I don't make any assumptions about any unilateral moral authority on issues. That is why I call for a constructive dialog at all levels and across all groups of our society.

As for your argument on checks and balances - yes, generally, it is definitely a very good thing. However, when one side uses their position of chamber majority not to collaborate and compromise, but to throw a wrench into "wheels of democracy" and gridlock the Congress (especially, considering the voting record of the current majority in the Senate and essentially zero breaking ranks history), which might be extremely unproductive and even damaging to the lives of the American people, that IMO does not represent the "checks and balances" that you're talking about.

I don't see one side looking to 'collaborate' other than if they had to and I object to the notion that only 'one side' tries to stonewall deals.

Senate votes [1] are almost never perfectly partisan (52-48 in current form). They are all over the place. Romney, Fluke others have bounced on some big votes for Republicans, and frankly, we don't always see the 'break ranks votes' because they are usually foregone: Senate Whip won't take it to the floor if he knows there are a handful of stragglers so those 'broken ranks' are not as visible.

[1] https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_...

There is some truth to what you're saying. However, regarding your non-partisan voting argument, I can say - and that's what I meant in my previous comments - that non-partisan voting was pronounced during previous congressional terms. Unfortunately, the current Congress, with some notable exceptions (like the ones you mentioned as well as the CARES Act), almost always votes across party lines~. Let's see what happens in this regard after January 20th.

~) Also consider @Steltek's point (comment below): "it's hard for Senators to break ranks if bills are never brought to a vote".

How often do senators break ranks? The Hastert rule and Senate majority leader rules have effectively neutered both chambers to rubber stamps for deals and bills negotiated out of public eye.

The playing field need to be leveled here so that party leadership doesn't have a stranglehold on what comes to a vote via backroom deals. Legislators need to have skin in the game, with real debate and actual votes to show where they stand.

It's hard for Senators to break ranks if bills are never brought to a vote.

> there's plenty of room for a 'really good bit of legislation' to get through if the Dems want to push for it.

There's apparently plenty of room on Mitch McConnell's desk. There are already hundreds of bills that passed the House sitting there.

If the Democrats win both Georgia elections (or one GA, and NC), and it ends 50:50, with the VP having the tiebreaker vote, do the Democrats become speaker?

Don't we first need to undo the damage that Trump has done? I can see getting to a point where neither side acts unilaterally, but only after things have been balanced to actually be in the center between the sides.

Specifically, not some feelings you have, what damage?