A nation divided. But the actual dividing line isn't what you think.

[Raglefant]

I had a lovely evening recently with a group of our best friends and discovered some things. My wife and I have attempted to remain independent, but no matter how hard we try, we're libs. We are among a small minority within our network of friends, but surprisingly, that's fine. You see, we care about other people and are not idiots, and our conservative friends care about other people and are not idiots. This allows us to have mature conversations with substance without anyone freaking out.

We AGREE on much more than we disagree, because we both start with a fundamental understanding and trust that we both want what's best for this country and it's people. We disagree on the best way to get there, but this frames the relationship and debate in terms that are exponentially more productive and amicable.

When a lib comes on here (or anywhere) and spouts hateful and judgmental rhetoric (in a non-sarcastic tone... that's always fine) unprovoked, it is embarrassing and infuriating as an intelligent and respectful lib who actually cares about all Americans. I discovered that when a con does the same, it is embarrassing and infuriating to our intelligent and caring conservative friends.

I will resist the temptation to get too specific into policy or ideology, but let's just say that nobody in the room was for large inefficient government and nobody was for letting poor people die in the streets.

The reason we're so divided today isn't because we would disagree on everything if we had the time and ability to discuss things in detail. It's because we don't take the time and the majority don't have the desire or ability to follow a well reasoned and detailed discussion to a conclusuon, especially if it would require any sort of compromise along the way.

Instead, we throw out idiotic zingers full of prejudice and ignorance. Both sides. Make no mistake, we're much less divided along true political ideological lines, and much more divided because of the uninformed and brainwashed majority incapable of viewing politics as anything more than a high school rivalry where whoever yells the loudest and has the larger crowd wins. It is not my intention for that to be overly judgmental. Life is busy and powerful forces push us this way because it's easier than treating us like adults with honest dialogue.

I desperately wish our government could be run like a great tech company. Yes, I'm a lib. State a goal, test, analyze the data against the stated performance indicators, and iterate until you solve the problem. The strategies implemented to move us towards the solution could be fundamentally lib or con, but would need to be effective and judged empirically, not politically. We live in a country where both sides judge with closed eyes, only caring where the idea originated and passing judgement automatically for or against in an attempt to gain political traction.

Our current system isn't embarrassing as a lib, or as a con... it's embarrassing as an intelligent human being who actually cares about the well being of all Americans.

 

[ANYCHawk]

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

The only dividing line in the country is where you are located in relationship to the critical IHOP / Waffle House line.

 

[Lone Clone]

I had a lovely evening recently with a group of our best friends and discovered some things. My wife and I have attempted to remain independent, but no matter how hard we try, we're libs. We are among a small minority within our network of friends, but surprisingly, that's fine. You see, we care about other people and are not idiots, and our conservative friends care about other people and are not idiots. This allows us to have mature conversations with substance without anyone freaking out.

We AGREE on much more than we disagree, because we both start with a fundamental understanding and trust that we both want what's best for this country and it's people. We disagree on the best way to get there, but this frames the relationship and debate in terms that are exponentially more productive and amicable.

When a lib comes on here (or anywhere) and spouts hateful and judgmental rhetoric (in a non-sarcastic tone... that's always fine) unprovoked, it is embarrassing and infuriating as an intelligent and respectful lib who actually cares about all Americans. I discovered that when a con does the same, it is embarrassing and infuriating to our intelligent and caring conservative friends.

I will resist the temptation to get too specific into policy or ideology, but let's just say that nobody in the room was for large inefficient government and nobody was for letting poor people die in the streets.

The reason we're so divided today isn't because we would disagree on everything if we had the time and ability to discuss things in detail. It's because we don't take the time and the majority don't have the desire or ability to follow a well reasoned and detailed discussion to a conclusuon, especially if it would require any sort of compromise along the way.

Instead, we throw out idiotic zingers full of prejudice and ignorance. Both sides. Make no mistake, we're much less divided along true political ideological lines, and much more divided because of the uninformed and brainwashed majority incapable of viewing politics as anything more than a high school rivalry where whoever yells the loudest and has the larger crowd wins. It is not my intention for that to be overly judgmental. Life is busy and powerful forces push us this way because it's easier than treating us like adults with honest dialogue.

