The problem with "we all have to do better," is that if one party is more willing to take that to heart than the other party, then it shifts the overton window toward the party unwilling to work with the other. If two people are playing tug of war and they look at each other and say, hey, how about we both try pulling 50% less; then one …
The problem with "we all have to do better," is that if one party is more willing to take that to heart than the other party, then it shifts the overton window toward the party unwilling to work with the other. If two people are playing tug of war and they look at each other and say, hey, how about we both try pulling 50% less; then one side follows through with pulling less while the other side continues pulling at full-force. You end up with a lopsided government. THIS is why it is so important to "name names". We need to know who is genuinely trying to compromise and who is taking advantage of that good faith.
Remember when it was suggested after Trump’s assassination attempt that everyone turn down the rhetoric? Remember how Trump asked his rally goers if he should comply?
The problem with "we all have to do better," is that if one party is more willing to take that to heart than the other party, then it shifts the overton window toward the party unwilling to work with the other. If two people are playing tug of war and they look at each other and say, hey, how about we both try pulling 50% less; then one side follows through with pulling less while the other side continues pulling at full-force. You end up with a lopsided government. THIS is why it is so important to "name names". We need to know who is genuinely trying to compromise and who is taking advantage of that good faith.
Remember when it was suggested after Trump’s assassination attempt that everyone turn down the rhetoric? Remember how Trump asked his rally goers if he should comply?