[core-questions]

The problem here comes when there's no possible state of compromise that would make even anyone at all happy. For example, on a border wall: you build it to be functional, or you don't. A non-functional border wall is essentially not a border wall.

There's no compromise state; instead, there's at best some kind of tit-for-tat, where you'll concede something else in exchange for your most important plans.

[learc83]

That's because a border wall is too specific for a policy platform. The more general concept of border security provides plenty of room for compromise.

But even a wall provides room for compromise--physical barriers in some places but not others.

[saagarjha]

A non-functional border wall also pleases nobody. It’s not a great compromise at all.