One thing the Republicans seem to grasp that our side doesn't.

[Bonobo]

"Shoot for the stars and you may reach the sky"

In negotiation, you will ALWAYS get less than you ask for. Almost everyone knows this. And yet, time and time again, we see a demonstration that only the Repukes actually put that understanding to the test.
They escalate and escalate and escalate. And thus they pull the center towards their side. I have been screaming about this for years.

When this latest episode of Republican "craziness" is done, we will have a budget that it at sequester levels and possibly some other small bones thrown to them.

Where has the "adult talk" gotten us? What have the attempts at bi-partisanship achieved? I'll tell you: They have allowed the center of the rope in our tug of war to be pulled inexorably to the right.

Crazy? Like foxes.

They may suffer some repercussions, but as a whole we will find that they have pulled things further to the right while we look down and see that we were sliding on muddied ground.

[1000words]

1. Rec

[Gravitycollapse]

2. If you're suggesting we become more psychotic and less intelligent, I'm out.

I'll watch this country burn.

[Bonobo]

3. That's what you ARE watching.

But it's more like a slow smoldering.

[Gravitycollapse]

4. Then it was inevitable. There is no gain from being dumber and crazier.

It would only mean burning it faster.

[Bonobo]

5. No, I genuinely believe that harder pushing to the left would result in more gains to the left.

MOST people don't really know what to believe. They take non-verbal cues from all around them.

A person who thinks themselves "a middle of the road sort of person" will be inclined to look at both sides of a dialectic and, taking the middle path, conclude themselves to be "pragmatic".

This dynamic is clearly a major one in play and in itself suggests my point is correct.

[Th1onein]

8. You are ABSOLUTELY right, Bonobo. But watch out: they'll call you an Emoprog.

That term makes me sick to my stomach. It was clearly coined by a rightwinger who wants us to sit by and let them take the entire field.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. It was coined by someone who doesn't like to see unity on our side,

and was transparently trying to stir shit.

IMHO.

[Gravitycollapse]

22. Well, there is a difference between taking a hard left and acting insane.

I fully support a more radical agenda as long as it is informed.

[sendero]

62. This is called "soviet style" negotiation..

... as their tactic was to always ask for way more than they expected and then give up things they never expected to get anyway as "concessions".

As a style of negotiation, it can be very effective, although many find it distasteful and dishonest.

The big risk factor is that if your initial demand is TOO far afield of any possible outcome, it comes with a cost to your credibility.

[sabrina 1]

53. It was crazy to ever 'compromise' with lunatic bullies. THAT is why we are

where we are. They will now demand cuts to SS etc, in order to end their hostage taking. Did anyone think this was only about the ACA?

But now that Dems have finally learned that you don't negotiate with terrorists, hopefully they will teach them a lesson they badly need to learn. ANY CHANCE that Dems would agree to their demands on SS has no disappeared completely. From now on Dems will be the kind of Parents who do not reward temper-tantrum throwing. The old days of trying to appease them are over.

Hopefully! But I'm afraid that deals are already being made. To help save terrorist face will Dems compromise with deceptive Chained CPI eg?? I certainly hope not but Harry Reid's letter offering to compromise on Budget issues yesterday has made me very nervous.

I hope I am wrong.

[rpannier]

32. I take it as

The Democrats start from a point and don't say 'negotiate' or 'we can find a center or common ground.'
That's how most successful negotiators work

[Scuba]

61. That's quite a leap.

[longship]

6. Rubbish! nt

[Douglas Carpenter]

7. I think that's a petty straightforward and rational understanding of how it works

When all is done and said - the Republicans will probably appear to lose this fight - BUT the accomplishments of the New Deal and the Great Society will have moved backwards albeit significantly less than the Republican dream and the right-wing agenda will have moved forward albeit significantly less than what they want.

[Th1onein]

9. You're right.

The left needs to become more vocal, like the Tea Party. What do you think of the new term "EmoProg"? I think it's crap.

[Warren DeMontague]

12. I think it was made up by a troll.

Who was doing what trolls do.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=292212&sub=trans

[Th1onein]

20. I don't think you are correct. Or, at least, not by that particular troll.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Emo%20Progressive

[Warren DeMontague]

25. Fair enough.

Still i think that obvious troll is obvious around dividing the board and shit stirring. At least, that one was. That's the only person I saw use that term.