I desperately wish our government could be run like a great tech company. Yes, I'm a lib. State a goal, test, analyze the data against the stated performance indicators, and iterate until you solve the problem. The strategies implemented to move us towards the solution could be fundamentally lib or con, but would need to be effective and judged empirically, not politically. We live in a country where both sides judge with closed eyes, only caring where the idea originated and passing judgement automatically for or against in an attempt to gain political traction.

Our current system isn't embarrassing as a lib, or as a con... it's embarrassing as an intelligent human being who actually cares about the well being of all Americans.

What you say mostly makes sense. You clearly are a conservative.

 

[artradley]

I had a lovely evening recently with a group of our best friends and discovered some things. My wife and I have attempted to remain independent, but no matter how hard we try, we're libs. We are among a small minority within our network of friends, but surprisingly, that's fine. You see, we care about other people and are not idiots, and our conservative friends care about other people and are not idiots. This allows us to have mature conversations with substance without anyone freaking out.

We AGREE on much more than we disagree, because we both start with a fundamental understanding and trust that we both want what's best for this country and it's people. We disagree on the best way to get there, but this frames the relationship and debate in terms that are exponentially more productive and amicable.

When a lib comes on here (or anywhere) and spouts hateful and judgmental rhetoric (in a non-sarcastic tone... that's always fine) unprovoked, it is embarrassing and infuriating as an intelligent and respectful lib who actually cares about all Americans. I discovered that when a con does the same, it is embarrassing and infuriating to our intelligent and caring conservative friends.

I will resist the temptation to get too specific into policy or ideology, but let's just say that nobody in the room was for large inefficient government and nobody was for letting poor people die in the streets.

The reason we're so divided today isn't because we would disagree on everything if we had the time and ability to discuss things in detail. It's because we don't take the time and the majority don't have the desire or ability to follow a well reasoned and detailed discussion to a conclusuon, especially if it would require any sort of compromise along the way.

Instead, we throw out idiotic zingers full of prejudice and ignorance. Both sides. Make no mistake, we're much less divided along true political ideological lines, and much more divided because of the uninformed and brainwashed majority incapable of viewing politics as anything more than a high school rivalry where whoever yells the loudest and has the larger crowd wins. It is not my intention for that to be overly judgmental. Life is busy and powerful forces push us this way because it's easier than treating us like adults with honest dialogue.

I desperately wish our government could be run like a great tech company. Yes, I'm a lib. State a goal, test, analyze the data against the stated performance indicators, and iterate until you solve the problem. The strategies implemented to move us towards the solution could be fundamentally lib or con, but would need to be effective and judged empirically, not politically. We live in a country where both sides judge with closed eyes, only caring where the idea originated and passing judgement automatically for or against in an attempt to gain political traction.

Our current system isn't embarrassing as a lib, or as a con... it's embarrassing as an intelligent human being who actually cares about the well being of all Americans.

You are correct. Unfortunately, the dumbest folks are the loudest. Too many people are so entrenched in their "team" they either don't want to, or have lost the ability to, discuss things rationally.

 

[TexMichFan]

You are correct. Unfortunately, the dumbest folks are the loudest. Too many people are so entrenched in their "team" they either don't want to, or have lost the ability to, discuss things rationally.

You are also correct, unfortunately the insults fly a lot at a group of people not the one posting.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

The reason we're so divided today isn't because we would disagree on everything if we had the time and ability to discuss things in detail. It's because we don't take the time and the majority don't have the desire or ability to follow a well reasoned and detailed discussion to a conclusuon, especially if it would require any sort of compromise along the way.

I wish that were the sum of it, because then the reasonableness of your post would be the dominant attitude in the nation. You are, in effect, saying "can't we all just get along?" But it isn't that simple. We have a very aggressive industry in America to shape public opinion without regard to the values you appear to subscribe to, and they simply don't want us to get along, to explore the issues, and to come to reasonable conclusions.

