking anyone on in a fight.”

      A spokesman for the British courts simply said of the matter;

      “I am not aware that anyone has the right to demand trial by combat these days.”

      And the DVLA responded;

      “We have never dealt with a request for trial by combat before. We are looking into the legal issues.”

      The courts unsurprisingly rejected the request for trial by combat, which hasn’t really been used much since around 1300 when trial by jury replaced it. Mr. Humphreys never got his deathly fight, and all DVLA clerks remained safely at their desks.

      Instead, he was fined £200 ($265) for not paying the fine, and a further £100 ($133) in court costs.

      However, British courts don’t bind the US, not since independence, and last time I looked, it still hadn’t been resolved in the US. WP doesn’t have any clear case law prohibiting it, though the Brits came close:

      Proposals to abolish trial by battle were made in the 17th century, and twice in the 18th, but were unsuccessful.[23] In 1774, as part of the legislative response to the Boston Tea Party, Parliament considered a bill that would have abolished appeals of murder and trials by battle in the American colonies. It was successfully opposed by Member of Parliament John Dunning, who called the appeal of murder “that great pillar of the Constitution”.[24] Writer and MP Edmund Burke, on the other hand, supported the abolition, calling the appeal and wager “superstitious and barbarous to the last degree”.[25]

      At the time of independence in 1776, trial by combat had not been abolished and it has never formally been abolished since. The question of whether trial by combat remains a valid alternative to civil action has been argued to remain open, at least in theory. In McNatt v. Richards (1983), the Delaware Court of Chancery rejected the defendant’s request for “trial by combat to the death” on the grounds that dueling was illegal.[50] In Forgotten Trial Techniques: The Wager of Battle, Donald J. Evans set out the possibility of a trial by battle in the setting of a lawyer’s office.[51] A tongue-in-cheek motion during 2015 for trial by combat in response to a civil suit was rejected in 2016.[52]

      In 2020, a man named David Zachary Ostrom requested a trial by combat in response to a custody and property dispute with his ex-wife over their children.[53] Following Ostrom requesting trial by combat, he was court-ordered to be administered a sanity test and was temporarily restricted from parenting rights. Upon successfully clearing his sanity test, Ostrom’s parenting time was restored. Ostrom has since admitted that he initially made the request for trial by combat in order to attract media attention to his case.[54]

      Now, IIRC there are some limited forms of dueling – not to the death, but fights – that are legally sanctioned in at least one state, IIRC Oregon or Washington state.

      goes looking

      Washington. And, Texas being Texas, Texas also has a sanctioned form.

      https://texascriminaljustice.com/what-is-the-mutual-combat-law-in-texas/

      In some ways, Texas has had a reputation in the past as the Wild West. If you have ever wondered if two parties in the state can fight without worrying about the legal consequences, the answer is yes. Texas is only one of two states (Washington state being the other) where mutual combat can be an affirmative offense in specific assault cases.

      Most people know that it is against the law to punch or otherwise assault someone. But did you know that the Texas mutual combat law allows, in certain situations, for two parties to fight and injure one another without legal consequences, to a certain degree?

      The law behind certain mutual combat being allowed is Texas Penal Code 22.06. The law states that a party charged with assault can argue that the alleged victim consented to the fight. This defense may apply in the following circumstances:

      • The fight did not result in serious bodily injury

      • The alleged victim was aware of the risks but consented

      Consent does not have to be overtly verbal; all that is required under the law is that you had a reasonable belief that consent was given. However, you must prove as the defendant that consent was reached before the incident. Your Texas criminal defense attorney will review the case evidence to determine if consent can be proven.

      https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/mutual-combat-states

      Washington state is one of only two states in America where mutual combat is totally legal. Most states do not have a specific law relating to mutual combat, leaving consensual fights in a sort of gray area. Washington state, however, does have a law legalizing mutual combat.

      The Washington state law regarding mutual combat does lay out one provision that makes fighting legally a little challenging: To be legal, a fight has to be overseen by a police officer. Most of the time, police officers have something better to do with their time than watch a couple of guys brawl.

      The police officer is supposed to act as a referee by breaking up the fight when an obvious victor has emerged. The police officer also must keep bystanders from being injured and property from being damaged. This would make the fight illegal.

      So I think that either a judge would need to have a different interpretation of the legality of dueling or impact on the right to trial by combat than that Delaware judge – which might happen – or the trial by combat would need to occur in Texas and be constrained to not incur serious bodily injury – like, no killing or maiming – or be in Washington.