[merrily]

34. You can do a google search for it on DU.

[Warren DeMontague]

47. Nah.

I'm not really that interested. I've seen the act, already.

[merrily]

56. I mean only that it has been used on DU a good while ago.

IMO, it's not more (or less) divisive than a lot of the terms used at DU.


Also, IMO, there is a division in the party on quite a few issues, not so much on the level of the professional politicians as on the level of the voters.

[Th1onein]

80. It's an INSULT. The rightwingers use it to try to shut us up.

Oh, you don't like the NSA spying on every word you say? Well, you need to just quiet down now, because you're just an overemotional progressive. Along the same lines as not electing women because they are "overemotional."

[Warren DeMontague]

16. Obama put a significant marker down on the field with the ACA. He accomplished a very large

and long-overdue broadening of the safety net.

Is it perfect? Is it a SPHC system? No. But it does a number of things far and away better than the prior status quo, starting with making sure Insurance Companies can't deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. AND it expands medicaid. It offers options to people who previously had none.

It is huge, and people WILL Like it, just as they've liked medicare and social security- the new deal and the great society programs of which you speak- which is why the GOP is so desperate to stop it.

It is a real-world demonstration of how these programs can and do help people.

[Warren DeMontague]

10. I disagree. I think when they overreach, all they accomplish is looking insane.

I think this is going to play at LEAST as badly for them as the '95-'96 shutdown.

[DontTreadOnMe]

11. One of the major reasons the Left gets very little accomplished.

They don't want to "play" the game. We are "above" that type of strategy... so instead, we settle for nothing.

A losing strategy at best. I am tired of this losing strategy, time to fight back... hard.

[Warren DeMontague]

14. We need to get the House back in 2014.

Otherwise, we can't do jack.

[DontTreadOnMe]

15. The strategy to get the House back includes learning how to "play" the negotiation game.

The Left should demand 10 things... and settle for at least one. Instead, I don't see the Left demanding anything.

[Warren DeMontague]

17. I think the strategy to get the house back figures out how to shoehorn out at least a few of these

crazy-fuck gerrymandered teabag districts. That's the problem. It's not that the progressives in the house aren't progressive enough, it's that there are enough crazy-fuck districts to send crazy-fuck teabaggers in to gum up the works.

While I agree about articulating progressive points, I'm not sure how that's going to flip any of the districts we need to flip. The districts that will respond to that stuff are already blue.

[DontTreadOnMe]

18. Here is how the Left needs to play the game...

The Teabbaggers want to "delay" ObamaCare.

The Progressives in safe areas should send a counteroffer, such as raising the contribution on Social Security caps - something they would NEVER agree on.

Make our demand just as outrageous as their demand. Then it negates their demand as being in the center. It cancels out their demand. Every time they demand something, we need to counter with a demand from our side.

This gives reasonable policies to remain in the center, and makes the Teabaggers look like they do not represent the center. There are many areas of this country where the Teabagger position is portrayed as a "mainstream" position. We need to make them look extreme, all the time.

[Warren DeMontague]

23. I hear you. I kind of lean towards the idea that just saying "fuck you" negates the idea that there

Even deserves to be any "negotiating" going on. Because that's what im seeing- our people saying "fuck you"- as they should.

There's nothing to "negotiate" around the ACA. It's the law of the land. They tried the supreme court, they tried a presidential election, they couldnt stop it.

So i dont buy that even "negotiation" is a legitimate framing here.

But i do hear your point.

[DontTreadOnMe]

31. The Progressive Left needs to start making demands

Many demands. It moves the discussion to the Left.

The Teabaggers have moved the everything to the right.

Start with gun control. Universal background checks on ALL gun sales. Tack it onto every bill.

Agree to "negotiate" by taking it off a bill, if they take something off too.

I can come up with 100 more items we could be tacking onto bills to help us "negotiate".

We need to "play" the game.

[Warren DeMontague]

33. I think part of the problem are the way the rules of the House operate.

The GOP controls the committees that draft the bills, unless I'm mistaken.

[merrily]

36. Unless the Democrats are in the majority?

Nothing wrong with rules that favor the majority, IMO. All you have to do is win at the polls. Elections are supposed to have consequences.

The Senate rules, however, are designed for gridlock and protection of the party that lost at the polls.

ETA: Also designed to hide, as much as possible, who is responsible for flustercluck.

