"You must stay open to compromise. You have to make space for these discussions."

Since the liberals are the underdogs now you are going to see a desperately fervent return to pleas and even outright demands for 'bipartisanship', 'meaningful discussions', an end to tribalism, a demand to begin 'healing', to begin caring about each other, or 'compromise' now along with accusations of divisiveness.

Pleas for a "meaningful discussion" mean nothing here because ALL discussions are meaningful as that is the purpose of discussion....to pass on meaningful knowledge where knowledge is required.

If you mean by meaningful discussion a "compromise" acceding to liberal points of contention then I'm pretty sure that you're going to be disappointed because we the awakened majority are wise to that liberal leftist tactic.

A demand for a 'meaningful discussion' is just another variant of the liberal "compromise" tactic. How often have you heard the Liberal or Democrat plaintive whine that we all should have a meaningful discussion, that we should COMPROMISE, that we should strive to "meet in the middle"?

You will also hear liberals try to control the debate by telling you that there can be no debate or argument on the topics of "compassion", "morals" or "empathy for fellow human beings", another liberal PC tactic, because when logic and common sense readily destroys such arguments as they so often do it leaves liberals looking very foolish, uneducated and definite debate losers.

It's nothing more than a liberal tactic, a disingenuous ploy that serves the sole purpose of using guilt to you sway you into letting them gain a foothold or ground they don't currently have on an issue.

Even funnier is the idea that liberals are somehow so much more intelligent or better informed than conservatives. Such arrogance!

The only "compromise" made here is YOU compromising YOUR morals or beliefs out of fear falsely created by the liberal of you appearing to be somehow "uncooperative". Since the liberal leftist's ultimate goal is a socialist communist one world government order I can assure you that "uncooperative" is far too mild of a word for what I'm being and will continue to be.

With regard to politicians it's a thinly veiled threat of a loss of votes...from Democrats and Liberals that have never voted for Republicans and never intend to ever vote for, or with, Republicans anyway. One wonders why Republican politicians even entertain their rhetoric considering there's no benefit to doing so anyway.

You "reach across the aisle" and "compromise" by giving 30% on a 100% demand this year, you give another 30% the next year and yet another 30% the next year and then suddenly you have given the liberals everything they wanted in just three years. In just two years if you "meet them halfway" as they so often insist.

Don't fall for this nonsense. It is perfectly permissible and appropriate to "stand your ground" on many issues. Looking Democrats, or elite Republicans, in the eye and flatly stating 'No!' is in no way a bad thing or a hurtful action despite what liberals or Democrats try to convince you to believe.

Wrong is wrong and despite the liberal's nonsense even a "little bit" wrong merged with "right" is STILL WRONG. And liberalism is wrong. The tactics that the liberal is employing against you is called;

"Argument to the Middle" or "Argument of Moderation": An individual demonstrating this false compromise fallacy implies that the positions being considered represent extremes of a continuum of opinions, and that such extremes are always wrong, and the middle ground is always correct. Commonly executed by liberals and Democrats in the pursuit of nonsensical ideology in an effort to sway the masses with their false perception of "fairness".

Examples:

★ "Hamas demands death to ALL Jews, Israel obviously rejects the notion, John Kerry recommends that Israel "meet them halfway".

★ ISIS/Muslims demands the death of all infidels (that means YOU), Obama recommends that Americans compromise with ISIS and Muslims and "meet them halfway".

★ "Some would say that hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet, but others claim it is a toxic and dangerous substance. The truth must therefore be somewhere in between."

★ "A 100 ft canyon lies in front of Jack and Jill. Jack wants to build a 100 ft bridge to cross the canyon, but Jill doesn't want to cross at all. A compromise between the two would be a 50 ft bridge, which would only please Jill."

★ "Bob says we should buy a computer. Sue says we shouldn't. Therefore, the best solution is to compromise and buy half a computer."

★ "Should array indices start at 0 or 1? My compromise of 0.5 was rejected without, I thought, proper consideration." — Stan Kelly-Bootle

★ "The choice of 48 bytes as the ATM cell payload size, as a compromise between the 64 bytes proposed by parties from the United States and the 32 bytes proposed by European parties; the compromise was made for entirely political reasons, since it did not technically favor either of the parties."

★ "The fact that one is confronted with an individual who strongly argues that slavery is wrong and another who argues equally strongly that slavery is perfectly legitimate in no way suggests that the truth must be somewhere in the middle."

All said and done....liberalism is wrong, is a confirmed mental disease, and altogether a "bad" thing to be afflicted with because it leads to bad decision making in life, in community and in politics.

So the next time you hear a liberal confront you with;

<whiny voice> "What's your problem? Don't you want a meaningful conversation? We need to heal! Why won't you compromise? We need to meet in the middle! Why are you being so tribal! You're just being stubborn!"

Simply respond back with;

"So if one person argues that slavery is wrong and another argues that slavery is right then you'd say the truth must be somewhere in the middle, that the answer lies in a "compromise?"

Enjoy watching their little liberal heads explode.