2 ms·

That's not how government works; it's not about pragmatic solutions or logical solutions; it's about what you can get enough people to agree on, which is what O

That's not how government works; it's not about pragmatic solutions or logical solutions; it's about what you can get enough people to agree on, which is what Obamacare is, the most enough people could agree on to get it passed. Whatever isn't in there, isn't there because it wouldn't have passed so all Monday morning quarterbacking about what it should have been entirely misses the point about how government works. Governing is about consensus among ideologically opposed members, not about correctness or efficiency.

tracker1 10y ago
And the problem is that everyone in congress is trying to push for their own optimal interests, so the compromises are less ideal than a more pragmatic approach that would have the same effect as compromise from all parties. It's not either's ideal, but still better. If I had the financial independence to run for Congress, I absolutely would.. unfortunately I need to work for a living, and being able to sustain a living while even trying to run isn't something I'd be able to do. Beyond this, running as a Libertarian would be even more difficult. First, I'm in favor of voting for no incumbents for a few election cycles... from there, I'd love to see actual politicians working to sell pragmatic choices towards consensus instead of the give/take we get today, with the boatloads of pork that come with it.
- gnaritas 10y ago
  > so the compromises are less ideal Such is the nature of democracy and all design by committee, accept it, it's better than the alternative: dictatorship. > than a more pragmatic approach Forcing more pragmatic approaches would require dictatorship and thus is simply not the correct measure to be looking at. > If I had the financial independence to run for Congress, I absolutely would.. That wouldn't make any difference, there'd still be a committee and the resulting solutions will never be the more pragmatic ones.

tracker1 10y ago

And the problem is that everyone in congress is trying to push for their own optimal interests, so the compromises are less ideal than a more pragmatic approach that would have the same effect as compromise from all parties. It's not either's ideal, but still better. If I had the financial independence to run for Congress, I absolutely would.. unfortunately I need to work for a living, and being able to sustain a living while even trying to run isn't something I'd be able to do. Beyond this, running as a Libertarian would be even more difficult. First, I'm in favor of voting for no incumbents for a few election cycles... from there, I'd love to see actual politicians working to sell pragmatic choices towards consensus instead of the give/take we get today, with the boatloads of pork that come with it.

gnaritas 10y ago
> so the compromises are less ideal Such is the nature of democracy and all design by committee, accept it, it's better than the alternative: dictatorship. > than a more pragmatic approach Forcing more pragmatic approaches would require dictatorship and thus is simply not the correct measure to be looking at. > If I had the financial independence to run for Congress, I absolutely would.. That wouldn't make any difference, there'd still be a committee and the resulting solutions will never be the more pragmatic ones.