This has been true at some level for a long time. Maybe forever, at a low level. Might be part of what we call "human nature." But it's gotten hugely worse over they last few decades and especially the last few years.

Nor is this an imaginary problem. I have recommended these books before and will do so again - in the hope that a few people will actually make some effort. If you are serious about what you said, I trust you'll be one of those.

Merchants of Doubt by Oreskes & Conway

Dark Money by Jane Mayer

 

[ottumwan in tx]

What you say mostly makes sense. You clearly are a conservative.

I was gonna say his conservative friends are libs

 

[naturalmwa]

I hate to get in the way of this well written kumbaya thought, but I have to quibble a bit. The problem isn't that we just aren't listening or understanding the other side as I see it. I disagree that we all want the same things. The problem is there are very different value priorities for the various camps.

For example, if there is a move to ban putting some poisonous industrial waste in the water and some line up for it and others against its hard to make the argument that both teams want clean water but just disagree about how to get there. On abortion it's hard to say both sides want the same goal, but just aren't understanding the opposition. That's the way it is on most issues. If the world was actually as described in the OP, solutions would not be so difficult. Solutions are difficult because we actually do disagree about what is important. It's really not constructive to minimize the sincerity of the disagreement. Doing so make one guilty of not listening or understanding the opposition.

 

[camickle]

There is a lot of truth in this thread.
The right answers are usually somewhere in the middle. The greed filled corruption in the union of business and politics has led us to where we are though.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

There is a lot of truth in this thread.
The right answers are usually somewhere in the middle. The greed filled corruption in the union of business and politics has led us to where we are though.

I wish it were that simple.

 

[Noble Hawk]

I wish that were the sum of it, because then the reasonableness of your post would be the dominant attitude in the nation. You are, in effect, saying "can't we all just get along?" But it isn't that simple. We have a very aggressive industry in America to shape public opinion without regard to the values you appear to subscribe to, and they simply don't want us to get along, to explore the issues, and to come to reasonable conclusions.

This has been true at some level for a long time. Maybe forever, at a low level. Might be part of what we call "human nature." But it's gotten hugely worse over they last few decades and especially the last few years.

Nor is this an imaginary problem. I have recommended these books before and will do so again - in the hope that a few people will actually make some effort. If you are serious about what you said, I trust you'll be one of those.

Merchants of Doubt by Oreskes & Conway

Dark Money by Jane Mayer

Not sure you get to be the voice of reason and have a "vote republican, join the 3rd world" picture on the bottom of all of your posts.

It's like you are not even self aware. Wow.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

I think that most reasonable people realize that this country is pretty f***ed up. Where people generally differ is in how they want to fix it.

 

[thomasmulligan]

I think that most reasonable people realize that this country is pretty f***ed up. Where people generally differ is in how they want to fix it.

Actually, reasonable people don't look at the USA as the most ****ed up place on earth. They realize citizens aren't leaving in droves to go live in the "better" places on earth. They realize just how many are willing to risk their lives to illegally sneak in. But you'll never get that cuz you're an idiot.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Actually, reasonable people don't look at the USA as the most ****ed up place on earth. They realize citizens aren't leaving in droves to go live in the "better" places on earth. They realize just how many are willing to risk their lives to illegally sneak in. But you'll never get that cuz you're an idiot.

I didn't say it was the most f***ed up place on the Earth, I said that it was f***ed up. There's a difference.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

America's politicians and media are effed up

 

[Raglefant]

I hate to get in the way of this well written kumbaya thought, but I have to quibble a bit. The problem isn't that we just aren't listening or understanding the other side as I see it. I disagree that we all want the same things. The problem is there are very different value priorities for the various camps.

For example, if there is a move to ban putting some poisonous industrial waste in the water and some line up for it and others against its hard to make the argument that both teams want clean water but just disagree about how to get there. On abortion it's hard to say both sides want the same goal, but just aren't understanding the opposition. That's the way it is on most issues. If the world was actually as described in the OP, solutions would not be so difficult. Solutions are difficult because we actually do disagree about what is important. It's really not constructive to minimize the sincerity of the disagreement. Doing so make one guilty of not listening or understanding the opposition.

