Show of HandsShow of Hands

pipes October 20th, 2013 12:01am

Is it better to have our government in total gridlock where nothing gets done; or have the house, senate, and presidency controlled by one party where something gets done but the minority party literally has little say?

14 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

ladyniner81 I need chocolate
10/19/13 9:32 pm

both. gridlock is just stubborness, but total party control is like one child being locked out of a party because he has a yellow shirt on and all the other kids have red shirts on.

Jungle in the dog house
10/19/13 6:36 pm

Damn total control is what brought us Obamacare! Total control is very dangerous, gridlock is better.

Reply
DavesNotHere where am I
10/19/13 5:54 pm

This is where we are screwed. One party rule doesn't work well , but either does gridlock. I'll go with gridlock because it doesn't last 4-8 years.

screename1 Alaska
10/19/13 5:31 pm

Gridlock: less insane laws getting passed, and possibly less spending? The less the bureaucrats can get done, the better off the rest of us I think!

Reply
skinner Jersey City
10/19/13 5:06 pm

Gridlock, one party rule generally doesn't work well