I always cringe at the mention of "we want the same things"/"we agree on more than we disagree" when it is someone who has politics that are diametrically opposed to my own. When you want to go the exact opposite direction that I do, we are nowhere near "wanting the same things."
Having some vague "same" end goal is not the same thing as a fully implemented set of policies seen to their conclusion. Because of this, common ground is most often not found.
If someone I am conversing with says they also do not like what is going on with token gay characters in movies, it might seem like we agree when I say I do not like it either. But when I find out the reason they do not like it is because they think there is not enough emphasis on the homosexual character and that they should have more than a few seconds of onscreen homosexuality, then it is most certainly not the same thing as me not wanting it to be present at all.
Anyone can say they do not like the current US healthcare system and say it should be improved. But when discussing solutions, if you have one person saying we should go full free market and the other saying we should have it fully socialized, then you are not going to find any agreement beyond "the current system sucks."
And besides, we see currently that both proponents think the presence of elements of each other's system is the problem while their own is the solution.
@houseoftolstoy The solution is civilization collapse that way we can cut the heads off the weak. Then we won't have sickly weak people bitching about not having free stuff.