[Vanders9]

I agree, if you voted for your representative solely on the stand he made on a particular issue, you wouldn’t want him to be persuaded otherwise.

As you live in a representative democracy, you might be better advised to spend more time thinking about the candidates on offer and choose someone who has plenty of real life experience, common sense and discernment, who would be able to pick their way through the moral, economic and ethical maze with some authority. If you select someone purely on their “stands” you are always going to be disappointed, as the only person who completely agrees with you on everything is the handsome fella you see in the mirror in the morning :)

[SoothingDave]

That’s the funny thing about having a consistent political philosophy. I don’t have to worry about what a given person who shares my philosophy is going to do. It’s not random like it is for most moderates.

[TalonDJ]

and choose someone who has plenty of real life experience

Hitler had 'plenty of life experience'. Experience for experience sake is not enough.

There are many issues where there can be compromise. For example there has to be SOME sort of tax to keep a government running. Also there must be a balance between zero immigration and open boarders. The problem is when one side defines what 'compromise' is and defines the realm of compromise. It is not 'compromise and discussion for there to be 'fewer' abortions. That is the Liberals winning. There is no promise if the boarders are 'sort of' guarded and only a minor flood of illegals come in. That is the Democrats getting what they want. It is not compromise to give illegal aliens amnesty but charge them a small fine.

It is not compromise to have 'only registration' of guns just for 'crime solving'. That is not a compromise between full bans and zero restrictions. Instead it is a stated goal and objective of the banners as a stepping stone. How many stepping stones are we suppose to give them as 'compromise'? 1? 2? 90% of what they want?