Chunk;
Let me try again. We have, two political bases; Liberals and Conservatives. (I know they can be broken down further and further but I will stick with this for now).
Anyway, this is, again basically, a battle between those who believe in original sin and those who do not. The Liberals believe in original sin. The Liberals believe that its necessary to regulate citizens so they don't get into trouble. On the other hand the conservatives believe that ANY regulations remove the rights of persons to do the right thing. If you know any conservatives ask them how they feel about, say, Social Security. You will be told that this takes away the personal right to decide for themselves how they want to retire and gov should not be messing with that. Again, basically, Conservatives are against any and all regulation.
I have been doing this dance, and arguing with conservative friends for a very long time about this stuff. My main concern is that this means that the conservatives also have a LOT more faith in their fellow humans than do the Liberals which I have always found to be very strange. All that being said its the truth and, to my way of thinking, kinda strange.
I think the important thing, as far as those two sides are concerned, is that, most of the time, both sides are capable of recognizing something that needs fixing. Take rape. I believe that both sides find that rape is not a good thing. it doesn't need regulation it needs to be gone. The question is a solution. The solution is when both sides have to sit down and decide how that gets done. This is, in the political sense, how two sides are supposed to be able to sit down and make decisions (I know, it gets more complicated but I am going with simple here).
Most of our current problems is because NEITHER side is will to sit down and talk about problems that may have solutions. Each lives in their own little enclave does not give an inch. Each side also gets to live with failure and that is the shame of it all - for both sides.
In India the people have a solution, for instance, to government overreach. I am not sure its still going on but it was a good one. What happened is that everybody in the community surrounds the place with gov does its business. I have seen this one in action and its impressive. Nobody, and nothing, gets in or out until those inside make decisions that those on the outside can live with. This gets done because both sides must talk so that they, first, actually understand what the problem is and THEN decide what to do about it.
Right now I am not even convinced we have even gotten to the point of actually agreeing on what the problem is.
Oh, one last. Hitler took over when he only had 30% of voters on his side. This is because the other side was not of one mind but many, so the 30% won. I am hoping that Trump does not win with his 30% but, given how the other side behaves (liberals, moderates, left, progressives, etc), I am not convinced that Trump won't win which I believe would be a literal disaster!
This is, incidentally, why I would vote for Bernie if he was running as the candidate of the Democratic party. You, I think, believe that getting a progressive venue is the most important thing, even more important than beating Trump. I don't and I have a lot of company on this one. The problem, I think, is that I consider the race for president to be more important than the ongoing battles between moderates, liberals, progressives, etc. That is a party problem not a presidential problem. I also remain convinced that Bernie could never beat Trump (because, incidentally, there are not enough voters on his side to even get the nomination). The problem there is that Bernie and followers tend to talk a lot with one another whilst discounting everybody else. That's never a real good idea.
Anyway..........
