posted by ptown_trojans_1
I understand your philosophy, I just think it does not make sense in governing in today's world.
Government needs to function for society. In order for it to function, you need to have policies and laws in place from both sides of the aisle.
You take part of ideas from the conservative side and liberal to address a problem. Infrastructure, drug policy, and in the past, social security reform and healthcare.
Also, if you are just voting opposing party regardless of candidate, that is very shortsighted as you may be eliminating actually good candidates and lawmakers.
Calling for gridlock does nothing but continue the outrage cycle.
Your philosophy worked 20 years ago or more when both sides would work together and cross party lines.
Think Clinton and Newt Gingrich for example. For the last 12-16 years both sides are complete morons and refuse to work together.
Given that dynamic shift stalemate is better than either side being in complete power.
And if the 2 sides ever get their head out of their asses, splitting power absolutely makes sense still so they are forced to compromise and work together for ideas from both sides just like you said.
With how far both sides have gone away from center (admittedly the Ds have moved way further) I just don’t see them actually compromising and working together anytime soon.
So gridlock is better than full power owned by either side.
And I do “compromise” in my hardline voting philosophy if there is an obvious bad candidate.
For instance, if MTG was in my area or the guy from PA who had a stroke and obvious brain damage, I wouldn’t have voted for them no matter who was in power in the WH (that moron woman from Alaska too, Palin, would have never voted for her, voted for Obama there so she wasn’t 1 heart beat away from POTUS).