However, if you are saying the House rules allow Republicans to control legislation when they are in the minority, that's flat out insane.

[joshcryer]

41. The speaker can sign off on any vote.

The speaker is chosen by the majority. So no, you're right that there's nothing wrong with rules that favor the majority. Unless said majority is applying the Hastert "majority of the majority" rule. Which the Republicans tend to do more often than the Democrats. This is what Warren is alluding to because, while the Republicans are the majority, the minority of the majority is running the show because the Speaker continues to apply the "majority of the majority" "rule."

There is an incredibly insane subset of the majority that, in itself, is a minority, but combined with the more sane members (but still rather insane compared to the rest) constitutes the majority. Hope that makes sense. We call this incredibly insane subset the "teabaggers." But they're not quite insane enough to be far removed from the "more sane" Republicans.

[merrily]

43. That is not what Warren said.

What he said was "The GOP controls the committees that draft the bills, unless I'm mistaken."

That is what I responded to.

Had he cited the Haestert rule, my response would have been different.

Haestert recently said that the so-called Haestert rule is misnamed. It's not his rule. Of course, what they call it or who they name it after is irrelevant.

You cannot outlaw it, either, because, if they want, they would only go underground to determine what the majority wants.

IMO, they are doing themselves in for midterms. That does not make me happy about the shutdown, because too many people are suffering for me to have a partisan take on it. However, if they are doing it anyway, I feel fine to hope that it hurts them at the polls.

[Warren DeMontague]

45. I should have been clearer and said "The GOP controls...etc. NOW"

They obviously don't if they stop having the majority of votes. I thought that was apparent; but I guess not.

[joshcryer]

50. The current speaker is GOP.

So we don't disagree.

I'm explaining why the speaker is being controlled by a minority within that majority under the Hastert rule.

No doubt they are screwing themselves. We saw this under Clinton with Newt.

The "rule" is named after Hastert, because he formulated the basic idea, it was basically never spoken of until he explained it. He didn't invent it, he just explained how it worked. Even Nancy Pelosi has used the "rule."

[merrily]

52. Yes, I know the current speaker is Republican and am also familiar with the Haester rule.

As I said, Haestert recently denied that the rule is his.

[joshcryer]

58. Who cares what he says. Common vernacular has made him own it.

Just like "Santorium" has its own special meaning. He formulated the rule.

If you prefer we can talk about the "majority of the majority" rule but that's a lot of typing. Either way it's the same concept.

[merrily]

63. As I said, I consider it irrelevant who they name it after.

He denies he formulated the rule. If you disagree with him, you need to take it up with him. I am only reporting what he said. Point is, he is trying to distance himself from it (which I hope is a positive sign).

[joshcryer]

65. He did formulate it. He didn't originate it.

That's all.

Those before him never came out and explained it.

He did. Therefore he gets to have the rule named after him.

He tried to distance himself from it because who wants their name to reflect a shitty rule that has created the most divisive politics in the House ever? It should be called the Tip O'Neill Rule, and that's probably why Hastert hates that it conveys his name. But Tip O'Neill never said "I'm using the majority of the majority rule." Hastert did.

[merrily]

68. If you say that he did not originate it, I am not sure what you mean by "he formulated it."

How does explaining something someone before you invented make a rule yours?

If I explain how a light bulb works (not that I could), should I get blame or credit for the light bulb?

This seems silly.

Point is, if he is now distancing himself from it, after all that time, I think that means that the more traditional Republicans asked him to speak out. At least I hope so.

[joshcryer]

70. Formulation is just explaining.

Originating is creating or being the first to use it.

Hastert was the first to formulate it because he was the first to explain it (he probably regrets that he did so since he was by far not the first to use it, quite a few others used it before he did).

for·mu·late
1 a : to reduce to or express in a formula
b : to put into a systematized statement or expression
c : devise <formulate a policy>
2 a : to develop a formula for the preparation of (as a soap or plastic)
b : to prepare according to a formula

Perhaps, though, articulate would've been a better word to use here. Hastert was first to articulate the "majority of the majority" rule.

I think he's distancing himself from it because it's a shitty rule and history will not look kind upon those who have used it, that includes Nancy Pelosi.

