A pragmatic political query - Where's the most effective stasis between balance of power

[pinto]

and constant conflict?

The one is inherent in our Constitution, the other endemic in day-to-day politics.

Are they one and the same? Or is there some window of opportunity between the two?

A simplistic construct, I know, but any opinions?

[snowbear]

1. Well.. since it's the wee hours, we'll have to pass this one to the DU Donkey..

.
.


.
.
.

Uh oh.


.
.


You've stumped the band AND the DU Donkey pinto!!

We're gonna have to pass this one onto the wide awake day shift to ponder.

~~~~~

[pinto]

3. LOL, yeah.

love the donkey gif...

[shraby]

2. If they'd all stay on their own turf, there'd be

no conflict.

[pinto]

4. Good point. I'm fine with up front disagreement and negotiation. I work in a team of 12 people.

We don't make earth shattering decisions. The world would go on without us, guaranteed.

Yet we debate, discuss, speak up and come to a consensus. We're public servants (I work in Public Health).

And we are reminded that the end result is not about us, so much, though that's *important* for sure, but primarily it's about the goals of our programs.

[bridgit]

5. Disrespect for the Constitution/no justice, no justice/no peace, no peace/constant conflict...

constant conflict/unbalanced power, unbalanced power/disrespect for the Constitution, um/etc?

[elleng]

6. Right in the MIDDLE.

The MODERATE MIDDLE.

[bridgit]

7. 'balance' is a DLC tool, they don't serve it in the cafeteria here, not part of the food group...