I will admit it is a good response, because McConnell is effectively on the record[2] for actively torpedoing any opposing party moves. Still, affordable ACA passed with -- I might add -- 'bipartisan' support ( quotation, because phrase is thrown out the moment even one opposing party joins the vote ).
On the other hand, we may need to go over some definitions, because it is possible we are somehow not talking about the same thing, but use the same words further confusing this conversation.
<< and punished own republicans for any compromises.
<< ( previous comment ) The moment they do, Republicans reject their own ides.
Practical question. Sides or ideas in the above as it will affect my interpretation.
>> In fact, since the system is built for gridlock, both parties happily pretend to care about given's electorate red meat, while blaming the other party for failing to do X. It is a perfect scenario for an elected official: do nothing
<< The lock is VERY one sided.
Let us assume for a moment that I buy into your premise.
The current system is built around gridlock. I am not joking. The whole separation of powers is basically saying 'if you can't work something out, each side has opportunities to grind the system to a halt'. Which side uses the feature more is irrelevant to equation given that the system effectively incentivizes its use. We can talk all day about how things should be, but you don't exactly win golf tournaments by performing synchronized swimming routine.
Anyway, my very subtle point that both sides are the same stands. Do you know why? Because the 'sides' that do not understand the system and the rules it operates under do not last in congress very long ( and are ousted as you pointed out in your example ).
I will admit it is a good response, because McConnell is effectively on the record[2] for actively torpedoing any opposing party moves. Still, affordable ACA passed with -- I might add -- 'bipartisan' support ( quotation, because phrase is thrown out the moment even one opposing party joins the vote ).
On the other hand, we may need to go over some definitions, because it is possible we are somehow not talking about the same thing, but use the same words further confusing this conversation.
<< and punished own republicans for any compromises. << ( previous comment ) The moment they do, Republicans reject their own ides.
Practical question. Sides or ideas in the above as it will affect my interpretation.
>> In fact, since the system is built for gridlock, both parties happily pretend to care about given's electorate red meat, while blaming the other party for failing to do X. It is a perfect scenario for an elected official: do nothing << The lock is VERY one sided.
Let us assume for a moment that I buy into your premise.
The current system is built around gridlock. I am not joking. The whole separation of powers is basically saying 'if you can't work something out, each side has opportunities to grind the system to a halt'. Which side uses the feature more is irrelevant to equation given that the system effectively incentivizes its use. We can talk all day about how things should be, but you don't exactly win golf tournaments by performing synchronized swimming routine.
Anyway, my very subtle point that both sides are the same stands. Do you know why? Because the 'sides' that do not understand the system and the rules it operates under do not last in congress very long ( and are ousted as you pointed out in your example ).
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Care_Act [2]https://www.inkl.com/news/mcconnell-wrote-blueprint-on-obstr...