[merrily]

72. Are we going to go back and forth on definitions, too?

for·mu·late
ˈfôrmyəˌlāt/
verb
verb: formulate; 3rd person present: formulates; past tense: formulated; past participle: formulated; gerund or present participle: formulating

1.
create or devise methodically (a strategy or a proposal).
"economists and statisticians were needed to help formulate economic policy"
synonyms: devise, conceive, work out, think up, draw up, put together, form, produce, fashion, concoct, contrive, forge, hatch, prepare, develop; More

ETA: Don't know about you, but the above was the very first thing that came up when I googled a definition of formulate. And check out your own list of synonyms.

[joshcryer]

74. I was using it under the second definition.

Not the first. Words have different meanings. But since you're insistent, you can replace all references to Hastert by me using "formulate" with "articulate." I'm fine conceding that. I messed up. Hastert was first to articulate the term and that's why the term was named after him. Happy?

[Warren DeMontague]

44. Yes, the party that controls the house controls the committees.

While I believe the minority party - or anyone- can introduce legislation; civics classes were a long time ago, mind you- the idea that the Democrats while being in the minority could tack on additional "demands" to, say, appropriations bills as the prior poster suggested- I don't think it works that way.

Yes, obviously my whole point in this subthread is that job one for our party needs to be to retake the majority in the house; fortunately the crazy-ass teabaggers are making that significantly easier IMHO.

(Edited to add; yeah, I guess it's even worse than that, which figures and explains alot, i.e. the "Hastert Rule", misnamed or not)

Lastly on your point about elections- yeah. Sure. Although in terms of sheer numbers there were about 1.5 million more votes cast for Democrats in House races, than Republicans. The situation we have NOW is one whereby a very small minority of members in the House, from gerrymandered districts full of crazy people, somehow have the power to hold the whole country hostage. "Rules" or no, that's fucked up and a situation what needs to change. When the Democrats controlled the House and a Republican was in the White House, divided government was made to work- in fact, it has worked well in the past under different combinations. What you have now, though, is divided government that is NOT working. So something needs to change.

As for "elections have consequences", it's fucking funny that the GOP doesn't seem to want to deal with the consequences of losing TWO Presidential elections. The ACA is the law of the land, and every damn thing they've thrown at it- from the Supreme Court to Mitt Romney- has failed. They need to grow the fuck up and deal with the consequences of being a minority party that does not represent most Americans, and stop trying to punish the country for not voting for their sorry asses.

[merrily]

73. I think you misperceived the point of my post by a lot.

Think I'll leave it at that.

[joshcryer]

38. Basically. The majority owns the vote. Discharge petitions never happen.

You can overrule the majority with a discharge petition but that's extremely risky for those in the majority party. If they sign said petition made by the minority party they're going to be effectively shunned.

So this is why, as you initially said, we need to get back control of the House. Even by 1 vote. One singular vote. Who cares if there are blue dogs in there, even. We need to be able to control the legislation and feed the less unreasonable Republicans with pork to get them to vote on our stuff.

[merrily]

46. I care if there are blue dogs, but the DCCC hardly even backs a new candidate who is not a

conservadem of one stripe or another. Incumbents first (politically understandable), then conservadems.

A wrinkle is someone famous and thought to be charismatic and/or popular already, also politically understandable, name recognition being a huge factor.

[joshcryer]

54. Hey, fair enough, I can get behind that.

I gave the idea that we could elect faux-"blue dogs", I'd be behind that. Let's elect center-right politicians who in reality are left leaning. Once they start pressing good progressive legislation their constituents will understand what we're about. You can't recall a federal elector. They'd have years to get what they want done. The constituents would just have to live with it, and, if done properly, actually flip their alignment.

The DCCC goes with whoever they think is electable. We can convince them a faux-"blue dog" is electable, then once they win, they start implementing progressive policies.

[merrily]

60. "The DCCC goes with whoever they think is electable." Meh.

We could go around in circles playing word games and speculating on motivation, but I would rather stick to facts than attempt to read minds. The Committee picks incumbents and conservadems, period, absent the fame factor mentioned in my prior post.

I think my prior post covered your other points.

[joshcryer]

64. I think that's too simplistic.

I think they give the conservadems the backing but you look at, say, Warren, and it's just not true (they raised the most, $36 million, for her campaign). The DCCC is even pushing more women candidates for 2014.

