it is a solution

well, a bad one

you have a better one to deal with people who dont accept compramise and also make up half your population?

yes

implement a constitution based on what everyone agrees on,

And give the rest the freedom to do what they wish provided it doesn't hurt/affect other people

people dont agree on anything

the only way youll get them to agree on anything is by having a different constitution for each side, in which case why not have a different country for each side?

because at that point you might aswell resort to full blown anarchy,

Because amongst those people who don't agree with side A, you'll have disagreement

So side B will want to split to side BA and BB
And those will want to split into BAA and BAB, BBA and BBB, and so forth

besides theres most certainly things people can agree upon

youll have disagreement but you wont have absolute non comprise

this is why states should have more power than the do, and the feds less.

because the big issue with your solution is that Futurama incident, "Lets show others of our peaceful ways, by force"

people don't like it in state A? move to state B.

to say that people who are on one side who dont always agree with eachother will disagree with eachother just as much as they disagree with everyone they see as an opponent is a bit silly

if half the people can find a compromise, then the entire people can to, so you're refuting your own argument from earlier

humans are the wrench in any human made system designed for humans.

thats just wrong jayred

Arch-Fiend - today at 20:47
people dont agree on anything

@I AM ERROR Yes, the 'moral high ground', as in marching to saves the lives of children from guns (but then marching to kill (future) children through mass subsidized abortion. 😉

so all the other things dont matter because i said one thing whithout enough context?

the context follows right after

i think what i think speaks clearly enough for myself that i dont have to explain that statement

it does, i'm just pointing it out

it contradicts

trying to make such a system static is just asking for it to be broken. You need to design a system to be fluid, while still maintaining general cohesion. Get the nation to agree upon something, even a majority, and its likely not to happen. Get a whole state to agree on something, there is a small but noticeable chance. a whole county, there is a decent shot, and a whole town there is a good chance.

im not going to argue over it

i'm glad we agree on that

but i would say, the grand majority would agree on actual things,
"Don't murder people" would be one i'm sure both left and right can agree on as a law

nope

Yes, get people to all support the most "common sense" things, like being opposed to terrorists (but then not criticizing people groups like Antifa that are on the terror watch list)

@Dr.Wol depends on how you define murder

if the person is "a nazi", the left would say go for it

"We're against bad things and for good things."

so no, they don't even agree on murder

murder, killing people that do no direct harm i would guess?

the nuances around any basic principle to societys is where different ideologys usually debate. any that actually debate the basic principles are so extreme that we dont even talk about them

but i fear in the current climate, even separating the people in different countries wont work :(

One side will want to kill the other country because "Their existance threatens ours"

i do legitamently think california less it has some big catastrophy soon where it threatens their population growth, may choose to leave the union and it will have a good defense against the rest of the usa by population alone

like how Antifa would attack a guy in a wheelchair

Because 1 person in a wheelchair threatens the entire trans community + antifa and stuff

doesn't california have to import water?

Yeah.