I don't think everyone wants the same thing, but I know there are entire continents worth of common ground that are never found because most aren't willing, or are trained not to look for it. I have no delusions that the population will change, but hold out hope that we might find some leaders willing to lead the charge towards uniting Americans with common sense and honest dialogue instead of the standard divisive rhetoric we see today.

Everyone has different priorities, no doubt, but that's where compromise comes into it. One might care more about poison in the water than another, but does anyone truly WANT more poison? So you pass the ban on waste but give a concession in another area you don't care much about but someone else does. I know those were just examples, and I do get your point, but it's not one or the other. People have different priorities AND most are incapable and unwilling to have a conversation about a topic that starts with an open mind. They come with their party's defined position and stick to the talking points because loyalty to the team is more important than finding the solution, or heaven forbid, a compromise.

You are absolutely right that there are fundamental differences on many issues where people want the opposite thing. Even in those cases, there is usually some common ground (I think). Pro-choice folks don't want MORE abortions, they want choice protected. Pro-gun folks don't want MORE gun crimes, they want their rights protected. Are there things we could do collaboratively to reduce the number of abortions and killings without taking away rights, that we could both agree is a win? I don't know, just an example... Clearly the fight will rage on at the top level, roe v wade and bills on gun legislation, but I see no reason that we couldn't also collaborate for effective and measurable solutions whenever common ground does exist.

Certainly parties frame ones high level leanings, but the notion that any individual just happens to agree with around 50% of the population on every issue is just stupid.

We certainly need more people willing to think for themselves and engage in meaningful dialogue. I'm not sure that basic point is in dispute, I feel like I'm preaching to the choir now.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

"anyone truly WANT more poison"

yes, the pro fluoride folks do. it's an industrial waste and a poison yet some demand that it goes into water

 

[Raglefant]

"anyone truly WANT more poison"

yes, the pro fluoride folks do. it's an industrial waste and a poison yet some demand that it goes into water

Is that what they're using to control our brains?

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Is that what they're using to control our brains?

well, maybe, but it is an industrial waste and they needed to figure out how to sell it so they invented this story that is needs to go into our water

 

[Raglefant]

well, maybe, but it is an industrial waste and they needed to figure out how to sell it so they invented this story that is needs to go into our water

Yeah, introducing corporate goals into the mix is depressing. Thanks for that.

 

[BioHawk]

I had a lovely evening recently with a group of our best friends and discovered some things. My wife and I have attempted to remain independent, but no matter how hard we try, we're libs. We are among a small minority within our network of friends, but surprisingly, that's fine. You see, we care about other people and are not idiots, and our conservative friends care about other people and are not idiots. This allows us to have mature conversations with substance without anyone freaking out.

We AGREE on much more than we disagree, because we both start with a fundamental understanding and trust that we both want what's best for this country and it's people. We disagree on the best way to get there, but this frames the relationship and debate in terms that are exponentially more productive and amicable.

When a lib comes on here (or anywhere) and spouts hateful and judgmental rhetoric (in a non-sarcastic tone... that's always fine) unprovoked, it is embarrassing and infuriating as an intelligent and respectful lib who actually cares about all Americans. I discovered that when a con does the same, it is embarrassing and infuriating to our intelligent and caring conservative friends.

I will resist the temptation to get too specific into policy or ideology, but let's just say that nobody in the room was for large inefficient government and nobody was for letting poor people die in the streets.

The reason we're so divided today isn't because we would disagree on everything if we had the time and ability to discuss things in detail. It's because we don't take the time and the majority don't have the desire or ability to follow a well reasoned and detailed discussion to a conclusuon, especially if it would require any sort of compromise along the way.

Instead, we throw out idiotic zingers full of prejudice and ignorance. Both sides. Make no mistake, we're much less divided along true political ideological lines, and much more divided because of the uninformed and brainwashed majority incapable of viewing politics as anything more than a high school rivalry where whoever yells the loudest and has the larger crowd wins. It is not my intention for that to be overly judgmental. Life is busy and powerful forces push us this way because it's easier than treating us like adults with honest dialogue.