It's about image, about likability, about whether or not they think they can win. Winning is the whole damn point. I know it sucks to hear this, but Elizabeth Warren is proof. I guarantee they would've sunk her if they thought she wouldn't win. They wouldn't have spent a dime on her campaign.

[merrily]

66. Warren may be an exception. I am not sure yet. And that is Massachusetts, too.

[joshcryer]

69. What about those EMILY's List candidates the DCCC is supporting?

C'mon... I think Occam's razor is the solution here. The DCCC goes after who they think can get elected.

[merrily]

71. You can't equate EMILY's list with "liberal."

EMILY's list candidate are all female, but not all liberal.

So, I can't have any kind of discussion based on anything but individuals.

For example:

EMILY's List supported Coakley in the primary, with a million bucks plus advertising. ( Bill Clinton campaigned in the primary for her, too.)

Capuano was in that primary, too. He was an incumbent member of Congress. He was a proven liberal and a proven vote getter.

Besides, EMILY's list support automatically means money and a lot of sympathy from female voters, so you those are factors, too.

The House Progressive Caucus keeps shrinking and more and more Third Way types are populating the House. Res ipsa loquitur.


I don't think we are going to agree on this, so I'm not sure this is a point in going back and forth.

[joshcryer]

75. Fair enough, I only checked the first three.

Who seemed left wing enough (two of them don't have large portfolios so I don't know for sure).

[DireStrike]

83. Exactly how it should be done.

[Th1onein]

84. ABSOLUTELY.

And make no mistake about it--this shutdown is a losing game for the Thugs. And they know it.

[joshcryer]

37. This may not be popular, but we might just need some hardcore liars.

Throw a "blue dog" in there that lies to the representatives to the core, and just does everything opposite of what the districts want. The Republican brand is already shit, if you put a progressive in these districts, but they pretend to be blue dogs or right wing or center right or whatever, and then they do good by these districts, they'll get elected again.

[merrily]

49. You don't need to lie. You just don't have to label people.

Scott Brown never even called himself a Republican when he campaigned, let alone explaining where he fell on the spectrum. He pretended to be gathering information from the people and to be ready to do their will.

When an issue is very popular, like raising taxes cuts on the rich, it transcends party lines, getting over 70% approval in polls.

The exceptions, of course, are the church issues. You are either going to get the religious extremist right vote or you are not. They accept no middle ground, now going after even contraception again, almost fifty years after a SCOTUS decision.

[joshcryer]

57. That's true, but the intent is still there.

You can say "I believe in lower taxes," but actually mean, "I believe in lower taxes for the middle class and below."

Real Blue Dogs say "I am for lower taxes" and they mean it, for everyone, but it benefits the rich the most because the rich have disproportionately more capital.

Then with regards to contraceptives, you say "I am for less abortions." That doesn't mean that you're necessarily anti-choice, it could mean that you're for free contraceptives and sexual education! But if you start off with that, you won't get elected, reasonably speaking. The Democrats have actually learned to use this framing as of late, but I don't know that it's been successful in blue dog states, particularly heavily gerrymandered areas.

[DireStrike]

82. I agree.

Lying works a lot of the time because the media just repeats every argument as "he-said she-said". It does trade upon the ... dignity?... of the party, but that's better than not using that dignity to accomplish anything.

[joshcryer]

28. Yep. And we need to fix the filibuster rules.

Then shit can get done.

[Fumesucker]

55. Deadpan humor is so underappreciated these days

[joshcryer]

59. Reid doesn't want to get rid of his baby.

[Turborama]

35. Deja vu of what was being said when Obama's polls went down during the 08 campaign

I got a vivid flashback when reading that.

[Orsino]

19. The Republicans don't "seem to grasp." They have BEEN grasped...

...by big, big money. Credit them for discipline or vision? No, I'll blame them for cheerfully accepting their yoke, and pity the sanest who occasionally try to act right but are quickly slapped down.

They aren't leading; they are obeying, and competing with each other to see who can obey the hardest.

[LiberalAndProud]

21. You may be right.

I'll be watching for the fallout in 2014. They're short term gains may be followed by significant electoral losses.

As for pushing for left-er policies, we first need politicians who aren't beholden to right-sourced funding.

[Live and Learn]

24. True, I have often faulted Democrats for the same

especially when we have the upper hand. But in this case, it isn't negotiation it is blatant coercion.

