More Compromise vs. Gridlock/Return to Politics

This is the Second Half of Summary of an Earlier Long Comment Thread.  The First Half  was about Relationship Analogies and Two Parties Walking  to the Middle of a Bridge.  This is Summarized in the next Post Down.  The Second Half of that Comment Thread, which is Summarized Below, is more About Politics, as well as the Definitions of Words.

In the 24th Comment (April 12, 10:47 AM), I Encouraged People to Return the Discussion to Politics and they did.  My April 12, 4:31 PM Comment was Sort of Transitional.  I Explained how the Relationship Between Republicans and Democrats is not Unlike a Marriage and that is why the Earlier Compromise Analogies are not Irrelevant.  In Both Marriage and also Politics, we Need to Compromise, Listen to Each Other and Show Compassion.  Yelling and Screaming and Calling Each Other Names does not Resolve the Conflicts.

From this Point, we Talked about Concepts such as Extremes, Rewards and Bribes, Negotiation and Compromise, Voting Third Party, not Voting at All, Etc.

It's too Hard to Summarize all of this, so I'm just Going to Repeat a Few Definitions.

From BB-Idaho;
Business Psychology States:
"a compromise situation is created when each party to the conflict gives up something and there is no winner or loser.  If one party concedes ground on a particular issue, one would expect the other to yield something of equivalent value.  This style is reflected in intermediate amounts of assertiveness and cooperativeness." (BB-Idaho, April 9, 4:02 PM)
Compromise is a noun:
"a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands." 
Negotiate is a verb:
"'To confer with another or others in order to come to terms or reach an agreement' -so that a compromise may (or may not be) the result of the process of negotiating."
Bribe is another verb:
"Something given or taken with an intention to influence the conduct or judgment of the person receiving it." (BB-Idaho, April 13, 3:59 PM)

From the Soapster;
"When you negotiate you gain something of greater value without sacrificing your fundamental premise.

"When you compromise, you gain nothing of greater value while conceding your fundamental premise to your opponent." (Soapster, April 13, 11:20 AM)

Now From Me;
I Think I Like BB's First Definition of Compromise Best.  I Only Added to it in One of my Comments that the Words "Equivalent Value" should be Changed to "Perceived Equivalent Value", since so much of what Needs to be Compromised is Subjective. (Lista, April 13, 10:17 AM)

Soapster's Statements  were more of a Description than a Definition and in my Next Couple of Comments that Followed his, I said...

Huh?  Interesting.  I Wonder where you Got that Definition.  Another Way of Saying the Same Thing is that we Should Never Compromise Our Fundamental Premise, but we Can Compromise Other Things that do not Hinder Our Fundamental Premise.  The Only Difference Between what I said and what you said, Soap, is the Definition of the Word Compromise.

April 13, 2011 12:18 PM

Actually, Soap, Your Second Sentence Sounds more Like a Sell Out, than a Compromise.   That is Walking all the Way Across the Bridge, when your Opponent is not Even Willing to Come 1/4 of the Way Across the Bridge and I have Stated Very Plainly that there is Absolutely no Valid Reason for Doing that.

April 13, 2011 12:26 PM

Towards the End, we got Talking about Voting Third Party.  If you would Like to Respond to that, then just Start Reading the Comments from here;  (Soapster, April 14,5:58 AM)