I desperately wish our government could be run like a great tech company. Yes, I'm a lib. State a goal, test, analyze the data against the stated performance indicators, and iterate until you solve the problem. The strategies implemented to move us towards the solution could be fundamentally lib or con, but would need to be effective and judged empirically, not politically. We live in a country where both sides judge with closed eyes, only caring where the idea originated and passing judgement automatically for or against in an attempt to gain political traction.

Our current system isn't embarrassing as a lib, or as a con... it's embarrassing as an intelligent human being who actually cares about the well being of all Americans.

You can thank cable news, AM radio, and social media for this. Dumb ideas start out on the radio where they are picked up by cable news and then propogated through facebook. It has also shined a spotlight on legislatures so if they compromise, even in the slightest, to try and achieve something (particularly bad on the Republican side) they get ostracized by their own party and have to face a primary challenge.

I've read more than one article lately that mentions how we are at a constitutional crisis that we haven't seen since the civil war. There is a growing concern that our form of government may not be able to withstand the modern era. Our form of government demands compromises to work. It was founded on compromises, some of them very bad (and later, corrected...one way or another). However things got done. I don't really buy into this, but I'm a lot closer to that than I was 8 years ago, that's for sure.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I hate to get in the way of this well written kumbaya thought, but I have to quibble a bit. The problem isn't that we just aren't listening or understanding the other side as I see it. I disagree that we all want the same things. The problem is there are very different value priorities for the various camps.

For example, if there is a move to ban putting some poisonous industrial waste in the water and some line up for it and others against its hard to make the argument that both teams want clean water but just disagree about how to get there. On abortion it's hard to say both sides want the same goal, but just aren't understanding the opposition. That's the way it is on most issues. If the world was actually as described in the OP, solutions would not be so difficult. Solutions are difficult because we actually do disagree about what is important. It's really not constructive to minimize the sincerity of the disagreement. Doing so make one guilty of not listening or understanding the opposition.

Good points.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

I hate to get in the way of this well written kumbaya thought, but I have to quibble a bit. The problem isn't that we just aren't listening or understanding the other side as I see it. I disagree that we all want the same things. The problem is there are very different value priorities for the various camps.

For example, if there is a move to ban putting some poisonous industrial waste in the water and some line up for it and others against its hard to make the argument that both teams want clean water but just disagree about how to get there. On abortion it's hard to say both sides want the same goal, but just aren't understanding the opposition. That's the way it is on most issues. If the world was actually as described in the OP, solutions would not be so difficult. Solutions are difficult because we actually do disagree about what is important. It's really not constructive to minimize the sincerity of the disagreement. Doing so make one guilty of not listening or understanding the opposition.

Other than the company committing the crime, who do you think is lining up and wanting people to put poison in the water? This might be the most retarded thing I've ever read on this board.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

You can thank cable news, AM radio, and social media for this. Dumb ideas start out on the radio where they are picked up by cable news and then propogated through facebook. It has also shined a spotlight on legislatures so if they compromise, even in the slightest, to try and achieve something (particularly bad on the Republican side) they get ostracized by their own party and have to face a primary challenge.

I've read more than one article lately that mentions how we are at a constitutional crisis that we haven't seen since the civil war. There is a growing concern that our form of government may not be able to withstand the modern era. Our form of government demands compromises to work. It was founded on compromises, some of them very bad (and later, corrected...one way or another). However things got done. I don't really buy into this, but I'm a lot closer to that than I was 8 years ago, that's for sure.

Yes, things really are worse now than only a decade or so ago. Things were already headed the wrong way but now the influence of wealth is greatly concentrated and is exercised with nearly unrestrained power. Many aspects of our society have been underfunded or privatized. Police have been militarized. Surveillance is ubiquitous and really quite effective.

I know there are a lot of people who think if things get bad enough, the people will rise up. They won't. Even if they want to and can turn off their gadgets and get off their lard asses, they won't have a chance against the consolidated wealth and power ruling our increasingly fascist culture.