[hfojvt]

26. unfortunately I think that is right

I saw a really depressing chart on FB. It showed that the Senate budget, which has been/is being rejected by the House is very nearly the same as the Ryan budget.

Trouble is that the Kabuki theater seems to favor them. The House will "give in" and pass a budget. Yet they will have pleased their base, by "fighting like hell" for their "principles" and, just like with ATRA, Democrats will feel good as Republicans "gave in" and passed a budget. Never mind that it is almost the Ryan budget. Clap for Obama's great "victory". Just like his previous budget "victory" - making most of the Bush tax cuts permanent.

[joshcryer]

27. Boehner: I got 98 percent of what I wanted

I think a more nuanced position is that Democrats want legislation to pass, want to get things done, but the Republicans, particularly the far right teabaggers, simply want the government to fail. They don't want anything to get done except to repeal everything that has been done. They're undoers. They think the almighty markets will solve everything. Deregulate, deconstruct, devolve.

[redgreenandblue]

29. The new deal didn't happen because people asked for the new deal.

The new deal happened because the ruling elites feared a communist revolution.

The mistake liberals make is to pre-emptively denounce their fringe elements in order to appear reasonable. A better strategy is to use these fringe elements as a bargaining chip.

Even if I don't agree with what they have to say, I think for the sake of balance America could use some radical far-left movements.

[cui bono]

30. Agree. Bill Maher had a great New Rules a couple years back where he said this.

That if the Republicans are going to keep going further and further to the right and make crazy demands then we should too. One of the things he listed that we should ask for is free abortions at every McDonald's drive thru. lol. Man... I have a clip of it somewhere... wish I knew where it was... I laughed so hard.

[merrily]

42. Great for comedy, not good for politics.

A major difference between the two largest parties right now is that one of them sounds a lot less unreasonable and insane than the other.

On the other hand, no point giving away the store in your opening bid, either.

[cui bono]

48. Well of course he pushed it to the extreme to make it funny and poke fun at how crazy the other

side is, but it's still true that we need to start off with what we really want in our wildest dreams, then negotiate from there. Then they can't say we didn't give them anything. Well they can and will say it, but everyone will know they are full of it.

As it has been with this admin, we start off the negotiations giving them a lot of what they want, then they say oh, wait a minute, we want more. And then we end up being happy we got a sequester.

[merrily]

51. Yes.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

39. There is no negotiation on allowing a vote on a clean Continuing Resolution.

You want to negotiate? OK, Not only must this CR be clean, but all others from now on.

No more hostage taking or economic terrorism.

You want to negotiate with terrorists?

[merrily]

40. Negotiation 101 You don't open with your last, best offer.

[B Calm]

67. So far during this stupid shut down, I'm pretty proud of the democrats. I

think they are finally starting to catch on to what you are saying.

[ananda]

76. There is no ground so low that they won't take it.

..

[GeorgeGist]

77. Clever way to win a war, or ...

Stupid way to lose a war.

[KharmaTrain]

78. The Country IS Moving Left...

...thanks to the excesses of the teabaggers. They've alienated many major voting blocs...minorities, women, younger voters. They're "constituency" is reduced every time an EMT is called to Sun City or The Villages. The crazy is a symptom of their waning power and need to throw tantrums now to gain any kind of "unity". They've "poutraged" so much that they have become a parody of politicians and the no longer get a general reaction but only among themselves...and it's not even satisfying them.

In short...the rushpublicans are doing all they can to game the system before they lose the demographics war that is sure to destroy their corrupt and inept party. The revolt is already on and the eventual capitulation will bring out some real long knives. Time is the avenger here as the right's ability to win national campaigns diminish every day and eventually their hold on the legislative will wane was well.

The game now is to build up the grassroots...restore the 50-state strategy to make Democrats vibrant and competitive in red and purple areas and to win back state legislatures that are the key to the gerrymandering that is going on. There's a real big opportunity at hand...play it smart and we could see Democrats in a dominant political position and more chances to advance progressive ideas...

[stillwaiting]

79. Our side gets it. "Our" elected representatives don't "get it".

Elected Democrats are not stupid. They are corrupted by elite financial interests, and they betray those who voted for them for their own selfish interests.

It really is that easy.

[DireStrike]

81. This tactic works 99% of the time.

Occasionally it results in spectacular overreach, but it is overall a good tactic that we should employ.