Hmm. Is it though? You are making rather broad statement here. Would you be willing to offer an example supporting that statement?
<< Democrats were willing to work across the aisle and even adopted republican ideas.
'Were'? It is a real question, but the spirit is the same as above. Can you offer an example you have in your mind. I suspect I know where you are going with this, but I don't want to assume too much.
<< The moment they do, Republicans reject their own ides. Republicans refused to cooperate.
Same as above.
<< It is assymetric and the knee jerk tendency to both side everything just enable it.
No. This is pure silliness and I am frankly tired of hearing this point so I will just call it out.
I like to see things as they are. If things happen to work in a way that I happen to not like, then I do not like those things, but it does not mean said those things are invalid, simply because it was a 'kneejerk' reaction to it.
And even trying to cast it as kneejerk is amazingly inaccurate. This resentment has been building for a long time now ( does anyone even remember Vance's CNN commentary that basically said 'can you hear us now?' ), which kinda sucks for the political class as they will need to figure out a different model ( and it seems they may have already ) to bamboozle the population.
I am happy to discuss further, but you need to give me a little more.
Obama was literally that. And republicans refused to do any cooperation at all and punished own republicans for any compromises. Obama eventually understood it well into his period.
Trying to both sides here is just lie. And yes, knee jerk complain is about people saying 'both sides' because they feel like they have to, not because both sides would be the same.
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 ).
Hmm. Is it though? You are making rather broad statement here. Would you be willing to offer an example supporting that statement?
<< Democrats were willing to work across the aisle and even adopted republican ideas.
'Were'? It is a real question, but the spirit is the same as above. Can you offer an example you have in your mind. I suspect I know where you are going with this, but I don't want to assume too much.
<< The moment they do, Republicans reject their own ides. Republicans refused to cooperate.
Same as above.
<< It is assymetric and the knee jerk tendency to both side everything just enable it.
No. This is pure silliness and I am frankly tired of hearing this point so I will just call it out.
I like to see things as they are. If things happen to work in a way that I happen to not like, then I do not like those things, but it does not mean said those things are invalid, simply because it was a 'kneejerk' reaction to it.
And even trying to cast it as kneejerk is amazingly inaccurate. This resentment has been building for a long time now ( does anyone even remember Vance's CNN commentary that basically said 'can you hear us now?' ), which kinda sucks for the political class as they will need to figure out a different model ( and it seems they may have already ) to bamboozle the population.
I am happy to discuss further, but you need to give me a little more.