I honestly believe there will be no turning back after this election if any Republican wins or if Hillary wins. They all represent and will help to cement these trends.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Yes, things really are worse now than only a decade or so ago. Things were already headed the wrong way but now the influence of wealth is greatly concentrated and is exercised with nearly unrestrained power. Many aspects of our society have been underfunded or privatized. Police have been militarized. Surveillance is ubiquitous and really quite effective.

I know there are a lot of people who think if things get bad enough, the people will rise up. They won't. Even if they want to and can turn off their gadgets and get off their lard asses, they won't have a chance against the consolidated wealth and power ruling our increasingly fascist culture.

I honestly believe there will be no turning back after this election if any Republican wins or if Hillary wins. They all represent and will help to cement these trends.

I agree with a lot of this. Where I have my problem is with your problems with privatization. Privatization, along with competition is the best remedy for our problems.

 

[BioHawk]

I agree with a lot of this. Where I have my problem is with your problems with privatization. Privatization, along with competition is the best remedy for our problems.

The problem is there either isn't enough competition in the industry or the playing field has been set on unequal terms. When either of those two factors come up, the competition part doesn't work the way it's supposed to. The only thing that can fix it is the government, but the field has been set that fixing that is virtually impossible as well.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

The problem is there either isn't enough competition in the industry or the playing field has been set on unequal terms. When either of those two factors come up, the competition part doesn't work the way it's supposed to. The only thing that can fix it is the government, but the field has been set that fixing that is virtually impossible as well.

You do understand that government is causing the problems that you brought up in your post, right? There can't be a permanent monopoly without the power of government. There can't be inequality without the power of government. So, how is adding more government going to fix the problems that government causes?

 

[BioHawk]

You do understand that government is causing the problems that you brought up in your post, right? There can't be a permanent monopoly without the power of government. There can't be inequality without the power of government. So, how is adding more government going to fix the problems that government causes?

You put the right people in the government to make it do what needs to be done. Eliminating it sure as hell isn't going to help anything.

 

[Lone Clone]

I hate to get in the way of this well written kumbaya thought, but I have to quibble a bit. The problem isn't that we just aren't listening or understanding the other side as I see it. I disagree that we all want the same things. The problem is there are very different value priorities for the various camps.

For example, if there is a move to ban putting some poisonous industrial waste in the water and some line up for it and others against its hard to make the argument that both teams want clean water but just disagree about how to get there. On abortion it's hard to say both sides want the same goal, but just aren't understanding the opposition. That's the way it is on most issues. If the world was actually as described in the OP, solutions would not be so difficult. Solutions are difficult because we actually do disagree about what is important. It's really not constructive to minimize the sincerity of the disagreement. Doing so make one guilty of not listening or understanding the opposition.

Natural, part of your post illustrates exactly what the problem is (in most cases). In your example about industrial waste, you are assuming that your definition of "poisonous" is the only legitimate one, that your definition of "clean water" is the only legitimate one, that your definition of what constitutes reasonable regulation of business is the only legitimate one and that your definition of "some" is the only legitimate one. You also are implicitly assuming that your definition of the proper way to address the situation is the only legitimate one. So, in your mind, anyone who doesn't share all your assumptions doesn't share the goal of clean water, That's nonsense, and it's the reason it's so difficult to find solutions to many issues.

On abortion, however, both sides clearly do NOT want the same thing. There is simply no compromise that would be acceptable on the two extremes.

 

[22*43*51]

So, the OP and wife are trusting souls that are bad at math.

Their friends are skeptical and good at math.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

You put the right people in the government to make it do what needs to be done. Eliminating it sure as hell isn't going to help anything.

no, the founders wanted to eliminate it. we need to eliminate it, to honor them

 

[The Tradition]

So, the OP and wife are trusting souls that are bad at math.

Their friends are skeptical and good at math.

Not this fluoride crap again.

Fluoride is why I have a mouthful of natural teeth and my grandparents didn't when they were my age.

