Go look up some environmental conflicts and it should become clear to you. Beyond the company, the workers often support pollution believing it essential to keeping their jobs. The local town often supports it believing it essential to keeping the company. Officials often support it for political reason in both votes and cash. You always have problems connecting the dots.
This reads like a call for more regulations. Who do you think puts people in jail?
Research how coal, mining or logging towns respond to pushes by environmental groups. Its there if you care to see it.
I think I'm proposing fewer solutions and claiming fewer declarative answers than you think
What you describe is how we got legislation like the ACA. The ACA is a bill that bribes all the stakeholders so they will have common ground. Without the bribes, their would be none. That's actually how a government of free people is supposed to act, where every yes voter is getting something they want. But the public has a huge aversion to this thinking which is probably a bigger reason we can't make deals than party labels. Bring back the love of pork and all would be fine. But we no longer have common ground on that notion either.I think I'm proposing fewer solutions and claiming fewer declarative answers than you think
Of course we can find cases where there are core differences and little if any common ground. I don't think you're suggesting there is none in any area and that the divide between parties and citizens including how they enter into a dialogue with prejudice is currently exactly as it must be? Surely there is common ground between you and I that there is potential for improvement in this area?
I think you know more about the details on the pollution topic than I, but I will humbly submit that it's not the pollution that anyone wants. It's jobs, profit, etc, and clearly people will vote for things that are at their root obviously bad due to their perceived value to individuals or corporations.
Perhaps starting with a premise like: what if you kept your job, profit, or anything else you care most about, but we could also reduce pollution by X, would you be willing to discuss this? Perhaps that is impossible, perhaps it would require govt subsidy or other incentives to secure corporate participation, I don't know. It feels like at the root, there is more common ground than most can see, but maybe not continents... Iceland perhaps. Feels worthwhile to find it whenever possible. No?
Why do we need someone in charge? The whole concept of that is subject to failure.
Actually, from a conservative point of view, I don't want the government to "fix" things, I want it for the most part to butt out. Something I have learned from human relationships, is that 90% of problems can NEVER be solved. So trying to fix a problem that can not be fixed, is effectively a waste of time and resources, and you are likely to screw things up even more.
Oh I got it. Its a common tactic. Cons always want credit for being good and reasonable without ever acting good and reasonable. Your actions speak to what you want. If your actions allow the harm, then that's what you want.
I'm quoting this a second time to drive home a point. Gridlock is a good thing. 90% of the time when a new law is passed it is redundant or makes things worse. I would love it if congress and the POTUS went on vacation for the next 4 years. Actually, the next 40 years.
If you want gridlock, you should vote for Sanders. He will guarantee few bills get passed.
You shouldV because they has a lot to do with what he will actually do.
Once again I don't think you are representing reality. But even if you were it wouldn't change my point about gridlock.
I tell this to my kids, and to parents who have shitty kids all the time. Actions are louder than words. It's why some kids go to college and others don't; they do what their parents did, not what they say.
It might be easier and even more fair to go in the other direction. Simply get rid of the filibuster and the majority party would get whatever they want. If the minority wanted to change something, they would have to convince the American people and win an election. People on both sides of the aisle have been moving us towards that for years now. Might be very doable to eliminate gridlock.
If I'm not representing reality to you, then you are clearly not as informed as you wish to think you are. There's a reason most politicians, if not ALL of them won't touch the subject of Israel.
That what Plato thought, but that's not very liberal. There's not likely to be much common ground here either. I suggest we stop seeing disagreement and conflict as something to be avoided. Embrace the struggle and work to win.
I thought you were of the opinion that we already rely on the civil courtroom too much in dealing with businesses. Count me as skeptical that you would be happy with opening the doors to many more lawsuits.
Israel isn't high on my list of concerns. When you look up Bernie's position it is a very reasonable two state solution achieved with peace talks not the military and anti Ben. Electing a Jew might be just what we need to have the appropriate moral authority to impact that stalemate. All the anti Semitic tripe will wash right off him.
