both sides agree some trades make them puke
the bald one says here is why that this is wrong
we end up with two pukey bills
like consent to a judge half the country does not want
and pass on an ambassador the other half wants
then celebrate each win by puking
an example
one state gets low housing funding by accepting a military base in his state
no negotiations like
why do not the low income people get the jobs of building low income housing
instead of keeping military bases that are not needed?
how did our citizens get to the state of wanting a job that is not needed
when it would be more logical, to give those who will actually lose their jobs
a two year severance pay or some such
instead of “busy work” and every government worker
knows that demand…how else to grow a bigger trough?
the answer to the question si:
to have a law abiding country
laws must not offend half, or more, of the country
the higher the percentage of the country that agrees with a law
the lower degree of laws broken
in the old days
the elders would debate until they were blue in the face
they would either reach a consensus or they would wear themselves out
and no new law, or enactment, would occur
at least until or unless strength was garnered for another debate
and rules yes lets have rules of debate
civility not being the least among them
how long has it been since political conventions were about selection
instead of celebration and complete unity?
is 60% agreement really too much to ask?