 

[Raglefant]

So, the OP and wife are trusting souls that are bad at math.

Their friends are skeptical and good at math.

This doesn't add up.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

You put the right people in the government to make it do what needs to be done. Eliminating it sure as hell isn't going to help anything.

Who are you going to put in to stop this? You need to do more than just change the president, you need to change Congress as well.

The bottom line is that if the government doesn't have the power to cause these problems, then these problems don't exist.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

I have to say I agree with naturalmwa a lot on this. The disagreements are very real.

 

[BioHawk]

Who are you going to put in to stop this? You need to do more than just change the president, you need to change Congress as well.

The bottom line is that if the government doesn't have the power to cause these problems, then these problems don't exist.

Yeah, because private businesses are SO good at regulating themselves and looking out for the common people.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Yeah, because private businesses are SO good at regulating themselves and looking out for the common people.

Well, if they could actually be jailed for their crimes, it might curb some of the corruption, but as it stands now, there are no consequences for corporations who are corrupt, because they are being protected by the government.

 

[naturalmwa]

I don't think everyone wants the same thing, but I know there are entire continents worth of common ground that are never found because most aren't willing, or are trained not to look for it. I have no delusions that the population will change, but hold out hope that we might find some leaders willing to lead the charge towards uniting Americans with common sense and honest dialogue instead of the standard divisive rhetoric we see today.

Everyone has different priorities, no doubt, but that's where compromise comes into it. One might care more about poison in the water than another, but does anyone truly WANT more poison? So you pass the ban on waste but give a concession in another area you don't care much about but someone else does. I know those were just examples, and I do get your point, but it's not one or the other. People have different priorities AND most are incapable and unwilling to have a conversation about a topic that starts with an open mind. They come with their party's defined position and stick to the talking points because loyalty to the team is more important than finding the solution, or heaven forbid, a compromise.

You are absolutely right that there are fundamental differences on many issues where people want the opposite thing. Even in those cases, there is usually some common ground (I think). Pro-choice folks don't want MORE abortions, they want choice protected. Pro-gun folks don't want MORE gun crimes, they want their rights protected. Are there things we could do collaboratively to reduce the number of abortions and killings without taking away rights, that we could both agree is a win? I don't know, just an example... Clearly the fight will rage on at the top level, roe v wade and bills on gun legislation, but I see no reason that we couldn't also collaborate for effective and measurable solutions whenever common ground does exist.

Certainly parties frame ones high level leanings, but the notion that any individual just happens to agree with around 50% of the population on every issue is just stupid.

We certainly need more people willing to think for themselves and engage in meaningful dialogue. I'm not sure that basic point is in dispute, I feel like I'm preaching to the choir now.

This is an attractive idea. Its nice to think we are somehow all really on one team with continents of common ground that if we just got away from the blinding labels we could get so much done. But I don't think it correctly reflects reality. In reality, the world doesn't work like a high school football team. In reality when the camps have common ground, they do compromise and get things done. Look up a list of bills passed in the last congresses, they are mostly cooperative efforts. So on one level you overstate the problem. You are doing the same thing the media does by only reporting conflicts. There are many successes that happen every day under your radar. Here's a list from last year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_114th_United_States_Congress

Your second error as I see it is that you don't seem to give respect for the real differences that exist. In our pollution example there is a real belief that poison should not be regulated by a significant camp. When faced with a choice between forcing polluters to stop putting poison in the water and allowing it, they choose to allow it for a variety of reasons ranging from notions that regulations are inherently bad, to corporate and job retention interests. Thats real. It does no good to say they don't really want the poison when they vote to allow the poison. The effects, not intent is what matters. And the effects of the "government should not act" crowd is that we get a more poison when we do what they want. Pretending your opposition really has your best interests at heart to avoid conflict is dangerous.

 

[BioHawk]

Well, if they could actually be jailed for their crimes, it might curb some of the corruption, but as it stands now, there are no consequences for corporations who are corrupt, because they are being protected by the government.

And who does the jailing? That brings me back to the point about putting the right people in charge.