I may have a bit of a sarcastic tone, but I'm nevertheless interpreting your words as well as I can.

> If only the DNC was interested in promoting candidates that work for the people and aren't just interested in lip service while mostly maintaining the status quo. Things could have been different. Imagine what 8 years of Bernie and a functioning Congress might have accomplished.

Yes, you acknowledge that a functioning Congress is necessary for the scenario, but at least by my reading, only perfunctorily. It's thrown in with no visible connection to the rest of the scenario.

Maybe I misread this and the actual starting point for your scenario is a DNC that works for the people, and this leads to both Bernie and a functioning Congress? I still don't buy it. Such a well-intentioned party is already fantasy in my view (we could equally well imagine a well-intended GOP), and even if it existed it wouldn't fix all the problems that a single party can cause. The whole scenario falls apart. That could be why I missed this interpretation: it's less common to see, still doesn't make sense, and Bernie in particular doesn't really figure into it.

> But as you've already pointed out, it's kind of pointless if the fundamental problem is a malfunctioning executive branch (and a federal government with far too much power).

This is technically phrased as a conditional, but with subtext that accepts the premise about the "fundamental problem" (and is content-free otherwise). This makes it an implicit claim that the fundamental problem is indeed the executive.

If you don't think these statements show a lack of focus on Congress's dysfunctionality, clarify.

Again, that claim of incorrect focus was the main content of my original response to your "things could have been better":

> That "functioning Congress" requirement is doing a lot of the work in that claim, and no single election result would make that happen.

Maybe the "no single election result" thing was a misread, but why else would you mention Bernie unless you thought that was significant enough to matter? It isn't. The problem is the incentives in the overall system, and everything you've talked about is downstream of those.

Anyway, my perspective as a former federal worker is mostly a hundred papercuts that have mercifully faded into the past, but which at the time were all traceable to some act, or failure to act, of Congress. It was mind-numbing at the time, and could only be boring now even if I recalled the details.

You did misread me and you're still misreading my hypothetical situation as some kind of fantasy, when it is simply a baseline for how good things can be so that we can gauge just how far off track we are. You are ascribing intent and meaning to my words that were not present.

> If you don't think these statements show a lack of focus on Congress's dysfunctionality, clarify

Arguing about meta on the internet with a stranger is not something I find fun nor a good use of my time. I clarified my intent, so latching on to a misunderstanding that has already been corrected completely derails the conversation from the actual topic.

> This is technically phrased as a conditional

Dude, it's okay to misunderstand someone on the internet. I tried clarifying, smoothing things over and discussing the topic but you have replied with a list of technicalities and further assumptions and and even more negative attitude. This is not a healthy way to discuss anything, especially because we are no longer even discussing the thing; instead you're expecting me to continue defending myself against a barrage of further misunderstandings and assumptions.

Have a nice day, please do not respond with further bickering.